Re. “Boy Scouts’ honor attacked by ‘tolerance,’” by Morgan Liddick, May 28:
Summit Daily, you have reached a new low in both journalistic integrity and being decent human beings when you published Morgan Liddick’s homophobic rant.
Providing a platform for opposing viewpoints is far different than printing incendiary hate speech. In the third paragraph, Liddick equates being a gay teen as no different than a rapist. How could you print something so awful? Does your editorial department even bother to read his submissions before you print them, or are you so concerned with fanning the flames to increase controversy (and by that increase social network presence) that you just don’t care? Either way, you owe the public an apology.
I am an Eagle Scout. I earned the rank of Eagle when I was 14. I have considered the Scout Oath, particularly the line “morally straight,” and considered what that means to me. I cannot find a circumstance in which discrimination based on how a person was born can ever be considered “moral.”
In a recent vote, it turns out that 60 percent of current BSA members felt the same way. This change came from within the Scouts. People have claimed that it is the result of outside pressure, but what isn’t?
There is a long history of people in this country arguing that certain type of bigotry are indeed moral. Prior to the 1960s the Boy Scouts denied membership to non-whites and Jews. You could argue that they bowed to pressure when they allowed them in. However, “outside pressure” is just another way to describe society’s changing attitudes.
Although, it does make me wonder... If Mr. Liddick was a columnist in the 1960s writing about whether the Boy Scouts should cave to outside pressure by allowing black and Jewish kids to join, which side do you think he would be on?
Timothy O. Faust