Young Men Trained As Girl Scout Leaders? 
 Anger of Some Massachusetts Feminists 
 Unitarians Represent the Atheists 

Young Men Trained As Girl Scout Leaders?
Would you be a little surprised to learn that young men are being trained to be girl scout leaders?

Why would you be suprised?

"Because," you'll answer, "young men are attracted to teenage girls and you're just asking for trouble if you mix them together."

But we can't condemn all young men in that manner. And that's what you're doing when you say that no young man should be a girl scout leader. 

"Just the same," you'll respond, "it's much safer that way." 

You won't be criticized for holding that opinion because everyone agrees you're correct. That's why 21-year-old men are not in charge of girl scout troops.

But that's where many people get confused about the issue of homosexual scoutmasters.

When all the clouds are cleared aside, the same reasoning applies in both cases. Homosexual men are attracted to young males just as heterosexual men are attracted to teenage girls. It's doesn't mean that any of the homosexuals will violate the trust that has been put in them, but "it's much safer that way."

Should we protect young women from men who enjoy having sex with them and not protect young men from those who enjoy having sex with them?

How can anyone possibly say that homosexual men should be allowed to serve with boy scouts unless we also say that other young men can be leaders of girl scout troops? 

What kind of cloud has come over us that we can see the sense of shielding our daughters from older heterosexual men but not our sons from older homosexual men? It's a sad day, indeed, if we're willing to sacrifice our sons to prove how "tolerant" we are.
 

Anger of Some Massachusetts Feminists
"Giving women more rights doesn't take anything away from the straight, white, privileged, or pumped-up men cruising America's campuses."

Those words did not come from a 17-year-old at UMass or a Wellesley College student.

They came from a mature woman who has great power in Massachusetts. She controls the Editorial pages of the Boston Globe. She is Renee Loth.

This terrible anger of many Massachusetts women who are in positions of great power in our state is startling to behold. It appears as though many of them believe we are truly in a gender war. 

If we are, then someone should prepare a Declaration of War.
We wrote a "Sightings" about these words of Loth last month, but they continue to cause concern. 

This is the woman who removed Jeff Jacoby from his position for four months.

How can such divisive, hateful remarks be allowed in a civilized society?
 

Unitarians Represent the Atheists
Before you read this editorial, let's agree there is nothing wrong with being an atheist. There are wonderful people who are atheists and there are terrible people who are "religious."

There are wonderful people who are Unitarians and there are others who are not so nice.

You cannot generalize about any group of people.
But we can all agree that the basic value system of a society determines the soul and destiny of that society. And a society with a value system of atheism will be much different than one with a value system of belief in a loving God.

It was interesting to see a famous theologian come to the rescue of organized atheists last month. He said they have no one to speak for them. But he knows better. We know he's aware of the Unitarians because it was the President of the Unitarians, John A. Buehrens, who first referred us to the theologian last year. He is Professor Martin E. Marty of the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Certainly, the majority of Unitarians in Massachusetts qualify as atheists, whether you value that term as "good" or "bad," and no one can deny that they are aggressive in their speech and action.

Who Are the Unitarians?
We have written before that most people think of Unitarianism as a "liberal, Christian church," but that is far from the truth. Less than 10% of them are Christians, and, of that small number, most would probably respond that they believe that Jesus Christ was a wonderful human being, but not the Son of God.

They have the right to believe whatever they wish. We would defend that right with all our being. We know many good people who do not believe in God. We would defend them just as we defend our own right to disagree with them. 

But, if the Unitarians are sincere, they will stop the false advertising that leads unsuspecting people to believe they are a Christian church. According to a survey which they conducted of their members, less than 10% are Christians; and twice as many are "Earth/Nature centered" (19%). The vast majority of their members are humanists (46%).

No one realizes this because the Unitarians meet in those beautiful, white, historic churches that are so much a part of Massachusetts. These are the revered, old buildings located on the town commons where the original settlers worshiped. And the Unitarians continue the myth that these buildings are still being used by Christians, when, in fact, they are being used by the Unitarians to "confront" and "challenge" those who believe in God.

The Unitarian movement arose because of an historic disagreement among Christians, with a split finally taking place in America in 1805 when a liberal theologian was elected to an important post at Harvard. When that occurred, the traditional Congregationalists erected new buildings, organized a new seminary at Andover, and continued to call themselves Congregationalists. From then on, a debate continued among the Unitarians themselves as to whether they were Christians and whether it was necessary to believe in God to be a member. There were various organizations and factions, but a final reconciliation within Unitarianism took place in 1925 when the present organization was born.

The final decision to ban God took place around 1933 when many Unitarian ministers were instrumental in drafting a Humanist Manifesto. It stated the beliefs of humanists, which are defined as, "A value system which emphasizes the personal worth of each individual but that does not include a belief in God." In 2000, the Unitarians require no creed or belief. Any person can join and create his own beliefs. 

According to them, "The name 'Unitarian' comes from the period (some 400 years ago) when the movement arose out of the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation, emphasizing [sic] that Jesus was a man whose teaching was to be followed rather than a God to be worshiped (the 'Unity' as opposed to the 'trinity of God')." 

They are very proud that they do not have a "creed." In practice, you will find that they do have a creed; it is that you can believe anything except that Jesus was the Son of God.

The local groups call themselves a church, society or fellowship, but almost all of them in Massachusetts continue to use the word "church." Some of them, such as Newton and Wellesley, are more forthright and use the word "society."

Are They Aggressive?
If you take a visit to the website of the Unitarians (www.uua.org) you will discover many negative references to the "religious right." The epithet is never defined. 

They are reluctant to define the term "religious right" because a large number of our population is included therein. They are attacking without specifically naming them: * Orthodox Jews, * Catholics, * All other Christians who study the Bible.

As an example of their attacks on the "Religious Right," they will sell you a publication for $5 called, Challenging the Religious Right. At a recent General Assembly, they had a session on "Using Religious Voices to Confront the Religious Right."

We know about them because we have incurred the wrath and venom of them as a group. Although we knew that our articles would engender a certain amount of controversy and debate, we had no idea of the ad hominem attacks that would be orchestrated by the Unitarians.

They were waiting with their radar, watching for anyone who might appear and challenge their view that homosexuality should be more than tolerated. They believe it should be celebrated and taught to our children.

The Unitarian Church does not want any meaningful debate to take place. They have tried to silence all debate about what we should teach our children about homosexuality.

Some readers may wonder why we are spending so much time talking about Unitarians, but you must understand that we are merely responding to an unprecedented barrage from them. The attacks do not bother us personally. But we must understand that this is a tactic to stop any discussion. 

In order for a discourse to take place among the rest of us, it is mandatory to have a discussion about the Unitarians. Who are they? Why are they reacting so violently? 
They began the personal campaign against us immediately. They use words like "hate" to describe us and "love" to describe themselves. 

They "confronted" us as they were instructed to do. The dictionary defines "confront" as "to oppose boldly or defiantly."

Well, we accept their challenge. But we will not become "personal" like they do. We will stick with facts and logic.

They agree this is an important issue which should concern us all. Why else would they be spending so much time in the "attack" mode?

Marty Is Disingenuous
Marty, the professor at the University of Chicago, also wrote last month, "So who's afraid of atheists? Some whiny religionists sometimes see 'secular humanist conspiracies' threatening the republic." 

He's right, some people do see the worldview of humanism as threatening our society. But we would disagree with his characterization of "whiny." It certainly seems as though Marty is not the unbiased person that he tries to appear. He would make an excellent public relations agent for the Unitarians.

Neither Marty nor the Unitarians will disagree with our opening statement that a society with a value system of atheism will be much different than one with a belief in God. That is why they are so aggressive in their attempt to replace our traditional value system that is based on the Judeo-Christian tradition with a new one of their own. Would Marty agree that that is  a "secular humanist conspiracy?"