Columnist rips Boy Scouts to further erode national morality

Daniel Ruth is a talented columnist, currently writing for the dangerously liberal St. Petersburg Times. I seldom agree with even part of what he presents so well, but I do enjoy his style.

A recent column of his - "My merit badge in martini mixology" - uses the liberals' standard trick of seeming to make innocent fun of a serious topic, so as to intentionally or thoughtlessly undermine another cornerstone in the moral foundation of our nation. This time, Mr. Ruth targets the Boy Scouts, which have long stood for all that is decent, honorable and desirable in mankind.

Ruth accomplishes his apparent mission to further defame and destroy the Scouting movement by subtle devious actions, such as listing Hank Aaron, John F. Kennedy, Neil Armstrong, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates and Barack Obama as "famous" ex-Scouts.

Those persons may indeed be famous (or perhaps notorious) and possibly even once were Scouts for a brief and undistinguished period, but are any of them noted for something they accomplished that bettered mankind's life on Earth? Which amongst them would you hold up as moral examples for children? Perhaps Neil Armstrong, but was Ruth attempting to be humorous by including the likes of such as Steven Spielberg?

Mr. Ruth plunges bravely on, admitting that "(He) never figured out the camping thing." If he, at his age, really doesn't understand how learning what life without modern conveniences and smothering government care can teach (e.g., self sufficiency and independence, social cooperation, a healthy lifestyle, survival skills and respect for and appreciation of nature and our environment), then there's no chance that I, or anyone else can help him.

Ruth admits to smoking and alcohol abuse as being what he learned from having been, in some way or another, involved briefly in Scouting. His objective seems clearly to be that of making Scouting appear to be a klutzy, unsupervised activity, where about all one accomplishes is to learn to drink booze, smoke pilfered cigarettes, open a can of stew for a meal, stumble around (intoxicated?), injure yourself in the process and end up back home dirty in mind and body. The paper's editors seem to enjoy and endorse Ruth's attempt to discredit and destroy Scouting; they add their own sniggering comment that "... Norman Rockwell's (wholesome and idealistic concept) of a Boy Scout (is archaic) ... The columnist presents a different picture."

He sure does!

My brother and I were Cub Scouts and, subsequently, Boy Scouts. As did all other Scouts of that time, we wore the prescribed uniform properly and with pride. The three villages, of which ours was a part, had a combined population of about 15,000, yet it supported three Boy Scout Troops, with 50 or more Scouts in each. We met every Friday evening in local church or school gymnasiums. Meetings began with assembly in military formation, where we joined in opening prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance (under God), and a recitation of the Scout's code of honor and conduct. The balance of evening assembly was spent learning Scouting skills from dedicated leaders, who we saw as towering figures of knowledge, authority, moral conduct and inspirational leadership. There was never in those meetings or at any other time in Scouting activities any indication of vices, particularly smoking or drinking. That is especially significant, because in those times and places, most of our parents smoked and drank regularly.

Periodically, the three troops would meet in the high school gymnasium for a Court of Honor. When we marched in, proudly carrying the nation's honored flag, the full-house audience rose as one, enthusiastically applauding the precision, discipline, training and patriotism thus evidenced. Following selected demonstrations of Scouting skills, merit badges and other awards were presented to Scouts that had worked hard to achieve them.

That is what Mr. Ruth can't seemingly even imagine. More's the shame.

The Scouting program I knew was characterized by the highest moral standards and behavior. Can that be what Mr. Ruth and the Times want to destroy? What is it about today that makes so many of us want to eliminate anything and everything decent, honorable and constructive from our glorious past?

That's a particularly difficult question; yet also a most important one. The answer has something to do with the age-old attempts by children to challenge adult authority, which is seen as limiting their personal growth and achievements.

It also involves the rampant breakup of families, which today often never exist to begin with; a lack of healthy example set by responsible and caring adults and/or by the many adults that never mature emotionally or intellectually; a growing popularity of doing whatever feels good; the disappearance of individual responsibility, which is replaced by rapidly increasing governmental care and control; and an unprecedented prosperity accompanied by an obscene accumulations of toys and things.

Our society is coming apart at the seams, and yet many of us seem not only tolerant of that dire situation but even somehow supportive of our self-destruction. Attacking traditional religions, long-standing mores and the Boy Scouts are parts of such devastation.

The Boy Scouts, Mr. Ruth, have been one of the more commendable organizations this nation has known.

It has deteriorated significantly, largely because our general population saw its existence as a threat to their preferred hedonistic, careless and irresponsible lifestyle.

The fact that Mr. Ruth looks back on it as a worthless, unpleasant, experience involving mud, booze and stolen smokes is only a sad testimony to his personal experiences, but your use of your column to poke fun at a lamentable loss to this nation is deplorable.