The Boy Scouts need more time and committee input to define their timeless values
Posted on 02/06/2013 8:10:52 AM PST by Zakeet
The Boy Scouts of America said Wednesday it needed "more time for a deliberate review" of its policy banning gay Scouts and leaders, delaying a final decision on the controversial membership guidelines that have dogged the private youth organization in recent years.
"In the past two weeks, Scouting has received an outpouring of feedback from the American public. It reinforces how deeply people care about Scouting and how passionate they are about the organization," the organization said in a statement. "After careful consideration and extensive dialogue within the Scouting family, along with comments from those outside the organization, the volunteer officers of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Executive Board concluded that due to the complexity of this issue, the organization needs time for a more deliberate review of its membership policy."
The executive board has directed its committees to further engage representatives of Scouting’s membership and take in their perspectives and concerns as officers work toward a resolution on membership standards. The roughly 1,400 voting members of the national council will take action on the resolution at the national meeting in May 2013, the organization said.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.nbcnews.com ...
The Boy Scouts need more time and committee input to define their timeless values
Wow. THIS is bad.
Now they’ve got one foot in the boat and one on the dock, and the Gay Mafia is going to thrash them endlessly about the head and neck.
Far better to just NEVER EVER OPEN THE DOOR A CRACK when dealing with these people. How strategically stupid of the BSOA.
The fact that this is even being discussed should cause them to shed members
Who would ever have thought that the BSA would consider voting on leadership from a group of degenerates with such a hideous and obvious record of sex-offenses to openly enter such a fine organization for young boys? What a preposterous and ignorant notion.
The very fact that they are too chicken-bleep to make a complete and moral stand against faggotry in their organization speaks volumes.
This on-the-fence wavering is BS.
yes it is! how could they consider this? do they not know who makes up their organization?
It's really a no-brainer (and it is YOUR club) so, take your time!
Well, BSA, you have to choose:
1) An organization to provide a Christian-based ethical and moral framework to support boys as they become men
2) A camping club where anything goes
If you want to continue to exist as 1) this should stay “tabled” forever.
Surely, they know that if they admit gays they’re finished?
Why are some things blatantly obvious to some but not to others?
I will take that as victory at least for a while.
They are in a lose-lose here, and I would stop donating if they changed, as much as I would hate that.
As long as they dont change I dont care how they soft soap it in public.
It means they don’t want to change the rules but are afraid of the fang-tooth raging man-hating feminazis.
Expect the uglies to attack them anyway.
now is the time to go on the offensive and demand the resignation of the two instigators of homosexuals into the scouts.
Those two have no place in scouting.
The BSA is looking at a losing proposition at this point. If they'd stood pat, they might have survived. By even considering the change, they have painted a target on their own backs. The Alinsky media onslaught will be non-stop. This will play out the way the Komen thing did when they cut off funding for Planned Parenthood Infanticide. The situation was irretrievable by that time. The BSA has likewise made it irretrievable at this point.
That tells me that the homosexual lobby within the BSA is getting A LOT of pressure NOT to change the policy.
Now they are staging a “hudna” until they have enough strength to act decisively.
They know that they lost this battle but there will be many more and they intend to win the war against God.
This also shows us that the BSA leadership is who support the current policy were not strong enough to win this war. We still need to support thoes leaders in the BSA who are fighting the good fight. This is not over by a long shot.
Thanks to everyone who posted a letter on the internet, wrote a letter, made a phone call, signed a petition or anything in support of the the current BSA policies.
They are afraid of the two instigators on the BOD.
Those two need to resign and pressure needs to be put on them to resign BEFORE may.
One of them, I believe, is in line to be the leader next.
Agreed.
Post of the day.
Not good.
Anything other than an emphatic “NO” shows that they’re caving.
I haven’t spent much time on this topic, is this gay thing for the gay boys or the gay scout masters that takes the kids to camp?
That's right, blame women. LOL
Buncha BS. The queers knew they were gonna lose big time. So they convinced the powers that be to put this off for 3-4 months while the homos can crank the PR machine up to high. This is a must win for the fags.
Someone help me understand what happened. How in hell did we get to this point anyway? AFterall just seven month ago the BSA was standing firm on the current policy. What happened in those seven months?
The two instigators are mentioned. Who are they and why are they in a position to make a big difference? Who put them there? Are there anymore BSA officers who support gays in scouting. If so who are they.
This is exactly how they infiltrated the APA (American Psychological Association) and then simply declared their deviant sexual lifestyle sane and perfectly normal.
I suspect this is a regroup of the homosexuals. (see moslem negotiations as a means of time to reload for attack)
The two pro-homo insiders saw the writing on the wall and tabled as a parliamentary trick.
We have to keep the pressure on and go to the voting members who will decide in may.
We also have to demand the resignation of the sinister duo that pushed this.
I think it would be a good idea if there was a grassroots movement that could potentially reassure the BSA leadership that the groundswell of support for traditional Scouting would more than make up the lost revenue... or at the very least, make it less expensive to do the right thing.
It doesn’t surprise me that some gay 40-year-old wants to take my 13-year-old son camping. I can state categorically, however, that the odds of this happening are nil regardless of what the national leadership decides.
Then these companies will face going the way of JC Penney. We should boycott each and every one of them en masse.
I agree, screw the corporation money.
Our problem is that our troop holds their meetings at a public school, I suspect inevitably the School District will come down on them and force them to move.
That’s exactly right. It’s how they’ve been infiltrating every established suppport of our society for 100 years. Universities, mainline seminaries, the Catholic church, now evangelical seminaries, the judiciary, public schools, on and on.
From the book of Jude, a few verses and a warning on the ungodly - specifically here talking about how they would infiltrate the church, but it applies to many other areas as well:
4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[c] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[d] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. 11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion. 12 These are hidden reefs[e] at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
...
17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They[f] said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude&version=ESV
Not a problem. There are any number of churches who would be happy to sponsor the troop, and have a good facility for the purpose.
IRC, the Scouts have a “gay” file a mile long. Release it!!
I agree. The big mistake was even taking the suggestion seriously in the first place, especially since they had actually, years ago, gotten a sort of judicial exemption from having to do this (back when the whole “gay” assault really got going, probably around the year 2000, IIRC).
Everybody knows that “considering” it means accepting it and the battle’s over. However, this means that the whole organization is finished. The Scouts won’t survive this.
Way to go, gays! Proud of yourselves now?
it’s hardly lose-lose.
saying hell no to sodomites in your organization that oversees young men and promises what they promise to teach and uphold is not a losing situation.
The have money and “promissed” corporate donations by their presense. Once there they “proclaimed” the solution was to allow fetish predators access to children.
Ernst & Young CEO James Turley
and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson,
who are actively seeking to change the Boy Scouts long standing policy.
Time to start going after investor relations at those two corporations.
From the "Everything I learned about life, I Learned from "The Godfather" department":
It's like when Sonny insinuated that he would go for Sollozzo's deal, even when Vito was going to tell him "no". It shows there's a rift, and rifts can be exploited. Now the gays know all they need is one or two more board members to go there way, and they win.
From what I read and heard in the past week, letting the gays get their way was supposed to be a done deal - today's vote was just going to be a rubber stamp.
There was massive opposition from the rank and file, and significantly the Mormons quietly, but strongly, let it be known that would pull all their troops. Since Mormon troops and Scouts are the most numerous, it carried a great deal of weight, maybe even more than the gay corporate gold. I imagine the Catholics did the same.
The group that will vote on this in May is much larger than the Board and hence less susceptible to corporate black mail.
And, for today, the policy stays in place. I don't have to quit as Scoutmaster or pull my son out!
Ernst & Young CEO James Turley and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, who are actively seeking to change the Boy Scouts long standing policy KNEW they were going to lose now so they punted.
The did not have the votes and rather than face defeat they tabled it in hopes of finding some BS managment style negotiating point.
Remember who these scumbags are. They are used to power negotiating and their egos always get their way.
Only greed and fear of losing sponsors can explain this wishy-washy position. The clear weakness in needing "more time" indicates that the weakness is in the leadership of the BSA. The people making comments told them to stand fast, but greed and shakiness tells them to be indecisive until they figure out how best to counter the people who want them to stay on the side of God.
Are they pretending that there is no relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality? Or is their desire to please their degenerate sponsors to keep the money rolling in more important than the well being and safety of boy scouts?
Why are they afraid to make a decision to stand fast?
The final part of the Scout Oath states, "To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."
If they keep the Oath as is, that now implies that queers are "morally straight".......either that, or they need to remove that part from the Oath, should queers be let in.
Not to an anonymous freeper of course. He can post any opinion he wants without consequences to his person. No one is going to track him down and have him fired from his job for it.
But the BScouts survive on donations. They have to live in the real world. So they are punished either way,
As long as they dont change current policy on gays I am content with them. Its not their job to take on America's political/social battles (esp ones we are losing) as if they are a talk radio host.
“The fact that their leadership has to ponder on why it would be wrong to expose boys to sexual deviants says everything.
I don’t have a child that could join the Boy Scouts but if I did I would not entrust my child anywhere near a leadership that was to afraid to speak up for their protection.
It’s absolutely disgusting what we have become as a society when even the Boy Scouts doesn’t know how to stand up for the children they are entrusted to protect .
THIS IS NOT MY AMERICA ANYMORE”
Your statement, very unfortunately, is right on. Mighty dark days we live in.
They shouldn't have to rely on Corporate donations...that is making a 'deal with the devil'.
Anyone smell money cooking?.
Well, maybe the two “instigators” need to sign a joint-and-several guarantee to reimburse the BSOA for any financial costs arising from the sexual abuse of scouts by predatory gay ‘leaders’ if the change in policy the instigators are promoting is made.
They say that the cost to Penn State of “coach” Sandusky’s frolicking with young boys was about $100 million.
And they say the cost to the Catholic Church to compensate the young boys victimized by a few perverted “priests” exceeded $3 billion. $3 BILLION!
So I wonder. Do those two “instigators” have a combined net worth in excess of $3 billion?
If so, will they indemnify the BSOA with their personal wealth?
If not, then how much protection would their personal guarantees be worth? Obviously, the BSOA is not as rich as the Catholic Church. Therefore, even with the personal guarantees I suggested, the actions of just a few perverts could push the BSOA into bankruptcy.
I would be surprised if the efforts of those two instigators to push the BSOA into bankruptcy is consistent with their Fiduciary Duty to protect and preserve the BSOA.
Yes, I think they would have lost now.
They’ll probably win the next time around, though, because a lot of financial pressure will be exerted on the Scouts (by the aforementioned Turley and Stephenson and their allies) and the Scouts will probably be so villified and weakened by May that this will pass in an instant.
Because nobody dares to go on the offensive against the gay agenda, even when they oppose them, it’s done in a lukewarm fashion. It makes it difficult for the “rank and file” to keep up the fight, when their leadership won’t even do it.
It’s similar to the problem in today’s Republican Party, how can we fight when the leadership won’t have our backs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.