Skip to comments.Deceit in the Boy Scouts
Posted on 05/18/2013 3:54:41 AM PDT by rhema
There is deception in the ranks of the Boy Scouts of America.
A faction in the national leadership of the BSA wants to get rid of the longstanding membership policy against open and avowed homosexuality. But the way its going about it is not worthy of the Boy Scouts.
The BSA Executive Committee recently released a resolution which will be presented to the National Council for a vote on May 23. To the surprise of many, the resolution addresses only youth membership, leaving in place the prohibition on open homosexuality on the part of leaders.
It has been widely characterized as a compromise, but no Boy Scout should be fooled. The tension this incoherent policy would create would make it practically and legally unsustainable, and those pushing the resolution surely know that.
Under the policy, open homosexuality would be officially consistent with the Scouting code throughout a Scouts career until the moment he turns 18, when it suddenly becomes inconsistent with the code. And then what? No troop leader would want to put himself in the position of enforcing such an irrational rule, and likely few would. A de facto change in leadership rules would occur almost immediately.
But it wont stop there. This move could forfeit the legal victory the Scouts won at the Supreme Court over a decade ago. When the organization was sued for unlawful discrimination, the Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that the BSA has the right to maintain its membership policy under its First Amendment speech and association rights. But if the Scouts new speech is incoherent open homosexuality is consistent with the Scouting code except when it isnt there may be no legal basis left for courts to uphold one part of the code over another. It will be a lawsuit nightmare for the Scouts.
The truth is, a vote to allow open homosexuality on the part of scout members is a vote to allow open homosexuality on the part of scout leaders. The executives who drafted the resolution know it. It isnt the first time theyve intended to deceive.
Last year the results of an in-depth, two-year study of Boy Scout families showed overwhelming support for the long-standing membership policy. This was a frustration to those in the Executive Committee who want to change the policy, so they conducted another survey in February.
The February survey can fairly be called a push poll, a device used by political campaigns to try to influence the views of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.
The lead scenario in the February survey describes a boy who joins as a tot and dutifully fulfills all requirements over the years until, at the moment he stands before the review board to receive his Eagle Scout Award, he reveals that he is gay. Is it acceptable for the board to deny him his Eagle Scout award?
In an obvious slip, the survey instructions were made public along with the survey questions. They tell survey-takers to present this scenario first every time, while rotating others involving boys sharing tents and gay male troop leaders who follow the youth protection guidelines on camping trips.
But even the results of this survey went wrong for those gunning for a change: Sixty-one percent of parents and Scout leaders favor keeping the current policy, while only 34 percent favor changing it. News agencies arent reporting it that way, though, because the official media statement released by the BSA executives includes nothing of the actual survey results but only this very calculated and utterly misleading claim: While perspectives and opinions vary significantly, parents, adults in the Scouting community and teens alike tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting.
The Executive Summary of the survey is also crafted to deceive, leading with vague and disingenuous claims that suggest parents support the membership policy change while burying in a heap of diversionary words at the bottom of page 2 the real numbers that show parents overwhelmingly oppose it.
If the survey was slanted, the official documents released to the public and the press about its results are sheer treachery. How un-Boy Scout of them.
There will be a showdown in Grapevine, Texas, on May 23rd. But will it be a fair fight? Sources inside the Boy Scouts are hearing troubling reports about hundreds or even thousands of additional delegates arriving in Grapevine to cast a vote, anonymously, on the membership policy resolution. Their identities have not been revealed. Voting members of the National Council who support the current policy are in discussion with legal counsel and taking steps to preserve their right to a full and fair vote, an unfortunate step to take in a fraternal organization like the Boy Scouts, but obviously a necessary one.
The first tenet of Boy Scout law is to be Trustworthy. Even those at the top of the organization should not count themselves above it.
Perhaps it is time to purge the BSA Executive Committee of its heretics who believe that a little immorality is all right as long as the leaders are not openly homosexual. What kind of logic is that? How long before gay leaders are allowed? It is time to purge the Executive Committee. Let them start their own version of the BSA.
The day they let homosexuals in, is the day the BSA will end. Pity that they cannot see this.
READ YOUR SCOUTS OATH... YOU WILL HAVE TO BREAK IT TO ALLOW FAGS TO JOIN... END OF STORY... NOT AN INCH FOR THE WORM EATERS!
If you let them get their foot in the door it will end with them sticking something else in your butt.
Has the IRS taken a position on this yet?
Why can’t they understand we do not want homos in the Scouts. These institutions must be preserved as they were if we are to overcome radicals trying to destroy our culture.
As a Catholic I must say this is a no-brainer; they’ve cost us millions (aided and abetted by some in the hierarchy itself), and our previous Pope clearly banned them from seminaries (I guess they were allowed in before if they weren’t “active” - no more).
The problem is that BSA is letting its enemies frame the debate. The question is not whether BSA should let homosexuals in or place them in leadership positions they always have. The question is whether the BSA should make an official statement or policy on this. The answer is no. The Boy Scouts are not a sexual proposition. Dont Ask, Dont Tell is a perfectly acceptable policy. Its perfectly OK to regulate affection and discussion within a private organization. The Boy Scouts do not prohibit homosexual sex among minor scouts they prohibit sex among minor scouts. The scouts do not prohibit explicit demonstrations of affections among gay scouts, they prohibit explicit demonstrations of affection. When discussion turns vulgar, it is stopped whether that discussion is homosexual or not. This is no different than prohibiting alcohol, drugs, weapons, pornography,. or any other behavior that is not consistent with scout law.
So, BSA, take this off the table. Our organization is not about sex. Let the schools and media obsess over this. We have other things to teach our kids.
Boy Scout officials conducted a survey in recent months on whether to change the long-standing membership policy. The survey found that 72 percent of the chartering organizations oppose changing the policy. That corresponds almost exactly with the percentage of chartering organizations that are faith-based. And a great many of them are Catholic parishes.
How can Catholic churches sponsor troops with leaders who live in open and avowed opposition to the truths of the Catholic faith and the teachings of its Church? It is a question that all Catholic delegates must ponder before they vote in Grapevine next week.
Maybe not, but it is worthy of a deceitful Alinskyite community organizer.
Once a society has become suffused with decadence it is virtually impossible to reverse it.
Oh, that crap again. The homosexuals can have all the benefits of Scouting now--just form their own organization.
Or is one of their perceived "benefits" the ability to attempt the perversion of morally upright youth?
Clearly, assuming this treachery fails, those members of the executive council, who are in fact big donor corporate proxies, should be purged with all due speed, as they are a cancer in the organization.
That they threaten to take their corporate funding with them is a given, and well worth giving riddance to bad rubbish. It is little more than “30 pieces of silver” to betray and undermine, with the intent to destroy, the BSA.
The left have long been skilful at co-opting organizations to support the leftist agenda, to the detriment of their original purpose, or to destroy them. For unless you embrace the leftist agenda, you are “the enemy”, and are unworthy of life.
The BSA has just one chance with this meeting. If it fails, then it is over. If the leftists have stuffed the ballot box, which the Democrat party has long mastered, then a hundred years good works will be for naught.
Just a matter of time!!!!!
Never come between mama or papa bear and their cubs, you will be destroyed. End of story.
Given the experiences of Penn State and the Roman Catholic church with adult male homosexuals and boys under their care, anyone who thinks the BSA should allow homosexual leaders is either blinded by the ideology of the homosexual agenda or in favor of child molestation, or both.
We need names of the people pushing this.
No it isn't, and the Supreme Court agreed in the James Dale case in 2000.
This is a typical homosexual cabal at work, undermining from the inside and from nearby contacts in business and the community that the Scouts rely on for help.
The campaign continues.
The Scouts will finally give in to the pressure of outside sources......I hate it but ..it is just a matter of time!!!
Our Counsel voted against admitting gay scouts
There are no gay 11 year olds
Every democrat , 90% of Hollywood and the Prez!!!!
Placemark for pingout.
“The day they let homosexuals in, is the day the BSA will end.”
They already let homosexuals in the BSA. They’ve just been quiet before now.
Letting gay kids into the Scouts won’t change the organization because no one takes gay kids seriously. It’s usually just a phase.
How many parents will let their sons join once it becomes officially okay to be a Gay scout leader?
Wow.. This is a great analysis.
Shame on the scumbag “Executive Committee”. It must have a few turd pokers on it.
That committee needs to be fired and replaced immediately.
The debate is over Gay Scouts, not Scout Leaders.
Why has this become a big thing recently?
The Boy Scouts are fine, exactly the way they are.
Do not mess with them.
It was a very systematic effort to penetrate the leadership council, offering corporate money, with the idea of subverting the organization. The left has mastered the technique and used it to destroy organization after organization.
Their threat is if the BSA rejects the agenda, they will cut off the corporate funding they provide. And if they are indeed planning to stuff the ballot box, there is a good chance that they will win, and the BSA will be crippled, its reputation ruined.
1. Chief Scout Executive Wayne Brock (a member of the Southern Baptist Convention)
2. National President Wayne Perry, co-owner of MLB Seattle Mariners
3. National Commissioner "Tico" Perez, partner of Edge Public Affairs
4. National Executive Committee member Randall Stephenson, CEO AT&T
5. National Executive Committee member James Turley, CEO Ernst & Young
6. National Executive Committee member and past National President Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon
That vote was 5-4 for BSA. The BSA legal advisers told the National Executive Committee that it thought if such a case was brought before the SCOTUS today, BSA would lose.
This is a typical homosexual cabal at work, undermining from the inside and from nearby contacts in business and the community that the Scouts rely on for help. The campaign continues.
Agreed. Everyone should keep their heads. There will be fall-out whichever way the vote goes next week.
I presume you are in the Middle Tennessee Council? It and and the Southern Baptist Convention have headquarters in Nashville. Kudos to your council.
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.
2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
But there IS hope!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
Beautiful... that says it all!
Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah: "The debate is over privacy, not abortion." Or was it: "The debate is over criminalization of sodomy, not gay sex and marriage"?
Face it, the short-term argument might be framed as about gay scout members, but once changed, it will become about scout leaders. And, having given up the moral high-ground in the first fight, you will have no ability to defend against the second...
OCT 1991 GS-USA national stated in a letter:
As a private organization, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. respects the values and beliefs of each of its members and does not intrude into personal matters. Therefore, there are no membership policies on sexual preference. However, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. has firm standards relating to the appropriate conduct of adult volunteers and staff. The Girl Scout organization does not condone or permit sexual displays of any sort by its members during Girl Scout activities, nor does it permit the advocacy or promotion of a personal lifestyle or sexual preference. These are private matters for girls and their families to address.
2/09/1993 In Lansing, MI, the GS-USA fired heterosexual employee Brenda Mailand after she refused to sign the following pledge: As an employee of the Michigan Capitol Girl Scout Council, you may not proactively inform members, parents of members, prospective members or parents of prospective members, or members of the general public (including media) of the Councils and GSUSAs position on sexual orientation.
10/23/1993 Delegates at the GS-USA national convention in Minneapolis, MN, voted 1,560 to 375 to allow girls to change their pledge of service to the spiritual power of their conscience - or none at all.
1997 - Nancy Manahans book, On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on Their Scouting Experiences, was published. On My Honor included an essay titled All I Really Need to Know About Being a Lesbian I Learned at Girl Scout Camp. In a 2000 National Review Online editorial (10/23/2000, National Review magazine) titled The Cookie Crumbles, author Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote that the book was filled with coming-of-age stories sparked by gay encounters in the Girl Scouts. Lopez further reported that staffers contributing stories to the book claim that roughly 1 in 3 of the Girls Scouts paid professional staff is lesbian.
2009 GS-USA radically overhauled its program. Their older youth manuals were re-written to include environmental and feminist doctrines and proclaimed some historical female role models who were communists and/or lesbians. Religion and patriotism were de-emphasized. Planned Parenthood materials were also included.
6/03/2012 A Catholic News Agency article accused the GS-USA of having filled their National Leadership Team and Board of Directors with unwavering ideologues whose careers, non-profit work and philanthropic choices reflect a hefty commitment to liberal causes same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian rights, abortion rights, comprehensive sex education and girl power feminism. Their liberal ideology drives everything from program materials to themes to partnerships even their view of leadership. Its who they are. And its who the Girl Scouts organization has become.
It has been previously reported that many if not most of those serving on the national board of the BSA have never been a Boy Scout nor served in any kind of position within the BSA organization. Nor do they have children involved within the BSA.
What a shame. Prior involvement as scouts in some capacity should be mandatory before one can serve at that level within the organization. I do know though, if the BSA BoD changes it current policies I will withdraw all support for the BSA. Allowing faggots to join will be the death knell for the BSA, IMHO.
Unsure about IRS but the Supreme Court has previously ruled on this issue.
It is amazing that people are even considering letting them in. I mean come on. The Boys Scouts of America is first and foremost for boys. And any parent who would let their son join once faggots are sanctioned as ‘leaders,’ would be off his rocker. Let them start their own Gay Scouts. They could give out merit badges for Show Tunes, Hair Styling and Interior Design.
They don’t want their OWN stuff - just wanna ruin YOURS!
This discussion needs to stop.
Do not change a thing. Why are we even discussing this?
THIS is our admonition:
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.
We seem to want to 'dwell' on the wrong things...
Yeah, sad reminder -- they had nooooo trouble at all swallowing the recent and extremely relevant precedent of Bowers vs. Hardwick, on which the ink was barely dry, when they spun out new law de novo and ex nihilo in the Lawrence case, which has the stink of cabal all over it. Oh, really? -- a GOP-appointed AJ wrote the "opinion" (<sarc> intentional)? How ..... collegial and bipartisan of him! Traitorous scum!
And yeah, we might have real trouble with that Diesel scum Kagan on the court, and the Administration homering for every species of paraphilic perv that God ever made.
Actually, they aren't. The enemy are framing the debate without BSA complicity or cooperation.
And they would be doing so in any case. They've been conspiring nonstop against the BSA since, oh, 1990 -- or earlier. They want that trophy!
No, that's not what is happening here. It's homosexual activists, acting through/by homosexual (closeted) executives and complaisant "gay-friendly" fellow-travelers in business and the main BSA-supporting NGO's, attacking the BSA using the existential financial threat of withdrawn support. They did it before with the United Way, they've done it with gay-dominated city councils and NGO's.
The BSA is going to have to do without the support of false friends, and their task is no doubt complicated by the presence of homo "moles" in the upper ranks and councils of the BSA itself.
Bookmarked for future reference.
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.