Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deceit in the Boy Scouts
OnMyHonor.net ^ | 5/13/13 | Cathy Ruse

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 it’s 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 Scout’s 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 won’t 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 isn’t – 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 isn’t the first time they’ve 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 aren’t 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: boyscouts; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last
To: AdaGray
The day they let homosexuals in, is the day the BSA will end. Pity that they cannot see this.

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.

41 posted on 05/19/2013 1:02:34 PM PDT by Ron H. (Mr. Hussein Obama is not my President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
Has the IRS taken a position on this yet?

Unsure about IRS but the Supreme Court has previously ruled on this issue.

42 posted on 05/19/2013 1:04:24 PM PDT by Ron H. (Mr. Hussein Obama is not my President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ron H.

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.


43 posted on 05/19/2013 2:47:43 PM PDT by AdaGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: AdaGray

They don’t want their OWN stuff - just wanna ruin YOURS!


44 posted on 05/20/2013 5:40:26 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wizwor

Bingo.

This discussion needs to stop.

Do not change a thing. Why are we even discussing this?


45 posted on 05/20/2013 5:45:57 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Why are we even discussing this?

Good Question!




THIS is our admonition:

Philippians 4:8

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...

46 posted on 05/20/2013 10:15:13 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MacNaughton
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.

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.

47 posted on 05/22/2013 10:17:51 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wizwor
The problem is that BSA is letting its enemies frame the debate

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!

48 posted on 05/22/2013 10:22:46 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AdaGray
And any parent who would let their son join once faggots are sanctioned as ‘leaders,’ would be off his rocker.

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.

49 posted on 05/22/2013 10:28:37 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Bookmarked for future reference.


50 posted on 05/25/2013 1:11:14 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson