Posted on 05/23/2013 3:20:16 PM PDT by Pyro7480
Edited on 05/23/2013 4:27:29 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Boy Scouts of America's National Council has voted to ease a long-standing ban and allow openly gay boys to be accepted as Scouts.
(Excerpt) Read more at kurv.com ...
“Scouts are finished. No more donations from me.”
We’re subsidizing them now, they don’t pay taxes.
Just like Planned Parenthood.
As of 2005, BSA was the twelfth largest non-profit in America.
Source: Wikipedia
“The military goes on, patriotic American’s still join. It was a harmful decision for the services and the people in it, but it didn’t destroy the system. “
-
There is no competition for our military. It is good, and it is not so good, but it is our military and the best in the world.
On the other hand, I believe several organizations are probably looking at the BSA’s terrible blunder as exactly that. Boys (and Parents just as importantly) have a growing list of organizations now to choose from.
The BSA messed up big. Historic even.
(former Scout here)
I have also given a copy to my local Bishop and Stake President.
My Letter to the Boy Scouts of America
BSA is a seperate, private organization, and the Church holds a fund raiser for them each year for church members seperate from our Church donations. I have informed everyone that I will no longer give, or take part in that effort.
“A few people and organizations will cut off support and pull their kids, but it won’t be enough to make much of a difference.”
How many fathers do you think will send their sons to an environment in which bullying is likely to proceed past a beating to a buttfucking?
The number of people flim-flammed into ignoring the evil of sodomy is shrinking, not growing. The Boy Scouts will either reverse this decision or die.
I just un-liked the BSA on FB because the page is now toxic.
Everything Christian based is a target. The biggest of these is the Christian founding of the US. Look around you America is dying. They are winning without a shot being fired.
I really hope that the Mormon leadership takes a long hard look at what just happened, and how much damage it risks doing to your church's long, hard efforts to establish itself as a pillar of traditional family values.
In the early 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church was stereotyped, sometimes unfairly, as a narrow and strict group which tolerated no divergence from its doctrines. For many Americans, evangelical Christians, liberal mainline Christians, and liberal secularists, the Roman Catholic Church stood for what they either hated or feared and was regarded as a threat by many to America's core values. Books like “American Freedom and Catholic Power” were written, not by conservatives but by liberals, to oppose what people thought the Roman Catholic Church represented.
The election of John F. Kennedy and the creation of the “cult of Camelot” showed America that Roman Catholicism was not monolithic, and in fact had an aggressive and effective liberal wing at its highest levels. Likewise, social conservative evangelicals figured out that conservative Roman Catholics were doing their jobs in fighting abortion when we were silent and should not have been.
Jeff, those of us who are social conservatives have learned a great deal about the LDS in the last two presidential campaigns. Your church has a reputation and the reality we are seeing does not match your reputation. If I were a Mormon, I would be gravely concerned that Mitt Romney could singlehandedly do to the reputation of Mormons what the Kennedy clan did to the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church.
The leaders of your church have worked hard — very hard — in Mormonism to portray your church as a pillar of family values. What just happened with the Boy Scouts, in combination with what happened in the last two presidential campaigns, could easily undo decades of hard work.
To the extent that you have any influence with the Mormon leadership, please use it to encourage your leaders to rethink the road they seem to be choosing. It will not end in a good place.
I haven’t heard of any Scouts exiting the organization yet. The information about that probably won’t be released if many do indeed exit, which I am doubtful about. In many ways, the Scouts is just a money organization, constantly wanting donations, fees, extra charges, etc. I am pretty sure the American people will keep on paying and say very little about this. I imagine churches will keep sponsoring them too. I don’t think the American people at all oppose this change.
Didn't the late Nikita S. Khrushchev say that. As JFK said of Joe McCarthy, "Nikita must have been on to something". He certainly understood the American people.
More than you might think; it's also the single mothers who put sons in Scouting if they can afford it. Isn't Scouting quite expensive now?
Don’t you think that when churches make decision, such as relocations, new buildings, it’s usually with $$ in mind?
Very very sad. Yet another symptom of a broken world.
Will China just hurry up and attack....better Ho than Homo.
Ironically, China is probably by now more supportive of free enterprise and morality than the United States.
I don't think many Freepers would like their views on abortion and one-child-only family planning, however.
With regard to locations and buildings, I don't see what the problem is with churches counting the cost before starting a building project. Scripture addresses that, and while the passage is intended to refer to the cost of discipleship, it cites the analogy of a building project in Luke 14:28-33:
“For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.”
Certainly a church would be foolish to pay money it doesn't have to construct a new building or to buy land, but I'm not sure what relevance that has to the Boy Scouts changing its stance on homosexuals.
Changing one’s views of morality based on monetary offers is called succumbing to bribery. That principle would seem to apply across the board, whether to churches or to Scouting.
As a former Scout in Michigan and assistant Scout leader in Texas, I have to disagree 100%.
The program / discipline is a major benefit. Many young boys don't have fathers at home. Most boys live in a metro area and would never be exposed to Scouting activities.
There are foundational rules with instruction, supervision, accountability, and the liberty to exercise the skills. For instance, 9 year old boys are taught the proper use of pocket knives, tested, then given a certification to allow the boys to bring a knife to any meeting or function and use it appropriately at their discretion. Name one other group function that instills this kind of discipline and responsibility at such a young age! Home schooling doesn't afford this kind of teaching and testing.
IMHO...
Pocket knives ? Fathers can’t teach pocket knives ?
Fatherless ? Mothers with children and no husband should marry.
There’s this thing called extended family. Cousins, uncles, aunts, etc. They help get family through the rough spots.
Then, if the limits of extended family are reached, there’s something called Church. Church can help with temporary needs.
It’s also the best place to meet a future spouse.
That all takes care of “fatherless” children, all according to how the Bible exhorts us to take care of the fatherless.
Women with children who remain single for many years remain so because they choose to (for the sake of getting money from an ex or the government, or because they prefer the idea of living as they please without a husband), or because they unwittingly present themselves as a not very appealing future wife (they’re simply acting the way the financial oligarchy has brainwashed them from kindergarten into acting).
Show me a women who will be a good wife to a husband in the Biblical sense and I’ll show you a women who will have no problem attracting many qualified suitors whether or not she already has children.
The financial oligarchy would have women believe that all men are concerned with is sex when it comes to finding a wife, and that is the best way to attract a man. Of course, sex outside of marriage attracts either the inexperienced or gullible man, or the man who is specifically not looking for a wife, but is looking only for sex outside of marriage. Of course, for the godly man who is truly ready for and seeking marriage, loyalty and ambition are the two most attractive qualities in a wife (as opposed to disloyalty and laziness), which are enhanced by a woman’s ability to raise children and keep a home well, followed by perhaps the “icing on the cake” of possessing some degree of wisdom, tact and good demeanor.
Not to leave out qualities of a prospective husband and thus enrage those smitten with modernism, the servant leader is the ideal, with the same list enumerated above for a wife except for the replacement of “keep a home” with “provide for a home”, and to keep in mind the differences between the father’s and mother’s natural roles in raising children.
As far as “certification” goes, poppycock. My grandfather hunted and fished all the time, was a locally well-known small-game hunter and dog breeder, raised 5 children with his faithful wife, and never had a certification in anything relating to knives or guns and was never in the Boy Scouts. Many a time it was what he hunted and fished that was the food on his table.
As far as the “metro kids” situation goes, numerous people in my family were born and raised in or near “the city” and their parents sojourned out to the country many times and many moved there later in life. Actually many old families in America started in the country, later generations moved to the city, and then later generations moved back out to what was then the suburbs, often not even realizing where their early ancestors had lived.
Amazingly, this all happened WITHOUT the assistance of government or any other organization.
The Boy Scouts, as well as ANY government or any organization, for that matter, do not have any legitimate right to be the gatekeepers to knowledge of outdoor living, be it in the subjects of hunting, fishing, or even farming, ranching, or any field of study or knowledge of nature. People can directly study these bodies of knowledge for themselves without the government or some organization interposing themselves. Some organizations start with good intentions, others are started by financial interests that seek to have monopoly control over the particular field. Often those organizations that started with good intentions are stealthily commandeered by such monopolists after they run as intended for some time. Often often the takeover begins by offers of funding or some sort of management assistance, i.e., bringing in “professionals”, who in actuality are simply frontmen.
One of my Scout Leaders had served in the military. I was not aware of this at the time, I just knew he was a great guy. I’ve recently learned that his son that was in my grade went on to West Point and years of honorable service. In such cases, the experience is good for the boys, as opposed to some situations where the leader is a jerk (like the guy who had us go back down the mountain to fetch his “gear” which was coolers full of beer and ice - needless to say that guy didn’t know diddly about anything except nepotism). In any case, local townspeople can actually get to know each other and do things together - amazingly, without having formal organizations. If the parents make sure to actually know that a man is decent (as opposed to never venturing inside his home like those who were friendly with the creepy Ohio kidnapper) they can get the benefits of living in society without providing an organizational target for those who (like we’re seeing the culmination of now) seek to subvert organizations for their own demented purposes.
Most parents do not thoroughly investigate organizational leadership members, nor do they monitor much at all other than their own child’s success. To most, it’s a combination of a) tradition, b) keeping the kid occupied while they hopefully learn about the outdoors - without the parent having to hike through the woods themselves (in the case of those who don’t volunteer to lead), and c) the glory of my kid’s badges, awards and honors, or using those to have a better college application for the parents who plan on sending their boys to college.
“More than you might think;”
Well, you are correct to infer that I wouldn’t think many fathers would do that. What makes you think they would?
“it’s also the single mothers who put sons in Scouting if they can afford it.”
Yes, many women don’t seem to understand.
“Isn’t Scouting quite expensive now?”
That is my impression. None of my boys were in the scouts.
Great... I think you may find that Calvinist Cadet Corps is a good, though not perfect, option for your church’s Scouting troop.
Check out this thread as well on Dr. Harry Reeder of Briarwood PCA, the largest congregation of your denomination, blasting the pro-homosexual Scouting decision:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3023632/posts?page=1
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.