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

To: NYer
It adds good perspective to return to Ann Coulter's 2002 column, Should Gay Priests Adopt. The Boy Scouts were being attacked then about sensible rules restricting gays from being scoutmasters as the Catholic Church has now also done in its seminaries.

Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view -- adopted by the Boy Scouts -- is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)

It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests -- more than 90 percent -- are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser."

Meanwhile, no spate of sex scandals is engulfing the Boy Scouts of America. Inasmuch as the Boy Scouts were not taking risk-assessment advice from Norman Mineta, they decided to eliminate a whole category of potential problems by refusing to allow gay men to be scout leaders. Perhaps gay scout leaders just really liked camping. But it was also possible that gay men who wanted to lead troops of adolescent boys into the woods were up to no good.

For their politically incorrect risk-assessment technique, the Boy Scouts were denounced as troglodyte bigots in all outlets of appropriate liberal opinion. Cities and states across the country dropped their support for the scouts. The United Way, Chase Manhattan Bank and Textron withdrew millions of dollars in contributions.

And hell hath no fury like a New York Times editor spurned. The Times denounced the Supreme Court decision merely permitting the Boy Scouts to refuse gay scoutmasters as one of the court's "lowest moments." The Times "ethicist" advised readers that pulling their sons out of the Boy Scouts was "the ethical thing to do.

10 posted on 06/17/2010 7:08:40 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Servant of the Cross
And hell hath no fury like a New York Times editor spurned. The Times denounced the Supreme Court decision merely permitting the Boy Scouts to refuse gay scoutmasters as one of the court's "lowest moments." The Times "ethicist" advised readers that pulling their sons out of the Boy Scouts was "the ethical thing to do.

The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) boasted a few years ago that although homosexuals are less than two percent of the population, three-fourths of the people who decide the content of the front page of the New York Times are homosexual.

The NYT biased? Naw.

55 posted on 06/17/2010 5:02:13 PM PDT by aSeattleConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

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