The End of the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia (when decent Americans chose not to fight back)

Philadelphia’s Cradle of Liberty Boy Scout Council self-destructed last week. Its executive board voted unanimously to include "sexual orientation" in its nondiscrimination code. The outrageous move came after years of intense pressure from radical homosexual and atheist rights groups in the area and nationwide.

The Philadelphia Council is the third largest local council in the country, serving 87,000 boys and men. It is an unfortunate addition to a list of councils that have eagerly given the finger to the Boy Scouts of America and its associated moral codes. Last year, San Francisco and Boston became the first branches to reject the concept of “moral straightness.”

We must be reminded that the Boy Scouts are not an intolerant, homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic bunch. In fact, the Boy Scouts have always taught tolerance and have been at the forefront of celebrating diversity. Since 1911, the BSA has reached out to disabled youth, racial and ethnic minorities, Native Americans, and inner city children.

And Scouting has also taught the difference between right and wrong, between honor and indecency, between justice and perversity.

When it comes to a Scout troop, sexual orientation is an issue that goes beyond differences in skin color or economic status. It affects such matters as tenting arrangements and the development of pre-teenage masculinity in a close-knit group of boys and men. But the BSA’s position against homosexuality is not just an issue of moral principle in an effort to affirm the Scout Oath and Law, it is a serious safety effort to prevent cases of sexual abuse and harassment.

To the vast majority of Americans who understand the importance of Scouting in every community across the nation, preserving the traditional moral code of Scouting is a no-brainer. It is time for families in Philadelphia to show that they oppose the leadership of their local council by leaving the organization.

Furthermore, the BSA national office must entirely disconnect itself from the Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco Councils. And Boy Scout councils around the country must take notice that their entire mission is staked upon the moral character of the boys and men involved, and that if they sever those core principles from the program they will destroy the entirety of Scouting.

The pressures from the radical Left must be dealt with as well. As the Left has opened fire on the Scouts, the reaction of Americans has been interesting. I’ve heard some say that the Scouts don’t need to be defended because they are strong enough. Many would argue that ignoring the opposition is the best thing for the Scouts. Perhaps that would be true in a small-scale conflict, but those who lead the drive against the Scouts have proven their capacity for a dangerous perversion of morality when, in a hundred other scenarios they’ve struck deepest when decent Americans chose not to fight back. They didn’t fight back because they weren’t looking in the first place.

Now, America - now is a time to turn our sullen eyes on Philadelphia. Now is the time to awaken to the awful stench that arises from the moral relativism condoned by Boy Scout Councils in Boston and San Francisco. Now is the time to fight back and defend the Boy Scouts from further damage.

As an Eagle Scout and an assistant Scoutmaster, I cannot couch myself in the dark chamber of apathy as my organization is taken over by special interests whose political agenda contributes to a breakdown of character and the family. The Boy Scouts have the God-given right to establish standards for membership, and those standards have been highly respected for over 90 years. Citizens across America have the God-given obligation to see to it that the Boy Scout Oath and Law are upheld for another 90 years.

Hans Zeiger, 18, is an Eagle Scout and an outspoken advocate on behalf of Scouting with the Scout Honor Coalition. He is a Seattle Times columnist and chairman of Washington Young Americans for Freedom.

I'm a long-time Scout (= youth member) and Scouter (= adult member). A few comments:

Local BSA Councils are not-for-profit corporations consisting of local business and community leaders, as well as a few Scouters. They receive, and must renew annually, a charter from National Council to establish, oversee and support the BSA program in a geographic area. They in turn charter local organizations such as churches, veterans' organizations, fraternal organizations, schools, etc., to sponsor Packs, Troops, Ships, and Crews. These are also renewable annually.

If the sponsoring organization does not follow National and local Council guidelines and policies in running their units, the local Council can refuse to renew their charter. If the local Council does not follow National guidelines, National Council can refuse to renew their charter. In the former case, the unit folds and the Scouts would have to join another unit to continue in Scouting. In the latter case, either a new not-for-profit corporation would have to be started up to take over the charter, or the region the old Council covered could be taken over by one or more Councils contiguous to it. What's going to happen here is that first a delegation from National will meet with the Council's Executive Board (tha above noted local community and business leaders) to see just what their intent is, as opposed to what's in the press. If they persist that they are going to register "avowed homosexuals" as leaders, then I expect that they'll end up taking one of the steps I've outlined.

Note that it is the responsibility of the local units to select leaders. While the BSA is often brought into lawsuits on these matters, it's the sponsoring organization that has failed to do it's homework in registering an unqualified leader, and in failing to make sure that he or she is conducting the program properly.

National's basis for excluding homosexual leaders is because they provide what the majority of the BSA's sponsoring organizations believe are improper moral role models for youth. According to the BSA's own web site, any risk of paedophilia has nothing to do with it. And practically, if you search on Google for cases of molestation of Scouts by Scouters, you'll find that the Scouter involved either has no known sexual relations with adults at all, or is married and has kids.

What the BSA depends on to prevent child molestation is the proper selection of leaders by sponsoring organizations, and the strict application of the Youth Protection guidelines by the sponsors and the leaders. These steps will prevent child molestation of any kind.

The other way for parents to make sure that things of this sort don't happen in their unit is to show up. The BSA is not a program designed so that you can drop off your kid and a check once a week. "BSA" does not stand for "BabySitters of America". It's a family program, not a youth program, and you need to put some time in. Even if you can't be a leader, you can go on the occasional campout, hang around for a Troop meeting, run the Popcorn sale, help with the Pancake Breakfast, get your hands dirty helping with a service project, and in general observe what's going on.

I question the original author's characterization of the Minuteman Council's (Boston) announced policy re: sexual orientation of leaders. National doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Minuteman Council's policy seems to be "Don't ask, don't tell", which is National policy. They just stated it in a fashion that makes it a little more palatable for the locals. But I am unaware of any "avowed homosexual" who has taken a leadership position, "told", and stayed registered at Minuteman Council.

It's also worth noting that Cradle of Liberty Council isn't telling units that they have to accept homosexual members; they're saying that they can if they want to. Note as an analogy that BSA units can accept women as leaders if they wish, but many don't and are supported by both their local and National Councils (Troops sponsored by Mormon stakes do this) in their decision. The choice of leaders is up to sponsoring organizations and they are free to accept or reject leaders on whatever reason they choose (gender, profession, health, etc.).

Finally, cutting off support to your local BSA Council because there is an unresolved situation in Philadelphia is a sure way to hurt a bunch of youth and to make sure that they don't get the program from someone who wants to do so properly.

If Scouts continue refusing to accept gay scoutmasters, it seems like the forces of political correctness (these days including churches, temples, local governments and school boards) will continue to ostracize them, perhaps until they are successfully demonized.

Any Scouting parent opposing gay scoutmasters is vulnerable in cities with a sizable gay population.

If a parent takes a leadership role in opposing gay scooutmasters, it is fairly easy for opposing pro-gay elements to make trouble for them. All it takes is discovering where they work (pretty easy, since you usually have your office number listed in your kid's file as an emergency contact number), and then finding some gay people to notify in your company, who will then complain to HR about "this homophobe" creating a "hostile work environment".

By this means, it's fairly straightforward to silence the opposition

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.