Est. May 2008

29 January, 2013

On The BSA’s Policy Reversal

What a difference six months can make: back in July of last year, Bob Mazzuca – chief executive of the Boy Scouts of America – told everyone that the Scouts would not change their longstanding policy on inclusion of openly homosexual Scouts and leaders.  A few days ago, Deron Smith – spokesman for the BSA – had this to say:
… the new policy “would allow the religious, civic, or educational organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting to determine how to address the issue.”  He described the new policy with this rather stark language: “The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents. Under the proposed policy the B.S.A. would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs.” (emphasis mine)
Let the emphasized part of that sink in for a bit.  As Al Mohler points out:
The new local option policy cannot stand for long. No organization can endure a moral option on an issue of such consequence for long. Sooner than later, a national policy requiring the full inclusion of homosexuals at every level will be put in place. Those demanding such a policy will continue their demands, while those opposed are likely to retreat from Scouting altogether. You can count on an exodus by churches and many sponsoring bodies. Furthermore, the same pressures now brought against the Boy Scouts at the national level will simply be shifted to local units. (emphases mine)
In short, the BSA national has effectively tossed its own branches into the fire: it’s highly unlikely local units would have the financial wherewithal to fight a lawsuit, and they won’t be able to appeal to the national for assistance because the national has adopted the offending policy (offending to the locals, that is).  The local branches would then face one of two options, neither of them acceptable: either they cave in and join the national in embracing and supporting openly homosexual Scouts and leaders, or they fold their tents and shut down.

Doctor Moeller continues:
The scale of potential membership loss to the Boy Scouts of America is staggering. Conservative religious bodies sponsor the vast majority of Boy Scout units. Mormons lead with more than 37,000 units and 400,000 boys involved. United Methodists place second, with 11,000 units nationwide. The Roman Catholic Church sponsors more than 8,000 units. Add Southern Baptists and other evangelical groups to the mix and you can see the scope of the challenge the Boy Scouts will now face.
And that’s not counting the individual parents of boys already in Scouts who will remove their sons from the organization piecemeal.

On a related note, I stumbled across this post over at The Jawa Report: Rusty Shackleford points out:
The idea that a gay man should go camping with a bunch of teenage boys? Yeah, that's insane.

Not because homosexuals are predatory by nature. Not because they are going to lure impressionable youths into the gay lifestyle. Foolishness, all.

Gays aren't any worse than the next man when it comes to normal human impulses. But they certainly aren't any better.

Would you let me take your 14 year old daughter camping? Kind of seems inappropriate.

So, you acknowledge that no matter how decent of a guy I might be, because I am a normal man subject to normal male passions, it's probably not a great idea for me and my buddy -- let's say, Howie -- to take a group of 14 - 15 year old girls on a camp out. Don't forget to bring a pillow for the mandatory pillow fight!

It's creepy.

Yet somehow homosexual men are exempt from normal male passions? Gay men aren't tempted by 14 - 15 year old boys?

To believe this is to believe that gays are better than straights. That gays are, in fact, superhuman.  (emphasis in the original)
Like I said, an interesting point. 

No comments: