Neuhaus’ Law is Coming to the Boy Scouts

It states: “Where orthodoxy becomes optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”

A reader writes:

Please unleash the power of you blog CAEI to give National Boy Scouting some spine, and keep the membership policy as it is now. Sadly it seems that National is considering trying to punt the matter to the unit level, with the chartering organization deciding on whether to admit homosexuals or not.  Would be hard to run a National Jamboree with some troops keeping the traditional understanding of Morally Straight, and other troops indulging in “Gay Pride” displays.  Proposed policy is at http://www.scouting.org/MembershipPolicy.aspx

We need to join together as Scouts and Adult leaders to stop the Membership Policy change.  It would lead to situations similar to the Episcopal and Anglican Churches.  To tell National to keep the current rules, contact info is here myscouting@scouting.org  , the National Help Desk at 877-272-1910, or the BSA National Council operator at 972-580-2000.  http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/BSAFoundation/ContactInformation.aspx

Whether you post this by itself, or work it into your own blog post is up to you, but I know that you and yours are a longtime Scouting family.  Please spread the word.  God bless you!

Matthew Franck accurately sums up how this will play out if the Scouts are dumb enough to turn themselves into yet another forum for homosexual activists to drill the gay agenda into everybody’s play time with shrill sloganeering for the glories of anal sex:

If the Boy Scouts drop the organization’s present position on homosexuality, not only will millions of parents withdraw their sons from the organization, and thousands of pastors will drop their churches’ sponsorship of Scout troops, they will be absolutely right to do so. For it will only be a matter of time before the Boy Scouts of America will pronounce itself in favor of same-sex marriage; will adopt instructional materials, mandatory in all troops, on the compulsory acceptance, by all members and leaders, of homosexual relations as normal and normative; and will move to silence all dissent from the new orthodoxy by boys, parents, troop leaders, and sponsoring organizations. The Scouts, in short, will rapidly become, from the top down, a national pro-gay organization, local control be damned.

It is a militant, profoundly intolerant faith.  It is to be resisted, not accomodated.

  • Lynn

    It kills me that people who (rightly) vilify the Church for not protecting the young men in Her care, would even considering following in Her footsteps rather than learning from Her mistakes.

  • A Philosopher

    Even the revised membership policy is more restrictive than the membership policy of the Church.

  • keddaw

    Yeah, let’s just stick to the sloganeering for the glories of vaginal sex.

    What? They don’t do that? Well… Dammit, gayz are just bad, m’kay.

    • Jon W

      If “being gay” was solely about a particular sexual habit indulged in by a certain small percentage of the society, then your criticism would be relevant. But that’s obviously not what the modern gay agenda is about. It’s about making sure that no social organizations provide any kind of criticism of anyone’s lifestyle choices at all.

  • freddy

    My husband and sons have been in Boy Scouts for over 10 years. One reason we’ve supported scouting is that it respects the need for boys to have a place to grow, learn, and form friendships away from the influences of our over-sexualized culture. In many respects, scouting, along with church and family, has been a refuge of sorts from the clamor of the world; a way to be “in the world, but not of it” so to speak.

    My husband and sons have contacted various scouting officials to express their dismay at this proposed change. My husband received a very encouraging reply from the chair of the National Catholic Committe on Scouting. They encourage contacting local and national scout officials urging them not to change this policy, and they ask for prayers as they meet with scout officials this week.

  • Tamara Horsburgh

    Hey everyone – Just for clarification – what is the proposed change? Is it to allow gay men to be boy scout leaders? If thats the change, I don’t have a problem with it – I wouldn’t have a problem with my sons going to boy scouts, with that change. (and apologies if Im wrong about what the change is!)

  • Irenist

    Until 2003, Ireland had a separate Catholic scouting organization. If Neuhaus’ Law does in fact hold here, perhaps a Catholic (or ecumenical Christian) scouting organization would be in order. I know pagans already have “Spiral Scouts” so clearly right-thinking progressives have no problem with separate sectarian scouting organizations. Right? Right.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      Maybe the Blue Knights Boys’ Club will become more widespread:

      http://www.blueknightsboysclub.blogspot.com/

      …or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

    • Kenneth

      I’m a big fan of Spiral Scouts, and yes, if (probably when), conservative Catholic or Christian families feel they can no longer participate in BSA over the gay policy, I would have no problem with them setting out on their own. That’s the marketplace of ideas in action. Everyone should put their money and time and effort where their beliefs are. That’s exactly what is happening now with BSA. The corporate sponsors have decided they can’t be party to an anti-gay national policy, and BSA directors have decided that maintaining the national policy is not worth the loss of money (and perhaps prestige). Local councils and troops and ultimately families, will vote with their dollars and feet as well. As it should be.

  • ivan_the_mad

    According to the Baltimore Sun, some major donors have dropped their support over the past year because of the BSA’s current policy. This Scout has relayed his concerns to the BSA via email (along with scanned copies of his Eagle card and current ASM registration) and hope they stand strong. You can get by on a meaner budget; you can’t recover principle lost for financial gain. I agree with your writer’s assertion; permitting the local councils or troops to set their own policy will seriously impact the unity of the organization.

    Hopefully, things don’t degenerate as they have with the Girl Scouts to the point where a need develops for American Heritage Boys.

    • Kenneth

      As I’ve said, I support groups organizing around their own principles, but I’d reconsider “American Heritage Boys.” It sounds a little white power!……

      • Andy, Bad Person

        The logic is that there is already an American Heritage Girls group that has formed in protest of the Girl Scouts’ love of Planned Parenthood.

        • Kenneth

          That works, then. It would make a logical counterpart to an established legit movement. It’s just that organizations in which white guys predominate have to be careful with the use of “heritage”, “power” or “pride” in their names as such groups often have a scary bent to them!

          • ivan_the_mad

            I’ll leave the naming to those who would be unable to abide the wrong decision, but as I wrote I hope that does not come to pass. Regardless of the decision, I’ll remain with the BSA. We witness best to His victory not by removing ourselves from the world but by remaining in it.

  • Kenneth

    “……it will only be a matter of time before the Boy Scouts of America will pronounce itself in favor of same-sex marriage; will adopt instructional materials, mandatory in all troops, on the compulsory acceptance, by all members and leaders, of homosexual relations as normal and normative; and will move to silence all dissent from the new orthodoxy by boys, parents, troop leaders, and sponsoring organizations…”

    They will, no doubt, design mandatory merit badges around kicking puppies, flag burning and mockery of Nascar. Jamborees will culminate with Mayan-style blood sacrifice, and the scout floats in ALL local Memorial Day parades will feature the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Sorry folk, I don’t like that any more than you do, but there’s simply no way around it, once you start acknowledging gay rights in any post-Stonewall paradigm. Scouts will also be breaking glass at local synagogues every Nov. 9. Kinda awkward for the Jewish scouts, but they DO have the brown shirts already, and once you accept gay kids for who they are, you’re already given over to pure evil. You might as well own the label, and play vicious, because Hell has no respect for sissies, so to speak… The BSA will also want to look into forced collectivization of agriculture, as long as they’re going to be enforcing evil orthodoxy anyway.

    If millions of parents and pastors really feel the need to flee scouting because national is no longer mandating that all gays be treated as disordered sickos and predators, let them leave, and good riddance. As a society, we’re just done with that kind of thinking.

    • http://www.sff.net/people/john-c-wright/ John C Wright

      As a society, we are done with thinking that practitioners of unnatural sexual perversions should be kept away from impressionable children?

      You are committing the logical errors of straw man, irrelevance, ad hominem, and ad populum. You also happen to be making statements that are factually wrong. Your opinions about sexual self-indulgence are in the minority, and have fewer adherents and fewer as time passes. History has passed you by. It is no longer 1968.

      • Kenneth

        Indeed it is no longer 1968, and that is my point. Gays are not considered to be perverts by virtue of their orientation. If this idea has fewer adherents as time passes, why is the anti-gay movement continually falling back to defend smaller and smaller circles? Why don’t the corporate sponsors, who take their cues from the majority of consumers, no longer want to put their names to your cause?

      • Dan C

        I have more problem with remarriage after divorce. It poses a routine threat and temptation that it “all works out” for hard spots in marriages. I will spend any amount of time commenting on whether and how much vilification I will heap on that incredible threat to my marriage and to families in my neighborhood. I also have no problem trashing the extensive promiscuity that the hypermasculine, sports-intoxicated culture of manliness has imposed. I have no problem discussing this.

        This is the largest problem. Not gay marriage, nor gays in Boy Scouting. Divorce and remarriage are the threats. The histrionics are about the “sexual perversions.” For my family, the sexual perversions are the hypermasculine culture of men (like in the amred services) that promotes promiscuity.

        Everyone is distracted about gay marriage, not Pastor Bob’s second marriage. And no one puts quotes about Pastor Bob’s second marriage. As in second “marriage.”

    • Dale Price

      If you’ve followed the trajectory of the Episcopal church, you’ve seen this movie before. What was once optional has become mandatory. And with this, Gramsci’s march through the institutions is about to claim another victim. Oh, and despite doing everything the secular left champions, the Piskies bled out another 2 percent last year. For some reason, all that inclusivity isn’t attracting people, despite the alleged “Ratchet of Progress.”

      It’s helpful that the Human Rights Campaign has already condemned the floated “federalist” approach–it’s total victory or bust. Your church-chartered pack will accept them, or else. Next up–atheists, of course.

      • Irenist

        Agreed. When the Scouts someday pass a ban on clergy from “homophobic” denominations leading troops, the current “tolerance” brigade will be the first to applaud.

  • Michaelus

    I am all set to welcome the first gay scoutmasters. I have no problem at all telling the scouts that these guys define themselves by an interest in using the beginning and the end of the male digestive tract for sexual thrills, that they do not like women in the same way that normal men like women, that they have a much higher rate of substance abuse and suicide than normal people, that they have no interest in being fathers and husbands and that of course they are still human beings and it is there fore mandatory to treat them with respect and tolerance.

  • Scott W.

    No one would allow a person to be a scoutmaster if he was a heterosexual and proudly cataloged his (perfectly legal) pornography collection online. Or another that consistently bragged about how many other men’s wives he’s had a sexual affair with. On what grounds would you bar them but not practicing homosexuals?

    • Dan C

      The hypermasculine, promiscuous culture of the armed services is permitted to be glorified in BSA. Divorced and remarried men are the routine as Scoutmasters.

      • Scott W.

        I understand divorce and remarriage are (rightly) your hobbyhorse, but that doesn’t really answer my question. The point is there are plenty of heterosexual behaviors that would be enough to reject someone as a scoutmaster.

        • Dan C

          But they actually are not points of rejection.

        • Dan C

          Divorce and remarriage should be everyone’s hobby horse. But they are not, because of the degree of social discomfort such condemnation would promote. I am unhappy with those mostly. Gay marriage is for me like “second marriages.” The “gay agenda” is no different than the “Protestant contraceptive agenda,” which can be found in Scouting.

          Catholics have too easy a relationship with these Protestant problems.

          • Scott W.

            Let’s say you are considering people for some hypothetical group that works with children/young adults. I think we have established that you wouldn’t hire the divorced/remarried person. (For the record, I wouldn’t either). Would you hire the guy with the pornography collection? Yes or no please.

            • David Norris

              If it’s your policy to not hire men who view pornography I think your employee prospects will be quite limited, to put it mildly, lol.

              • Irenist

                How sad and revealing that you think so.

                • David Norris

                  Revealing of what? It’s human nature.

                  • Irenist

                    Revealing of your impoverished view of human nature, and its capacity for self-mastery.

                    • David Norris

                      Anyone that swallows the doctrine of original sin and vicarious blood sacrifice thinks much, much worse of humanity than I do.

                    • Mark Shea

                      I highly doubt you even know what the doctrine of original sin is, much less the atonement. Also, you don’t seem to know how to construct an argument without cheap insults and irrelevant asides.

                • David Norris

                  BTW, the more conservative socially a place is, the more porn viewers it has. Utah leads the nation in men watching porn, and as far as the world goes the leaders are all very sexually conservative Muslim countries. I bet more conservative Catholics view porn than atheists.

                  • Jon W

                    Stop this! Stop the lie that porn is fine and everybody does it. Even if most people in this sick culture struggle with it on occasion, that doesn’t make porn use any more okay than gossip and bullying among 7th graders. Good freaking grief.

                  • http://irenist.blogspot.com Irenist

                    Utah was only first in a study of paid site subscriptions. Studies based on, e.g., Google searches, which are far more representative, turn up different results. Since your arguments seem to largely consist in regurgitation of memes from the likes of Salon and similar shallow sources, it’s unsurprising you don’t know your factoid is garbage. As for whether there are more Catholics than atheists succumbing to porn, I imagine there are: you neglected to day “per capita,” and the number of the “nonreligious” who are actually atheist is pathetic compared to the global Catholic population. Thus, there are usually more Catholics than atheists in almost any category.

            • Scott W.

              Please try not to get distracted and answer the scenario. You’ve got a guy who not only has a porn collection or indulges it and somehow he has made it relatively easy to find public knowledge confirming it and expresses no shame or repentance about it. Simple question: would you hire him to lead/mentor/counsel young boys? Yes or no please.

              • Kenneth

                You don’t really want an answer to that scenario, because it’s leading and dishonest from the start. We treat individual’s fantasy life, including porn use, as private in this country unless and until it crosses a line of criminality or until they make the private public in some inappropriate way (like workplace harassment or improper conduct around minors).

                If someone is flaunting their porn habits before others outside of their personal friends or partners, they are crossing a line of professionalism. Of course they should not be hired to mentor young boys, and for that matter should not be hired to any position where professionalism and discretion are important (ie most of the work world).

                That’s not the issue here. Private porn use is very, very widespread and prevalent in our society. I would bet every dime I’ve ever made that many of you, and many of the people you consider upstanding citizens – your police, your kid’s teachers, your dentists, are among this group. We don’t conduct pogroms and inquisitions into their private lives if they’re appropriate in public. We have never proposed to do so for hetero scout masters and we never will.

                With gays on the other hand, you presume that they are or will be inappropriate and predatory and sex-obsessed. You have zero evidence to demonstrate that, and a mountain of science examined by many courts which argue against that presumption. The current scout policy would actually reject a celibate gay leader while accepting straight men who, for all they know, could be one of the biggest swingers or collectors of porn on the planet.

                If the safety and well-being of boys is really your issue, the answer is clear. Admit men to leadership roles based on the content of their character and their consistent pattern of behavior. Dirt simple. If you’re gay, don’t share details of your adult activities with kids. If you’re straight, don’t share details of your adult activities with kids. That approach works 100% of the time, unless you have some special problem with gays that you want to dress up as something other than what it is.

                • Scott W.

                  Of course they should not be hired to mentor young boys, and for that matter should not be hired to any position where professionalism and discretion are important (ie most of the work world).

                  Thank you. Trim away the five paragraphs of whatever the heck that was, and we have an answer. Just as we shouldn’t hire the guy that flaunts his pornography collection, so we shouldn’t hire the guy that flaunts that he has “sex” with other men.

                  • Kenneth

                    So not concealing the barest fact of your orientation or family situation is now “flaunting” sex. We’d better draft policies that require straight scoutmasters to conceal the existence of their wives or offspring, because that would be “flaunting” the fact that he has sex with women.

                    All adults who interact with children in any role from now on are, officially, anatomically neutral androids with no intimate life of any kind. If the kids ask anything about family life, we tell them scoutmasters are simply put in stand-down mode in shipping containers each night, where they silently stand in formation like the NS-4s in “I, Robot.”

                    This makes eminent sense, and we ought to send a draft policy to BSA by the close of business today. We can’t have any adults admitting any level of non-platonic interaction with any other adults, ever, because that is tantamount to flaunting a pornography collection.

                    Another upside. If we can ingrain this level of pathology in a whole generation of young men, population pressures on energy, water and food will resolve themselves by the end of this century. I see Nobel potential in this….

                    • Scott W.

                      So not concealing the barest fact of your orientation or family situation is now “flaunting” sex. We’d better draft policies that require straight scoutmasters to conceal the existence of their wives or offspring, because that would be “flaunting” the fact that he has sex with women.

                      Not at all because sex in a proper marriage is moral. Any “sex” outside of this paradigm is immoral.

                      All adults who interact with children in any role from now on are, officially, anatomically neutral androids with no intimate life of any kind.

                      Not at all because there’s the actual evidence of the children. That’s because proper marriage is not only moral, it’s natural, with natural fruit and everything.

                      This is only hard if one wants it to be.

                    • Kenneth

                      We’re running into the same thing as with the gay marriage debate. You’re abandoning a defensible position in favor on an indefensible one. What this boils down to for you, and I suspect most on this board, is that homosexuality, lived, is considered disordered in Catholicism. The society at large is not bound to adhere to that belief, but if you, or a diocese, said “we cannot sponsor scout troops with gay practicing leaders”, that has credibility. You’re staking out the boundaries of your conscience, your doctrine, what you believe to be the commandment of your God.

                      But that doesn’t seem to be good enough for you. You don’t think it has the power to persuade, or perhaps are not sufficiently convinced yourselves to make your stand at that wall. You feel the need to try to spin your position as some sort of neutral, secular, scientific, and grotesquely un-charitable assertion that gay people are, to their core, inherent child abusers.

                      It’s also demonstrably false, and staking your claim in such atavistic claims completely shatters any credibility you had if you had stuck to conscience claims. It marks your movement not as well-intentioned people acting out of deeply held conviction but as nasty partisans motivated by hate who will resort to any level of duplicity and viciousness to get their way. It is this very thing that is causing corporate sponsors, politicians, and ordinary folk to increasingly abandon your position like a radioactive core in meltdown.

    • Kenneth

      “No one would allow a person to be a scoutmaster if he was a heterosexual and proudly cataloged his (perfectly legal) pornography collection online. Or another that consistently bragged about how many other men’s wives he’s had a sexual affair with. On what grounds would you bar them but not practicing homosexuals?”………….

      Wow. You really painted us into a philosophical corner with that one. However will we get out without conceding to moral relativism or nihilism? Oh, wait, I got it……A Persons’ Conduct.

      • Kenneth

        You pose the hypothetical of a hetero scoutmaster bragging about his porn use and cheating on his wife, and equate him with a gay scoutmaster who is (horror of horrors), a “practicing homosexual.” So far as we know, he’s not waiving the specifics of his “practice” before other adults or children. If that’s the case, as it is with most responsible adults, why is the fact of his orientation in any way equivalent to the inappropriate straight boor? We don’t demand that straight scoutmasters hide the fact that they’re “practicing heterosexuals.” If they’re married or otherwise partnered, kids aren’t stupid. They know in general terms what goes on. At the same time, we demand that leaders conduct themselves with age appropriateness and don’t sing bawdy songs around the camp fire of how they were “rocking it with the old lady” last week.

        In any other avenue of professional life and mentorship of kids, we don’t demand that leaders appear as asexual androids. We demand that they behave themselves appropriately. The vast majority of them, gay or straight, rise to that demand every day.

  • Tim Jones

    If the BSA really wants to stick to the principle of bravery in the Scout Oath, they will show the boys what real bravery looks like by standing up to the oppression of popular opinion, maintaining their traditional stance on homosexuality and going down with the ship, if that’s what it takes. A smaller, richer and more meaningful scouting experience will remain for those who stay. If not, *meh*. Time to invent something better.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      This. Ever since I heard the news that the national group was reconsidering its stance last week, I’ve felt sick. A Scout is brave. A Scout promises to keep himself morally straight. A BSA that adopts a policy like this has left me, and I’d consider forfeiting my Eagle.

      • ivan_the_mad

        Don’t consider that. Come what may, the decision of the national council reflects solely on them and what they hold as the highest good, it does not mar your accomplishment. Even if they do choose poorly, fight to keep your local troop, district, and council true. As GKC wrote, “The one perfectly divine thing, the one glimpse of God’s paradise given on earth, is to fight a losing battle – and not lose it.”

  • DeeBee

    ARE YOU KIDDING??!! Sexual orientation CANNOT be part of membership in Boy Scouts and for Obama to weigh-in clearly demonstrates his gross ignorance of the Boy Scouts. There no sex in Boy Scouts and where there is it rightly gets prosecuted. The organization will have many other problems with openly sexual and accepted sexually behaving 12-years-old (and younger) boys. WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH YOU???

  • Irenist

    On the broader point of Neuhaus’ Law, there was an interesting recently proposed law in the New Hampshire Legislature to protect bakers, photographers, etc., from forced complicity with gay civil nuptials.

    The bill would put an exemption in state marriage law. The proposed text says no person, including a business owner or employee, should be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for wedding services in “violation of the person’s conscience or religious faith.”

    Source: http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshire/x1296867623/NH-bill-would-allow-refusal-of-services-to-gay-couples

  • David Norris

    Several people on this thread miss the point that homosexuality is not just a type of sex, it is also a form of love.

  • DeeBee

    NO ONE has made the distinction of allowing LOVE vs SEXUALLY ACTIVE into the scouts. It has all been about GAY ACTIVITY. OK! Lets reword all the attacks on the Boy Scouts to read ALLOW LOVE BUT NOT GAY SEXUAL ACTIVITY INTO SCOUTING and see how far that goes with the gay crowd.

    • Kenneth

      Tell you what, have the scouts implement a policy permitting only celibate heterosexuals into the organization, and then I think it would be perfectly fair to demand the same of gays.

      • Mark Shea

        How about people who don’t view a gathering of boys as an opportunity to obsessively talk about their sex lives, whether hetero or homosexual. I’d be content with that. I’ve been involved in Scouts for years and never seen a Scout leader feel the need to sit down and talk with the kids about who he is sleeping with. Homosexuals pressing for involvement in scouting are doing so precisely because they want to make who they have sex with the main topic of discussion–because homosexuality and narcissism are like peas and carrots and everything has to be about the rest of us affirming that.. If they weren’t, nobody would know they were gay since most of us are not spending our time wondering who some total stranger is sleeping with.

        • Kenneth

          So you know that homosexuals as a class, and every individual within, has an agenda to press the details of their personal intimate lives in an inappropriate way before boys in Scouting. They have no decent or altruistic motives, like wanting to give something back to the organization they benefited from as young men?

          How, exactly, do you know this? Professor X-like psionic capability? Did you put them all under Voight-Kampff interviews? Are there some universal leaders of wannabe gay scoutmasters that cracked under waterboarding at some Eastern European Black Site in 2003 and revealed this conspiracy to pollute young minds? If you have some good evidence, let’s have it, so we can convene some congressional hearings and get some court injunction to block the BSA change. If there’s a demonstrable safety threat, I’ll co-sign the amicus brief with you. My gut tells me you’re working with something….more speculative in nature.

          What if, for argument’s sake, there was some ground between flaunting one’s private intimacy and not wanting to have to conceal the most basic aspect of one’s family life.

          What if the whole nefarious agenda was really about allowing a gay scout master to do his job without having to make up a cover story that the guy picking him up from every meeting is his “friend” or “roommate” ? If the guys simply know who he is to the scoutmaster, and discussion ends there, is that really “flaunting” something? Growing up, it was no secret our scoutmaster was hetero. He even sometimes brought his wife and kids along on certain summer camps. Was he doing that to display his virility or prowess? Was I just too daft to see that he was “flaunting” something?

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    In what way is homosexual practice sex? That’s the second appropriation of an inappropriate word, the first being marriage.

  • Dale Price

    Given your opener in this thread, kenneth, I doubt you’ll be saluting objecting Boy Scout successor organizations. It’s easier to picture you supporting efforts to ensure such retrograde organizations are marginalized and demonized to the fullest extent possible.

    • Kenneth

      I wouldn’t support their particular politics or views, but I absolutely support their right to organize their own thing, and I would commend them for doing so. If there were a petition or newspaper ad with signatures to that effect, endorsing their right to go their own way, I’d put my name on it, and that’s no lie.

      While we’re at it, I support the right of the existing BSA to maintain their old anti-gay stance. It’s their constitutional right as a private organization. As a former scout myself, I think it’s a truly unfortunate and regressive policy, but it’s their right as an organization to pursue if they want to. It’s also the right of corporate sponsors and individuals to back or not back that choice with their own participation or money. The BSA is not being persecuted by anyone. It’s responding rationally to the marketplace of ideas. Old ideas about gays have just about lost all of their value in that market, and the BSA is dumping its shares. If Opus Dei or some church wants to open their own market in scouting, so to speak, the stuff will trade like a Blue Chip stock there, and bully for them.

  • Thomas3

    Mark, thank you for posting about the potential change. But please be a little kinder to some others commenting…yes they use cheap insults, but in a tough economy, can they really afford better? ;)

  • SteveP

    There is nothing new under the sun: the gymnasium in Athens had bleachers were the older men could watch the boys and, some of them anyway, would suggest to a boy’s father the young man be “mentored.” It is not surprising a group of contemporary men wish to “mentor” in the fashion of Classical Greece.

    • Kenneth

      No it isn’t surprising some sick men choose to “mentor” young men in that fashion. It’s a pity that more bishops didn’t intervene to stop them after their “mentoring” styles became known and documented. Does that mean men generally enter the priesthood out of perverse motives? I thought not. You have no more evidence to back the nasty assertion that gay men in general have that motive to work in scouting.

      • SteveP

        Kenneth: You know nothing of me or what I’ve experienced. But I tell you, in responding to you, I am speaking truth to power.

  • http://www.cappadociainlowell.blogspot.com Renee

    What will happen to all of the BSA assets? The camps. If everyone who invested in it for 100 years, now abandons it?

    • Kenneth

      Presumably, the assets would stay with the BSA. Those who go off to create their own splinter groups would not ordinarily be entitled to any of the national assets unless they can somehow convince a court otherwise. As for the regional councils and troops, I’m not sure how they’re structured or incorporated. They may be subsidiary groups of BSA or independent corporations. My guess is they’re independent but license all rights to the BSA name, uniform, images etc from national. I doubt we’ll see “everyone” abandon BSA, or even a whole lot of someones. Some will leave, but others on the other side of the issue will join or return. Corporate sponsors are much more likely to be around, as they were pushing for this change. In the extreme case everyone bails or too many do to make it sustainable, the assets would of course be sold. I think some camps are owned by national and others by councils. Quite a number of camps unfortunately have been sold off over the years for economic reasons that had nothing to do with the gay controversy. BSA is an odd duck in one legal sense in that it is federally chartered, like Major League Baseball and the Red Cross. I think that may give them even tighter control over symbols and assets than regular corporations, but I’m not as sure about that.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X