The Boy Scouts of America: A New Member of NAMBLA?

The Boy Scouts of America: A New Member of NAMBLA?

Boy Scout photo, saluteKristi Kane

The Boy Scouts of America is a wonderful organization that teaches boys the importance of goal-setting, community service, teamwork and leadership. What a marvelous and superior alternative to pornography and countless hours of video gaming that seem to plague boys these days.

So, if I were on the National Advisory Board of the BSA, one of our new mottoes would be “NO SURRENDER!”

“No surrender!” to companies like AT&T, UPS, Intel and Merck who have taken the road of the morally obtuse and politically-correct by refusing to fund the BSA because the BSA won’t take the risk of having a boy or man who is open and vocal about being sexually attracted to boys and other men working within their  private organization.

(By the way, the only mention the BSA makes of sexuality in any way, shape or form, is in their pamphlet that comes with all scout books on the prevention of sexual abuse and what to do if you are ever in a situation that you feel you are being sexually abused. This is a pamphlet that scouts and parents are to go over together. And when I had that discussion with my then eight-year-old son that there are other people who might like to touch his privates to get their jollies, it was sobering.)

The United States Supreme Court’s decided on June 28, 2000 (in Boy Scouts of America et al v Dale) that the constitutional right of freedom of association allows a private [emphasis added] organization like the Boy Scouts of America to exclude a person from membership when “the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The case was closed for everyone but the homosexual lobby.  After several years of intense pressure by way of literally defunding the BSA until they yielded, the BSA has penned the following “resolution” to be voted on this month (May).

You can read the proposed BSA Resolution here.

By way of strong warning, “Lessons from Gay Scouting in Canada,” Bradlee Dean states:

 “In 1998, Canadian Scouts (CS) decided to allow females, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to join the CS. In 1999, they approved the establishment of an all-homosexual troop, which now marches in Canada’s “gay pride” parades. Within five years, scouting membership dropped over 50 percent. Many scouting camps and offices were closed, and staff was laid off.

Boys who become scouts to receive a healthy, moral upbringing are instead becoming lifetime victims of criminals who prey on children. Even worse is the lack of justice these young boys receive. Canada’s epidemic of child sex abuse is largely swept under the rug to protect pederasts.”

This is the result of “compromising” and “yielding.” My question is this: If the homosexual lobby and their sympathizers cared about the future of a private organization like the BSA, and knowing their presence would in effect nearly destroy that organization because their beliefs and the “Scout Oath” are so polar opposite of  each other, why would they want to be members? Look at what happened in Canada. And it can and will happen again right here in the United States if the resolution is carried.

For a brilliantly written article that shines further light on this debacle, go here.

To voice your opinion, please contact the Boy Scouts of America.

BSA National Council: 972-580-2000.  Or, email:  nationalsupportcenter@scouting.org

Better yet, contact your local Boy Scout Council and ask that the person who will represent the council as a voting member receive your input.

Are you wondering about the acronym NAMBLA?  It stands for:  North American Man Boy Love Association.

 

1Comment
  • Russ Barth
    Posted at 08:25h, 07 May Reply

    NAMBLA? Really? Did you read the resolution that you linked us to?

    The LDS church said it best in their response to the resolution: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-boy-scouts-of-america

    Here’s a quote from it, “… recognition that Scouting exists to serve and benefit youth rather than Scout leaders, a single standard of moral purity for youth in the program…”

    The BSA is not compromising. They’re emphasizing that Scouting is for the youth, not the leaders and that all boys can join if they agree to live the scout oath and law and agree to live a moral life regardless of sexual preference. I applaud them for the compassionate approach to this issue and feel this is the best course of action they could have taken. I took their survey and suggested that any youth should be able to join. I’m glad they’re taking this approach.

    You’re completely misrepresenting the stand the BSA is making.

Post A Comment