Now that the Boy Scouts of America has filed for bankruptcy as a result of a deluge of sexual abuse suits, there is an obvious question that must be asked again. Seeing that the BSA leadership was well aware of the long history of male-on-male sex abuse, why on earth did it cave in to homosexual activism? Why did it open the door for openly gay scouts and then scout leaders?

On July 15, 2015 I wrote an article titled, “Boy Scouts’ Moral Suicide Continues.”

I noted then that “the barely hidden, dirty secret of the Boy Scouts of America is that for decades now, several thousand cases of man-on-boy sexual abuse have been swept under the rug, with private payoffs taking the place of open court cases – and to be perfectly clear, the men involved in these cases were normally Scout leaders.

“If such was the case with the ban on openly homosexual leaders in place, what happens when that ban is removed? And how do the Boy Scouts figure out who the bad apples are first? Or are the boys the guinea pigs in this poorly conceived experiment?”

Again, this is not to say that most gay men would abuse gay boys. And it is not to say that heterosexual men would do any better if they were left alone with heterosexual girls.

But is to say that there’s a reason that you don’t have straight men (without women) overseeing Girl Scout troops. And there’s a reason that you should not have gay men overseeing Boy Scout troops. (Or, for that matter, older gay teens left along with younger straight boys.)

In April, 2019, I noted that, “The open secret is no secret anymore. The tragedy is being uncovered for the world to see. As headlines now announce, ‘Sexual abuse scandal rocks the Boy Scouts of America as it is revealed “more than 12,000 members were victims of perpetrators who will soon be revealed in ‘perversion files.”’

“But,” I continued, “this is only the beginning of the travesty.

“Not only has the BSA allegedly covered up thousands of cases of sexual abuse of children, but while this was going on, the BSA actively opened the door to gay scouts and even gay scout leaders. It’s as if they were inviting the complete implosion of their organization.

“And they did so at the expense of vulnerable children, some of whom have been scarred for life.

“Think about that for a minute.”

So I ask the BSA leadership once again: Knowing what you knew, why did you change your policy? Why did you make it even easier for sexual harassment to continue on your watch? (Some would say to me, “Show me the evidence that there was in increase in abuse with openly gay scout leaders.” I would say in rely, “Show me there was not an increase.”)

Back in 2011, Bill Muehlenberg wrote from Australia, “A well known saying affirms that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Homosexual activists know this all too well. As one lesbian put it, ‘Whoever captures the kids owns the future’. Thus we find the constant attempts by homosexual activists to influence children.

“There have been many such attempts lately to get access to young people. For example, in the United States the New Jersey Supreme Court has ordered the Boy Scouts to admit homosexuals. The Girl Scouts have also caved into Political Correctness. Indeed, according to some Scout staffers, one in three of the Girl Scouts’ paid professional staff is lesbian. And in the United Kingdom, the English Scout Association recently lifted the ban on homosexuals becoming troop leaders.”

And this is going to prevent and lessen cases of sexual abuse? Really? This will protect these vulnerable young people?

In his latest article on the subject, Muehlenberg quoted Prof. Paul Kengor, who wrote in 2018, “The Boy Scouts have been emasculated, neutered. The organization that prided itself on courage stands impotent, fearful in the face of feminists and LGBTQ militants. They’ve cowered to the forces of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance.’ And for cultural revolutionaries, the defeat of the Boy Scouts is the end of a long march through yet another institution.”

So I ask once more: BSA, why did you do it?

Did you genuinely have the best interests of the boys involved? Did you honestly think that you were not endangering them even more? Did the thousands of allegations of man-on-boy abuse not give you pause to think?

Of course, we could also ask if there was anything the BSA could have done when the first reports of abuse began to surface years ago. As the Catholic Church knows all too well (not to mention many independent churches), covering up sex abuse is never the way to go.

Could policies have been changed to weed out predators? Could a culture of openness been cultivated where victims were encouraged to come forward?

Only those inside the organization can answer those questions, and they are questions that deserve to be answered.

Perhaps others can learn from the BSA’s mistakes.

But there is no excuse that can be made for the policy changes that allowed for openly gay scouts and then openly gay scout leaders. And there is no excuse for companies like Disney, Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar, Major League Soccer, Merck, Intel, UPS, and AT&T which reportedly withheld donations until the policy changed.

In the end, in the name of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, they opened the door even further to life-destroying abuse.

So I ask once more: why?

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Almost anywhere you look, we’re being fed illusory notions that serve somebody’s interest.

Some of the deceptions are minor or even harmless.  Especially in show business.

Henry John Deutschendorf Jr. wanted to make it big as a folk singer, but figured that fans might be more receptive to “Rocky Mountain High” from a guy named John Denver.  Quite understandable from a marketing standpoint.

Maurice Joseph Micklewhite became the actor Michael Caine, deriving his last name from the Humphrey Bogart film “The Caine Mutiny.”  Mark Sinclair Vincent is better known as Vin Diesel, which helps drive home his status as an action film hero.

Alicia Augello Cook plays better as singer/pianist Alicia Keys.  Stevie Wonder was born Steveland Hardaway Judkins but gained his new name when he signed with Motown.  And so on.

For decades, some Jewish Americans and Italian Americans anglicized their names in order to fit into the WASP-dominated society.  The same went for many people with hard-to-pronounce or exotic-sounding names that were deemed a speed bump on their way to acceptance.   Some people still do it to afford their children greater opportunities than they had, a noble undertaking.

In recent years, however, we’ve seen an upswing in fake identities and fake definitions adopted for not-so-benign reasons.

The most obvious is the transgender identity revolution, in which men who think they’re women and vice versa insist that everyone espouse their sexual confusion or be treated like racists or anti-Semites.

In Canada, which is slightly ahead of the United States in enforcing ever-expanding legal claims based on sexual identity, a transwoman has filed complaints against 16 women at Vancouver-area beauty clinics who declined to give him a Brazilian bikini wax, an extremely intimate service.

Known publicly only as “JY,” the complainant told the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal that the women discriminated on the basis of “gender identity.” A lawyer for one of the women says the wax seeker demanded a $2,500 payoff but withdrew the complaint upon hearing that the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms had filed a challenge. The Centre’s website says the transgender complainant is still seeking damages from the clinic.

In May, a Muslim female spa worker was accused of discrimination in Windsor, Ontario for turning down a chance to wax a biological male transwoman’s private area. The complainant is seeking $50,000 for “immense harm to my dignity,” according to CTV Windsor.

In Fairfax County, Virginia, the Democrat-dominated school system has removed any reference to the biological sex of males or females from the sex ed curriculum. Children are taught that “sex is assigned at birth” and therefore subject to change. This makes it wickedly easier to steer confused kids toward identifying with the opposite sex.

Speaking of gender confusion, the Girl Scouts of America sued the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) for marketing to girls as well as boys.  The BSA has had a string of “firsts,” opening its ranks to homosexual boys, then homosexual leaders, then to boys who think they are girls, and finally to female girls (don’t laugh; it’s come to this).

The Girl Scouts, who long ago embraced the feminist notion that gender differences are social constructs, argue that their brand is harmed by the BSA’s watering down of, well, sex distinctions.   Did you know that the phrase “hoist by their own petard” came from Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” and it means blowing yourself up?

Let’s go back to name change confusion.   In Texas, Robert Francis O’Rourke apparently felt that using his nickname of “Beto” as the centerpiece of his campaign helped him among Hispanics.  He came close to unseating Sen. Ted Cruz, so maybe it helped.  Owing to his socialist leanings and Kennedyesque stage manner, Beto remains the darling of the far-Left of the Democratic Party and its billionaire megadonors, who helped pump his war chest up to more than $70 million, or twice what Mr. Cruz raised.

Sometimes, deception depends on omission rather than commission.  The previous president’s supporters suppressed the mention of Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name.  Anyone who used it was accused of racism or insensitivity toward Muslims.

For years, the Left has skewed issue after issue by obscuring the truth with euphemisms.  Abortion became “choice” and homosexuality became “gay.”  Taxes became “revenue,” and spending became “investing.” Sexual acts, within or outside marriage, with or without affection, with or without an exchange of currency, became simply “love.”  Prostitutes became “sex workers,” practically an esteemed profession.   Illegal aliens became “undocumented immigrants.”

All this is in stark contrast to the Bible’s emphasis on honesty.

“For God is not the author of confusion but of peace,” we’re told in 1 Corinthians 14:33.

The one who exults in confusion has been at his craft since the dawn of creation.   He gets away with it and leads others to follow because he “masquerades as an angel of light.” (2 Cor. 11:14)

No wonder Saul Alinsky dedicated “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

I was part of an extended Facebook conversation with Chuck Colbert, a homosexual journalist from the Boston area who graduated from Notre Dame University but has renounced his Catholic faith and converted to Reform Judaism. He expressed virtually every fallacious claim that homosexual ideologues everywhere express—claims that conservatives should be prepared to refute. In the service of helping to equip IFI readers for such conversations, here are some of his claims (in boldface) followed by rebuttals.

1.) “Jesus said nothing about gay people.”

First, Jesus also says nothing about pedophilia, incest, rape, polyamory, sadomasochism, voyeurism, or infantilism. Are we to assume that Jesus, therefore, approved of these types of acts?

Second, arguments from silence are considered weak—if not fallacious—arguments. Anyone who has as much academic training as Colbert claims to have should know that. The fact that Jesus says nothing on a topic tells us nothing about what he thinks on that topic. We do know that Jesus said this:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 

Jesus does not abrogate any of the transcendent, eternal moral prescriptions and proscriptions found in the Old Testament.

2.) “There are more than a few biblical scholars who interpret the passages [about homosexuality] much differently.”

Not until the last quarter of the 20th Century did a single scholar in the history of the church interpret any passage in Scripture in such a way as to imply God approves of homosexual activity. Radical reinterpretations of Scripture passages that address homosexuality were not driven by new discoveries. They were driven by the sexual revolution and the sexual desires of same-sex attracted persons. That said, even today, there are homosexual scholars who admit that Scripture is clear that God condemns homosexual activity.

Biblical scholar and expert on the topic of the Bible and homosexuality, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon cites two homosexual scholars, historian Louis Crompton and professor of Christian Studies, of Women’s and Gender Studies, of Classical Studies, and of Religious Studies at Brandeis University, Bernadette Brooten—both of whom affirm homosexual marriage—who argue that such a position is not consistent with Scripture.

3.) “There was no such thing in biblical times of a positive LGBT identity. The modern understanding of same-sex marriage is different from the biblical times.”

There was “no positive LGBT identity in biblical times” because God condemns homosexual activity. God’s condemnation of homosexual acts is categorical—no exceptions. Paul tells us that those who affirm such sin as righteousness will not see the kingdom of Heaven.

The hubris of this argument is astonishing. It suggests that there is something that Jesus—who is God, and, therefore, omniscient—didn’t know about human nature, human activity, or human experience.

4.) “The fact is that many, many LGBTs have been married within their various faith communities; their children are doing just fine. Take some time to get to know real LGBT people.”

Though homosexuals may be “married” legally, they are not in reality married because marriage has a nature, which Jesus himself said is the union of one man and one woman.

Getting to know those in faux-marriages does not change the Word of God.

How we feel about people has nothing whatsoever to do with a moral assessment of volitional acts. Colbert’s suggestion “to get to know real LGBT people” reveals that to him the experiences of fallen humans supersede Scripture when it comes to homosexuality.

Does he apply that principle consistently? Would he, for example, recommend that people who disapprove of consensual adult incest take some time to get to know two brothers who are in love and raising kids together as a means to eradicate their disapproval? Would he suggest “getting to know” the five people of assorted sexes in a poly union as the means by which to assess the morality of polyamory or poly-parenting?

Intentionally denying children either a mother or father is unconscionable no matter how nice the two parents are. In addition to the intrinsic right of children to be raised whenever possible by a mother and father, there are a number of studies that indicate children being raised by homosexuals are not fine—and some of these studies are far better studies than those worshipped by the homosexual community. The “LGBTQ” community savages these studies by applying standards that they never apply to studies whose results they like.

For example, homosexuals—including Colbert—frequently tout a study on lesbian parenting without citing the serious structural problems with the study including small sample size, method of selecting participants (i.e., “convenience sampling” vs. far superior “random sampling”), self-reporting nature of responses, absence of a control group, and failure to do long-term follow-up testing.

For research that contradicts the claim that children raised by homosexuals fare as well as children raised by mothers and fathers in intact families, click here, here, here, and here.

5.) “LGBTs are active and productive members within their communities. As more and more people get to know and understand gay people, they see that we are just as good as everybody else. I am sure God is fine with ‘their behavior.’”

The fact that homosexuals do good things tells us precisely nothing about God’s view of homosexual acts. Virtually all sinners do good things as well.

No one is good. Romans 3: 10-12: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

6.) “Why would you care anyway? LGBT life has no adverse effect on your life anyway.”

The homosexual and “trans” community really must stop disseminating the patent lie that widespread cultural approval of homosexual activity, the legal recognition of intrinsically non-marital unions as marriages, and acceptance of the “trans” ideology affect only the parties involved. Here are just some of the adverse effects that harm countless lives:

• Lies that destroy temporal and eternal lives are being disseminated as truth.

• Children are being denied their intrinsic right to be raised by a mother and a father.

• Children are being fed the lie that either mothers or fathers are dispensable.

• Government schools are teaching implicitly and explicitly the lie that disapproval of homosexual activity constitutes hatred of persons.

• Schools are now teaching kindergartners about homosexual relationships—rather, they’re teaching children leftist ideas about homosexual relationships.

• Schools are teaching that biological sex has no intrinsic or profound meaning, including regarding feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy in private spaces.

• A feckless school board (April 27, 2018 Brabrand Briefing.pdf) in Fairfax, Virginia has proposed replacing the term “biological sex” in the health curriculum for grades 8-10 with the nonsensical, science-denying term “sex assigned at birth.” Apparently, board members aren’t “woke” to the fact that doctors don’t assign sex. They identify it.

• Government schools are mandating that faculty lie, ordering them to refer to students who masquerade as the opposite-sex by incorrect pronouns.

• Government schools are engaging in absolute censorship of resources that dissent from “LGBTQ” dogma even as they present resources that affirm it. That’s not education. That’s indoctrination.

• Professors are losing their jobs for expressing conservative or theologically orthodox views on sexuality and marriage.

• Christian owners of wedding-related businesses are being sued.

• The Boy Scouts of America was forced to accept openly homosexual scouts and leaders, and then girls who pretend they’re boys.

• Public libraries now have drag queen story hours for toddlers, and little boys dressed in drag march in the shameful “pride” parades that deface our once-great cities every June.

• “Progressives” like New York Times writer Frank Bruni have reinterpreted First Amendment religious protections to be limited to pew, home, and heart.

• Adoption and foster care agencies have been forced out of business for refusing to place children in the homes of homosexuals.

• Corporate America, professional medical and mental health organizations, the mainstream press, and the arts promote the pro-homosexual/pro-“trans” ideology.

• While leftists express their views of homosexuality freely at work, even starting pro-homosexual clubs and slapping silly safe space stickers on work spaces, conservatives risk loss of employment for expressing their views.

• Brendan Eich was forced out of his job at Mozilla, the company he founded, for donating to Prop 8—the California proposition that would have banned homosexual marriage.

• Minors are being surgically mutilated and chemically sterilized in a futile quest to mask their sex.

The homo/“trans” ideology not only affects but also harms everyone.

7.) “Gay people are in nature so how can they be against natural law. There have been gays throughout history.”

There are diverse definitions of the word “natural.” Colbert seems to be using it in the sense of “found or existing in the world,” which is not how it’s used in natural law theory. Natural law refers to the design of humans which points to their intended purposes (i.e., teleology).

All manner of disordered desires and deviant activities exist in nature, including all sorts of “paraphilias.” Would Colbert argue that because some humans exist who desire to be hurt or hurt others, to expose their genitals, or to have sex with toddlers that these phenomena are natural—in the natural law sense—and worthy of affirmation?

8.) “Your view for LGBT Christians is pretty judgmental. Take a look at the planks in your eyes before you go after the specks in LGBTs’ eyes.Judge not, or you will be judged.”

The erroneous claim that the Bible prohibits making judgments between right and wrong must be examined in light of the following verses: “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment” (John 7:24), and “The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice” (Psalm 37:30).

The verse that says, “Judge not, that you be not judge” means that we are not to engage in unrighteous judgment. We are not to condemn hypocritically a sin that we are engaging in. We’re to recognize the universality of sin and offer forgiveness as we have been forgiven. This verse does not entail a refusal to judge between right and wrong behavior. It does not prohibit humans from making distinctions between moral and immoral conduct.

It’s absurd to claim that the Bible prohibits Christians from making statements about what constitutes moral conduct (i.e., to judge). If it did mean that, we could not say that slavery, racism, bestiality, polyamory, selfishness, fornication, adultery, aggression, incest, lust, or gossip is immoral, for surely those moral propositions constitute the kind of judging that repels critics like Colbert.

Everyone does and should judge right from wrong. Every civilized human makes judgments every day between right and wrong actions. Christians have no moral authority to judge the salvific status of others, but Christians have every right to discriminate between right and wrong actions and to express those beliefs publicly. The ethical legitimacy of public speech is not dependent on the subjective response of those who hear such expressions.

As he railed against judgmentalism, here are some of the terms Colbert used to describe those who disapprove of homosexual acts: “self-righteous,” “sanctimonious piety,” “condescending attitude,” “rabid,” “bigoted,” “prejudiced,” and “hateful.”

9.)  “I did not choose to be gay anymore than you chose to be, presumably, straight. Being gay has nothing to do with a choice.”

While erotic attraction to persons of the same sex is not chosen, acting on those feelings is, indeed, chosen. Humans experience myriad powerful, persistent, unchosen feelings. Our task as moral beings is to determine on which of those feelings we are morally justified to act. And that task requires some arbiter of morality—some basis on which to judge right from wrong.

10.)  “I am not defying God. God does not condemn gay people, our lives and our love. God is fine with his creation of gay people.”

On what basis can Colbert make the claim that he is not defying God? He can’t rationally make such a claim based on either the plain words of the Old or New Testament.

God does, indeed, condemn homosexuals as well as many others. God condemns anyone who rejects the work of Christ on the Cross. One of the clearest signs of being saved from God’s wrath is repentance. Doing the will of the Father and confessing when we fail are signs that we are saved. Perpetual embrace of that which God condemns and calling that which God condemns “good” are sure signs that one will not see the kingdom of Heaven:

Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

God creates men and women. Through the fall of Adam, all of us are born with a fallen nature and are in need of redemption. While God for a time allows the disordering of his creation, he no more created in humans homoerotic desire than he created in humans adulterous desire, polyamorous desire, incestuous desire, “minor-attraction,” murderous desire, the desire to be an amputee, the desire to gossip, pride, covetousness, or physical anomalies.

If Christians truly love their neighbors as themselves, they should be prepared to respond courageously to claims like Colbert’s. Authentic love depends on knowing first what is true.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Conversation-with-Homosexual-Journalist.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

It’s official. The Mormons have finally figured out that they can’t do business with the devil. Bully for them.

More specifically, the Salt Lake City-based denomination is flipping off the demonic forces assigned by Beelzebub to wage war on God’s creation of male and female.

That’s where the minions of Hell have been concentrating their firepower in recent years.  It’s not for nothing that we’ve been told, over and over, that male-female differences are irrelevant and reality is entirely subjective.

But, be of good cheer. Resistance to the cultural insanity is growing.  Last Tuesday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints announced a parting of the ways with what used to be the Boy Scouts of America.

The Mormons have tried to look the other way since 2013, when the Scouts permitted gay members.  But it just got worse.  The Scouts’ century-old moral code, itself derived from Biblical morality, was pummeled from within and without.  The coup de grace was ordered by liberal corporate donors and performed by quisling BSA board members.  I bet none of them can tie a decent knot, but they sure can sabotage a great American institution.

Well, as noted, the Mormons have had enough.  Last year, the LDS pulled 185,000 boys aged 14 to 18 out of the Scouts.  When the remaining 425,000 boys depart for Mormon youth organizations, it will represent a nearly 20 percent decline in Scout membership, which is now at 2.3 million and falling from a high of 4 million back in the 1960s.

The Boy Scouts were never a genderless service organization like 4-H or other youth groups.   Boy Scouts were taught to be strongly masculine gentlemen guided by timeless values, such as respecting girls and women instead of identifying with them.  They molded millions of boys into modern-day knights, not just “persons.”

Despite winning every single court challenge to their policies, the Boy Scouts had been doing a duck and hide.  They abandoned public defense of their values and embraced only freedom of association, which any bone-headed group could claim.

In May 2015, BSA National President Robert Gates said that keeping out openly gay leaders “cannot be sustained.”  Sure, it could have.  But that would have meant actually fighting the bullies.  So, instead, the BSA National Executive Board voted to overturn the common-sense policy that had protected boys since 1910.  For some reason, this craven stunt did not settle things down.

Mr. Gates was not exactly new to this.  He was the Secretary of Defense under Barack Obama who orchestrated the end of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy against open homosexuality.

He has since gone on to be chancellor at the College of William and Mary, which was chartered in Williamsburg, Virginia in 1693 and named after the British royal couple.  As far as we know, neither William nor Mary ever got confused as to who was king and who was queen.

But back to the Organization Formerly Known as the Boy Scouts of America.  Following Mr. Gates’s lead, the Scouts announced on January 30, 2017, that girls who think they’re boys could enroll in previously boys-only programs.  On May 2, they finally took “Boy” out of the Boy Scouts and changed the name to Scouts BSA.

I wonder if the Girl Scouts, who are decidedly peeved at the brazen poaching of their potential recruits, will follow suit and excise “girl.”  They kicked God out of their oath long ago and have welcomed transgenders, so why not?

When the Boy Scouts began caving in 2013, Mormon leaders and some Protestants and Catholics tried to finesse it, extracting a promise that their troops could keep their own values.

More and more people are finding out the hard way that there is no placating Leftist bullies who mean to remake America into a socialist version of Sodom and Gomorrah.

That’s why some farsighted former Scout leaders founded Trail Life USA in 2013 to pick up the mantle. Now chartered in 48 states, Trail Life, while unabashedly Christian, welcomes all boys who abide by their standards. They work right alongside the American Heritage Girls, founded by former Girl Scout leaders for similar reasons.

I’ve met with Trail Life’s leaders, and they are stand-up guys.  As an Eagle Scout, I’d be proud to see boys in our family benefit from what Scouting used to offer and Trail Life USA still does.

This article was originally published by Townhall.com

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) announced Wednesday that it will start admitting girls to its Cub Scouts program, and eventually will create a parallel program that allows older girls to rise to the level of Eagle Scout.

In a statement, the BSA said its decision was in line with its “core values” and was driven by changes in the American family and busy parents desiring a Scouts-like program for their daughters.

“Starting in the 2018 program year, families can choose to sign up their sons and daughters for Cub Scouts,” the statement said. “Existing packs may choose to establish a new girl pack, establish a pack that consists of girl dens and boy dens or remain an all-boy pack. Cub Scout dens will be single-gender — all boys or all girls.”

It continues: “Using the same curriculum as the Boy Scouts program, the organization will also deliver a program for older girls, which will be announced in 2018 and projected to be available in 2019, that will enable them to earn the Eagle Scout rank. This unique approach allows the organization to maintain the integrity of the single gender model while also meeting the needs of today’s families.”

‘Zir Scouts’ next?

Conservative critics like Christian talk show host Janet Mefferd pounced on the BSA’s gender-neutral decision.

“When you have the Boy Scouts accepting girls (and gender-confused girls who think they’re boys), then the next logical step is for the Girl Scouts to accept boys. What does gender even mean anymore? You might as well join forces and become the ‘Zir Scouts’,” Mefferd told LifeSiteNews.

(“Zir” and “Ze” is a genderless pronoun created by “transgender” activists to replace “her” or “his,” and “he” or “she.” Another variation spells it as “Xir.”)

Conservative activist and Eagle Scout Charlie Kirk, founder and executive director of Turning Point USA, tweeted in response to the BSA announcement:

I am an Eagle Scout

Only boys should be in Boy Scouts

Only girls should be in Girl Scouts

Don’t change things that work

The BSA — whose membership is declining — said its “historic decision comes after years of receiving requests from families and girls, the organization evaluated the results of numerous research efforts, gaining input from current members and leaders, as well as parents and girls who’ve never been involved in Scouting – to understand how to offer families an important additional choice in meeting the character development needs of all their children.”

Randall Stephenson, the BSA’s national board chairman, was effusive about the new girls policy: “The BSA’s record of producing leaders with high character and integrity is amazing,” he said in the BSA release. “I’ve seen nothing that develops leadership skills and discipline like this organization. It is time to make these outstanding leadership development programs available to girls.”

The ATT CEO has presided over some liberal social changes in the Scouts organization that have outraged many former Scouts and pro-family, faith-based advocates like Franklin Graham, who has urged Christians to pull their sons out of the Scouts.

Beginning in 2013, the Boy Scouts moved to end their “morally straight” policy of excluding homosexual boy members, a policy that they had successfully defended in court going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. Then in 2015 the BSA decided to allow to adult homosexual men as leaders, despite the BSA’s history of adult male scoutmasters homosexually molesting boys in their care — the extent of which has still not been revealed to the public.

Earlier this year, the BSA waded into transgender controversies by saying it will allow severely gender-confused, biological girls (who identify as “boys” and want to live as “males”) to become Boy Scouts.

The Scouts’ politically correct moves appear to be taking a toll on membership, as new groups like the Christian-based Trail Life USA have been formed in response to the BSA’s liberal shift, while major church bodies like the Mormon Church have pulled away from the BSA. Perhaps this explains the opening to girls. The New York Post reports on the BSA’s plummeting numbers:

“Current participation in the Boy Scouts, which was founded in 1910, is down from 2.6 million in 2013 and more than 4 million in earlier years. The announcement comes as the organization and other youth service groups have seen dips in membership. The Girl Scouts, meanwhile, reported 1,566,671 youth members as of March, down from just over 2 million in 2014.”

“Just when you thought the Scout leadership could not be any more clueless about the actual purpose of the organization – raising boys to become responsible, masculine men – they come up with this,” said Robert Knight, a senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and an Eagle Scout.

“This is organizational vandalism and another sign that the current Scout executives care more about what the clinically insane Left and their media allies think than what is best for boys.  The only good to come out of this will be a further exodus toward Trail Life USA, the genuine heirs to the Boy Scout legacy.”

This article was originally posted at LifeSiteNews.com

Given its prominence in current public discourse, one would think that hate, not love, is a many splendored thing.

The perfectly good word, which oozes out of every media pore, is now so overused that it means next to nothing.  Every time you turn around, someone is accused of “hate” merely for expressing disagreement.

This is not just a matter of semantics. It’s serious. When you cheapen a word, it discourages honest discussion and leads to more confusion and conflict, which is how the devil likes it. We have it on good Authority that the underworld thrives on mayhem.

One large organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center, has made hundreds of millions of dollars trafficking in hate. That is, they hatefully and falsely accuse others of hatred, even those whose only crime is to advocate traditional moral values.

The SPLC once performed a valuable service identifying genuine hate groups, such as neo-Nazis, and alerting the authorities to them. Now, it boasts a kitty of more than $300 million, stashes millions in cash in overseas accounts, and smears anyone opposing its increasingly radical sexual agenda.

In a full-page ad in the Washington Post this past week, the SPLC explained why it continues to label the Family Research Council a “hate group” on its online “hate map.” They quoted from FRC statements that warn that homosexuality is “unnatural,” has “negative physical and psychological health effects,” and is being peddled to children. They don’t bother trying to refute any of this because they can’t. And they don’t mention that a would-be assassin, inspired by SPLC’s hate map, tried to commit mass murder at FRC’s headquarters in 2012, thwarted only by heroic building manager Leo Johnson, who took a bullet.

While the SPLC spins out of control in its hateful obsession to criminalize Christian morality, it has plenty of ideological company that also plays the “hate” card. Name the cause, and if you’re not on the progressive side, you’re – what else? – a “hater.”

If you oppose extreme environmentalism and think Al Gore’s a bit overcooked, you “hate” the planet. And Bambi.

If you think that NFL players should stand out of respect for the flag when the national anthem is played, you “hate” black people and want police to abuse them.

If you believe marriage is as God ordained it – the union of one man and one woman – you “hate” homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, and polyamorists.

If you believe that America should defend its borders and have orderly, lawful immigration, you “hate” immigrants.

If you believe that militant Islam poses a serious threat, you “hate” all Muslims.

If you oppose the government takeover of the nation’s health care system, you “hate” poor, sick people.

If you support voter ID laws and other common-sense reforms that discourage voter fraud, you “hate” minorities.

If you oppose more government spending, deeper federal debt and higher taxes, you “hate” poor people.

Conversely, if you don’t hate President Trump, you are a monster. And a bigot. And a hater.

As with any emotion, hate in and of itself is not wrong. In Psalm 119, for example, we’re told to “hate every false way.” There are plenty of other verses where that came from by which we are exhorted to hate evil and favor what is good.

Personally, I hate the evil scheme to geld the Boy Scouts of America. This past week, the Scout leadership, if you can call it that, created the Unisex Scouts of America by eliminating the requirement that Boy Scouts be boys. Actually, they did that earlier when they welcomed girls who think they are boys, right after opening up to boys and even leaders who are sexually attracted to males. It’s hard to believe that the Scout headquarters is in Texas, where most people know cowboys from cowgirls and bulls from heifers.

The whole point of Scouting from its origin in 1910 was to help boys become masculine, virtuous, God-fearing men. The camping, knot-tying, merit badges and civic engagement are important, but they should not be confused with the organization’s raison d’etre – raising boys to be men.

In recent years, radical groups have charged the Scouts with “hate” for maintaining their policies even as the culture slid into decadence. Despite consistent court rulings favoring the Scouts, the pounding obviously took its toll on the weaker sisters at the top of the Scout food chain. So they caved. And caved. And caved.

All this to say, if you hate America, you must love the moral chaos swirling around us.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com

Under the radar, near a campfire, a counter-cultural force is rising.

Only three years old, Trail Life USA, the Christian answer to the politically correct Boy Scouts of America, is operating 700 troops in 48 states, with nearly 30,000 troop members.  It’s still small compared to the BSA, which began in 1910 and claims more than two million members.  But Trail Life could be on the verge of far more growth as the culture descends into madness and parents seek a haven for their impressionable sons.

Chartered in 2013, shortly after the Scouts held a Soviet version of a national delegates vote to open their ranks to openly homosexual boys, Trail Life is modeled after the American Heritage Girls.

That’s the group founded in Ohio in 1995 by former Girl Scout leader Patti Garibay, who left the cookie-selling empire in disgust after they embraced their inner liberal selves, slipping feminist ideology into materials and allowing the girls to redefine God in the oath any way they wanted.

I was a Boy Scout myself for many years, reaching the Eagle rank.  We recited the Scout Oath and meant it.  I take their betrayal quite personally. Today, if we had a son the right age, we’d enroll him in Trail Life USA, where he’d get Scouting-type adventure plus appreciation for not only Creation but its Creator.

Trail Life, for which Mrs. Garibay was an advisor, took off rapidly.  In the first year or two, half of the troops comprised former Scout troops sponsored by churches or home schoolers that broke away after the Scouts chose political correctness over being “morally straight.”

The group’s colors correspond to the age levels of the boys, evoking Mt. Rainier, with green for grass at the base for the youngest (Woodlands—K through 5^th grade), gray for rocky terrain (Navigators—6^th through 8th grades), and blue for the sky (Adventurers – high school).

Boy Scouts who transfer can convert their BSA badges and credentials into equivalent awards, but Trail Life is markedly different in a couple of ways.

First, as they make clear, they are unabashedly Christian.  Trail Life is open to all boys, including those with different faiths or no faith, but adult leaders must sign a faith statement and incorporate spiritual lessons into activities.

Second, the program is “more robust, and outdoor-oriented,” Trail Life Chief Executive Officer Mark Hancock told me over lunch at the Army-Navy Club in downtown Washington.  “You won’t see a ‘video game’ merit badge,” which the Cub Scouts now offer.

Ah, if only they’d had that in Boy Scouts when I was trying to rack up 21 badges for the Eagle award. I had to settle for “basket weaving.”

Trail Life’s headquarters, just south of Greenville, South Carolina, is on 107 acres. It has a building housing the small, full-time leadership staff, and a camping area.  Provided by a donor, the campus had been a home for boys for 50 years, Mr. Hancock said.

John Stemberger, an Orlando attorney and one of Trail Life’s founders, was among those who tried mightily to save the Boy Scouts. He started On My Honor, which lobbied to keep the Scouts’ traditional moral standards.  Even before the BSA changed its policy in February 2013, Stemberger met with other men to plan a Christian version of the Scouts in case the BSA went bad.  They asked for help from the Heritage Girls, who now work alongside them, often meeting in the same churches at the same times, when entire families participate.

One of Trail Life’s best byproducts, according to Mr. Hancock, is the camaraderie of the Christian men who volunteer as leaders.

“There is this guy who did four tours in Afghanistan, and he works with the boys on archery and other outdoor skills, and the kids love him,” Hancock said. “I heard so much about ‘Mr. J.P.’ that I sought him out to thank him.  This gruff, special-ops guy teared up, and told me, “When I came back from Afghanistan, I never thought I would find a band of brothers again.”

At a Trail Life bonfire outside Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, Va., Hancock said, a woman walked up and told him that her husband had died 10 years before when they had a two-year-old son. She had despaired for his future without a father. “Now, he’s surrounded by these godly men, and I can’t thank you enough.”

“We’ve got a heart for fatherless boys,” Stemberger said, noting that he was mentoring a 14-year-old from the inner city whose father had been shot.

I asked Hancock what really sets Trail Life apart from other youth organizations, and he said, “We were forged in the fires of the cultural struggle, and we will not bend or bow.”

He noted that his son, who earned his Eagle badge just before the Scouts caved, had not renewed his membership.  In response to a BSA letter asking why, he sent a three-word reply:  “You weren’t brave.”

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com

The national president of the Boy Scouts of America, Robert Gates, said Thursday that the organization’s longstanding ban on participation by openly gay adults is no longer sustainable, and called for change in order to avert potentially destructive legal battles.

In a speech in Atlanta to the Scouts’ national annual meeting, Gates referred to recent moves by Scout councils in New York City and elsewhere to defy the ban.

“The status quo in our movement’s membership standards cannot be sustained,” he said.

Gates said no change in the policy would be made at the national meeting. But he raised the possibility of revising the policy at some point soon so that local Scout organizations could decide on their own whether to allow gays as leaders.”

Almost exactly two years to the day, Florida Family Policy Council President John Stemberger predicted on CNN that the Boy Scouts of America would change its policy again and also allow openly gay adults to be leaders within two years. Stemberger who also serves as Chairman of the Board of Trail Life USA, a Christian scouting organization, released the following statement:

“Trail Life USA is saddened by the announcement regarding the anticipated membership change in Boy Scouts of America, as many families and boys will be negatively affected by this departure from their own long-standing principles.  It is tragic that the BSA is willing to risk the safety and security of its boys because of peer pressure from activists groups.  Trail Life USA remains committed to timeless Christian values and to the hundreds of Charter Organizations and 23,000 members in 48 states.”

Stemberger’s CNN Debate with Scouts for Equality leader Zach Wahl’s can be seen HERE:

Boy Scouts membership declined another seven percent in the last reporting period, but there was apparently a drop of over 14 percent in Cub Scouts, which grooms future members and leaders of the Boy Scouts. Part of the loss could be due to the group’s decision to allow homosexuals as members.

Meanwhile, a Christian-based scouting group is thriving. Trail Life USA was set up after Boy Scouts made the decision to accept homosexuals. Executive director Mark Hancock shares the group’s success.

“We finished the year up with 534 troops chartered in 48 states and just under 20,000 members, so I feel like we’ve seen some tremendous growth there for an organization that’s just a year old,” he says.

The process of qualifying for a troop is not easy, and Hancock points out more 300 troops are waiting in line to be chartered. Trail Life USA is making sure faith is the focus.

“There’s a temptation to say, Wow, we can grow really fast if we want to. But from the board of directors on down, there’s such an emphasis on understanding that we are building something for long-term effect on generations of young men,” he says. “We feel like we could grow explosively overnight if we lowered our standards – but we have no desire to do that.”

Meanwhile, Trail Life USA is working on plans for the boys for this spring and summer, including camping and the end of the year Freedom Convention in Washington, DC.

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

Most people don’t know that men who sexually desire only male children are not homosexual. How can that be, a rational person may ask. The reason is that the “mental health” community, or the segment of it that controls the ever-shifting and highly politicized ground of mental health, has declared that if an adult sexually desires only children they don’t have a “sexual orientation” at all. That is to say, one has a sexual orientation if and only if one enjoys sex with adults. If a man desires sex with only female children, he is not a heterosexual pedophile. He is just a pedophile. If a man desires sex with either female or male children, he is not a “bisexual” pedophile. He is just a pedophile. And if a man desires sex with only male children, he is not homosexual at all. He’s just a pedophile (or pederast depending on how young he likes his prey).

This is why you continue to hear that the priest sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church and the more recently revealed sex abuse scandal in the Boy Scouts had nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality even when the sexual acts were between males and younger males. According to the evil powers that be, these scandals had nothing to do with homosexuality because homosexuality is one of the three “sexual orientations” (i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual) which one does not have unless one enjoys sex with adults.

While this is a useful stratagem for the Left, those with common sense see it for what it is: a way to distance homosexuality from pedophilia and pederasty (sex between adult males and adolescent boys, which is the most common form of homosexual practice throughout history). It’s a way to retain the belief that pedophilia and pederasty are disorders—both psychological and moral disorders—while jettisoning the notion that homosexuality is either a psychological or moral disorder (Just wait a few years, the normalization of pederasty is just around the ever darkening corner).

And it’s a way of attempting to conceal the fact that these sex scandals were disproportionately homosexual—I mean, they were disproportionately abuses perpetrated by men on boys, which clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality.

This brings me to the Boy Scouts’ new plan for cultivating moral straightness and honor for God: allowing boys who publicly affirm homosexuality as central to their identity to join the Scouts. No, this new policy does not allow openly homosexual adult leaders—yet. But just wait another couple of years for that too.* The prohibition of openly homosexual scout leaders doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of remaining in place. What possible justification can there be for retaining a prohibition of homosexual leaders when the Scouts have necessarily declared homosexuality normative and good?

And that’s precisely what’s happened. This is not a neutral policy. Adopting a policy that permits boys who openly affirm a homosexual identity to become members means that the Boy Scouts Council had to have come to a prior conclusion that homosexual acts are inherently moral. They couldn’t rationally conclude that homosexual acts are immoral and then allow boys who publicly affirm a homosexual identity to become members.

Further, this non-neutral position contradicts the will of God. The Boy Scouts of America now violate their own oath to honor God and cultivate “moral straightness,” all in the service of currying favor with homosexual activists and corporate donors who follow the edicts of homosexual activists like loyal lapdogs.

For those of you who are absolutely certain that sexual encounters between boys will not increase once the Boy Scouts allow openly homosexual boys to share tents with boys to whom they may be sexually attracted, and for those of you who are absolutely certain that early homosexual experiences do not contribute to later same-sex attraction, remember this: The Boy Scouts are implicitly now (and soon likely explicitly) teaching your sons that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. And remember, this teaching is not an isolated cultural experience. It compounds and confirms what boys are hearing in the films and television shows they watch, in the “anti-bullying” and sex ed disinformation they receive at school, in the biased mainstream press reporting, and in the public statements of foolish politicians who never read or think deeply on subjects related to homosexuality.

Parents, speak with your words and your deeds. Remove your sons from the Boy Scouts. Send letters to your local chapter leaders and the Boy Scouts Board explaining the reasons for your decision. Actively support and participate in one of the various alternatives that currently exist (see below) or are in the planning stages. Former Scouts, stop contributing. Send your donations instead to one of the following organizations:

Southern Baptist Convention’s Royal Ambassadors 

Assembly of God’s Royal Rangers 

Calvinist Cadet Corps 

CSB Ministries

My father, my husband, and my son were Boy Scouts. My grandsons will not be. These are small sacrifices to make in order to truly honor God.

*Here’s what infamous homosexual activist Wayne Besen, Founding Executive Director of the ironically named Truth Wins Out (TWO), thinks about the new policy:

TWO Condemns Boy Scouts Decision As Cowardly, Incoherent, And Mean-Spirited

Today’s Boy Scout’s decision was insulting and pandered to ignorance and bigotry at the expense of gay people and their families. Allowing gay scouts but not adult scout leaders was a compromise – only in the sense that BSA compromised its integrity and decency. Let’s be clear – this was not a step forward, but a step backward, because it reinforced the most vile stereotypes and misconceptions deliberately peddled by anti-gay activists.

 Today’s decision was degrading, dehumanizing, and disgraceful. It stigmatized LGBT people and their families and sends the dangerous message that they are inferior and a threat to society.

The new policy continues to tarnish the organization’s image and TWO urges increased pressure on the BSA.

Homosexuality is not a moral issue, but a natural expression of who some people are. However, bigotry is a moral issue – one which places the BSA on the wrong side of history.

TWO does applaud those who fought and victoriously ended the cruel ban on gay scouts. Now is the time to begin the next phase of this fight and bring down the final wall of BSA discrimination.

I agree with Besen on two points: The new policy is cowardly and incoherent.

As a manipulative political stratagem, the Left propagates the notion that the normalization of homosexuality is a cultural inevitability. Belief in this inevitability dispirits conservatives and depletes whatever reservoir of motivation they may have to dissent, thus effectively surrendering the public square to sexual subversives.

It is not, however, inevitable that one day all of society will come to believe that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. God’s truth and wisdom spoken with unequivocal, unashamed forthrightness, courage, consistency, and persistence by flawed people who take seriously the duties of discipleship can make a difference.

Look no further than the decision of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to postpone the vote on its national policy on homosexuality. It’s fair to assume that vociferous public opposition to the proposal to abandon its national policy prohibiting homosexuals from membership in or leadership of the Boy Scouts was the catalyst for this postponement. We should use this victory to refill our depleting reservoirs.

President Barack Obama in yet another proclamation that defies the God he claims to serve and hurts children, pontificated on the controversial issue:

My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life. The Scouts are a great institution that is promoting young people and exposing them to opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives, and I think that nobody should be barred from that.

That’s a mouthful of obfuscation. What he fails to address is whether organizations and associations have the right to make distinctions between moral and immoral acts. Homosexuality, unlike for example race, is centrally defined by volitional sexual acts that are open to moral assessment. When President Obama refers to “gays and lesbians,” he’s not referring only to people who experience same-sex attraction. He’s referring to people who experience same-sex attraction; affirm homosexual acts as moral and normative; and affirm same-sex attraction, acts, and relationships as central to their identity. If, according to President Obama, those who affirm same-sex attraction, acts, and relationships as moral “should have access” to “every institution and walk of life,” how, pray tell, do those who believe such acts and relationships are immoral exercise their freedom of religion and association?

Does President Obama really mean that “nobody” should be barred from the Boy Scouts? What about those who affirm polyamory or adult consensual incest as central to their identity? What about those who espouse theories of racial superiority? And how does an organization promote moral straightness or fidelity to God if it can’t make distinctions between moral and immoral conduct? (Let’s not forget that God has some rather uncompromising things to say about homosexuality.)

The BSA Executive Board has said that if it changes the national policy, local organizations will still be permitted to adopt whatever policy they want regarding homosexuality. Well, homosexual acts are either moral or immoral. There is no middle ground. If the board votes to change the national policy, it will necessarily have to have concluded that homosexual acts are moral acts.  Only if  homosexual acts are moral acts could the board permit local clubs to allow those who affirm homosexuality to serve in leadership positions. It would make no sense for the board to say that local clubs have the right to permit those who affirm immoral acts to serve in leadership positions. Conversely, it would make no sense for the board to say that local clubs have the right to prohibit those who affirm moral acts from serving in leadership positions. There can be no moral mugwumpery on this issue.

Thanks to the relentless, presumptuous quest of homosexuals to shape the moral views of other people’s children, this Boy Scout kerfuffle is not over. Despite specious claims to the contrary, this battle is not about “equality” or “fairness.” It’s about the desperate desire of homosexuals to eradicate conservative moral beliefs and every last vestige of moral disapproval from the global moral landscape. The proper response to this obnoxious pressure from homosexual activists and corporations—neither of which group is noted for their commitment to God or sexual rectitude—would be for the BSA leadership to honor God and act bravely by publicly affirming that there are objective moral truths from which our sexual lives are not exempt.

When considering the potential for harm to children, set aside for a moment the issue of homosexuals who may prey on the boys under their charge. There is another harm that will be done to all boys whose leaders are homosexual. Those boys will be taught by example the deceit that homosexual acts and relationships are moral. It is unconscionable that an organization committed to God and moral integrity would countenance such destructive role modeling.

Christians must take a stand on this issue. My father, my husband, and my son were Boy Scouts, so it pains me to say this, but if the National Executive Board decides to abandon its national policy on homosexuality, Christians should abandon the Boy Scouts.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email to the BSA urging its board members to retain its current policy on homosexuality. If the BSA hopes to retain the trust, loyalty, and affection of parents and supporters nationwide, it must unequivocally reaffirm its current God-honoring policy.

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has been under relentless assault by homosexual activists for years, and it appears the pressure is wearing down its leadership. The BSA may be poised to reverse its long-standing national policy that prohibits homosexuality in the Boy Scouts.

A review of the mission statement of the BSA and the Boy Scout Oath and Law are helpful in evaluating just how profoundly wrong the decision to change its policy on homosexuality would be.

The BSA mission statement:

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

The Boy Scout Oath:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

The Boy Scout Law:

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

How does the BSA promote fidelity to God if it permits men or women who affirm that which God views as detestable (i.e., homosexual acts) to serve as role models and leaders?

And how does the BSA promote fidelity to an oath when with a finger held to the political wind and a vote, its leadership decides that the Boy Scouts’ long-held convictions are dispensable?

There exist objective truths regarding sexual morality, truths which if violated mar the image of God imprinted on men and women. When men have sex with men or women have sex with women, they demonstrate a profound disrespect for God and for themselves, which, although less important, violates the Boy Scout Law which asserts that “a Scout is … reverent.”

No one is arguing that homosexual men and women are devoid of admirable values and traits that boys would be well-served to emulate. What many are arguing is that the affirmation of a homosexual identity is not one of them. Further, the affirmation of a homosexual identity is so profoundly immoral as to render them unsuitable for the role of shaping “morally straight” young men. No boy should be taught implicitly or explicitly that the affirmation of a homosexual identity or homosexual acts are moral acts.

BSA spokesperson Deron Smith issued this statement:

For more than 100 years, Scouting’s focus has been on working together to deliver the nation’s foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training….

Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.

This policy change would be a cowardly act because it would pass on to individual families the task of asking their local leaders what their policy is regarding homosexuality, which is far more difficult than having an established national policy. Maybe Deron Smith and other BSA leaders are able to deceive themselves into believing that such a policy change would constitute a “brave” and morally defensible act, but countless Americans know otherwise. This would be an act of cowardice driven by fear of perpetual slandering by homosexual activists and pressure from soulless corporations that do not have character formation as integral to their mission and yet self-righteously pretend they do.

In response to the announcement by Deron Smith, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) president, Herndon Graddick prematurely exulted, “The Boy Scouts of America have heard from scouts, corporations and millions of Americans that discriminating against gay scouts and scout leaders is wrong. Scouting is a valuable institution and this change will only strengthen its core principles of fairness and respect.”

In referring to “discrimination,” Graddick exploits the language of racial injustice. But making distinctions between moral and immoral sexual acts bears no similarity whatsoever to illegitimate discrimination of persons based on non-behavioral characteristics like race.

Graddick’s reference to “corporations” should remind Americans not to underestimate the influence of corporate pressure. Money is the driving force behind this possible policy reversal. Does anyone really believe that most parents who support Boy Scouts want homosexual men to contribute to the formation of their sons’ moral character?

Parents and other BSA supporters shouldn’t be duped into believing that this policy change, which would leave decisions regarding homosexuality to local organizations, will be left alone. Zach Wahls, Eagle Scout and founder of Scouts for Equality—who, interestingly, was raised by two lesbians—made clear that the relentless assault on the BSA’s commitment to sexual morality will continue unabated until every troop abandons moral convictions: “’We look forward to working with BSA Councils and chartering organizations across the country to end the exclusion of our gay brothers in Scouting, as well as the gay and lesbian leaders who serve the organizations so well.’” Regarding the possibility of only some clubs allowing homosexual members, Wahl correctly and ominously proclaimed, “‘Once you’ve started to introduce openly gay members, there’s no way to stop it.’”

Take ACTION:  Despite eager chomping-at-the bit accounts from homosexual activists, however, the deal is not yet done. Parents of current and future Boy Scouts and alumni supporters can make a difference. Click HERE to send an email or take a moment to call any of these numbers to express your opposition to any policy change: (972) 580-2400 (also 2401, 2405, 2239, 2443, 2280, 2199).