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). 

 The Associated Press reported this week on a new study from a homosexual demands group trumpeting the “highest-ever number of gay and bisexual characters on scripted broadcast network” television.  They note that the number of homosexual characters on cable television is also growing.  In their 17^th annual “Where We Are on TV” report the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) found that overall homosexuals represent nearly 5 percent of TV characters, up from 2.9 percent in 2011.   ABC has the highest amount at 5.2 percent of their regular characters portrayed as homosexual.  CBS was saluted as having the largest increase from 0.7 percent in 2011 to 2.8 percent in 2012.
 
These may not sound like very significant or influential numbers, but remember that in the real world homosexuals make up only between 2 and 3 percent of the population.  So, television viewers are seeing homosexuality portrayed at a rate that is twice as high as it occurs in real life, and you can bet that none of homosexuality’s individual harms are ever revealed on TV. GLAAD makes sure that the portrayal of homosexuality on TV is always positive.  
 
Imagine the impact TV might have on society if real world demographic numbers were applied to characters.  When is the last time you saw even one positive portrayal of a Christian on a TV sitcom or drama?  A 2008 study found that 34 percent of Americans describe themselves not simply as Christian, but as “born-again” Christians.  If the rate for Christians was the same as homosexual portrayals, nearly 7 out of 10 TV characters would be positive displays of Christianity.   Imagine the impact that would have on viewers and our culture.
 
Ironically, GLAAD President Herndon Graddick said of their report “More and more Americans have come to accept their LGBT family members, friends, co-workers and peers, and as audiences tune into their favorite programs, they expect to see the same diversity of people they encounter in their daily lives.”   Apparently, this “same diversity of people” only applies to one’s bedroom behavioral choices.
 
As I mentioned, Christian characters are virtually non-existent on network TV. The number of Hispanic characters is actually on the decline from 2011, and massively underrepresented by 75 percent. African-Americans are also underrepresented on TV, compared to their actual population numbers. Those two genetic traits of skin color cannot be hidden on camera.  In that sense, one has to give groups like GLAAD their due, they have made sure what a small few choose to do in the bedroom is significantly over-glorified and over-represented as a character lifestyle on TV.

While many conservatives call for a forfeit — I mean, truce — on the social issues, the other side gleefully forges ahead using our money to indoctrinate our kids in public schools. Conservatives used to be asleep at the wheel, but now we’re just asleep. We forfeited the wheel decades ago.

It’s true that public education is public in the sense that whatever it is that goes on in our schools is paid for by the public, but, at least on sexuality issues, there is no education going on. “Progressive” agents of change are unabashedly engaging in censorship in the service of promoting their social and political interests. Their motto: “Critical thinking and intellectual diversity be damned.”

Here is a just a sampling of the “educational” activities, events, projects, and resources that our agents of change and their ideological compeers from the world of homosexual activism have introduced to our public schools during the “truce”:

• Changing the Game: the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) new sports project “is an education and advocacy initiative focused on addressing [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] issues in K-12 school-based athletic and physical education programs” (emphasis added).
  
  
• Ally Week (GLSEN)
  
  
• GLSEN Elementary Toolkit (Read more HERE.)
  
  
• Welcoming Schools (Human Rights Campaign): “Welcoming Schools” provides “tools, lessons, and resources,” including activities and consultants to administrators and teachers that seek to normalize and affirm homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender confusion in elementary schools.
  
  
• Spirit Day (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)
  
  
• Transgender Day of Remembrance
  
  
• National Coming Out Day (Human Rights Campaign)
  
  
• OK4U2BGAY, created by the organization H8SUX (Read more HERE.)

• National Sexuality Education Standards (GLSEN, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS et al) (Read more HERE.)
  
  
• “Do Something!” Transforming Critiques of Gender Stereotypes Into Activism” (Southern Poverty Law Center’s Educational Project, Teaching Tolerance): This series of lessons on gender confusion is intended for children in pre-school through grade 5 who, according to Teaching Tolerance, will “benefit from participating in activism because it helps them understand the socially constructed nature of gender” and “overcome the damage done by internalized gender stereotypes.”
  
  
• And last, but not least, the queen of public school political protests: the Day of Silence

The Day of Silence, which is promoted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, takes place in middle and high schools all around the country this Friday April 20. GLSEN asks students to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence, which, of course, disrupts the normal course of a school day. Imagine if multiple groups were permitted to engage in this kind of political protest during the year.

GLSEN provides cards to students to give to teachers explaining the reason for their refusal to speak. In 2002, this is what the card said:

Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today. What are you going to do to end the silence?

A few observations on this card:

• GLSEN itself called it a protest.
• GLSEN suggests that homosexuals are “silenced,” which is ironic in light of the of the primacy of homosexuality-affirmation in public education, the mainstream news media, and the arts, and the concomitant censorship of dissenting voices in most of those contexts. It is often noted that even FOX News has become increasingly silent on (if not downright supportive of) the homosexuality-affirming movement, with numerous “conservative” FOX contributors displaying an overt hostility and condescension to conservative positions on issues related to homosexuality.
• This 2002 Day of Silence card given by students to teachers challenges teachers to “do” something to “end the silence,” which, translated into plain English, means teachers are supposed to do something to eradicate moral disapproval of homosexuality.

The 2012 card now says this:

Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence (DOS), a national youth movement bringing attention to the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by anti-LGBT bullying, name-calling and harassment. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward building awareness and making a commitment to address these injustices.

Think about the voices you ARE NOT hearing today.

A few observations about this newer card:

• GLSEN hopes to distance the Day of Silence from the notion of “protesting.” Instead, they’re  merely “bringing attention” to an issue.
• They have added the always useful language about “bullying,” and “name-calling.” This language shift enhances GLSEN’s ability to promote the lie that opposition to the Day of Silence constitutes support for bullying.
• They removed the presumptuous suggestion that others have a moral obligation to fight for the eradication of conservative moral beliefs—which is the ultimate end game of GLSEN.

It’s not just parents who should be opposing the Day of Silence. Every conservative taxpayer, every conservative teacher, and every conservative administrator should be coming alongside parents and working to restore integrity to public education.

First, it’s a stewardship issue. Our taxes are being used for illegitimate political purposes.

Second, students in school today are the culture-makers of tomorrow. We have a vested interest in the soundness of their education.

Third, this isn’t one isolated event. It’s one part of a large, ominous picture that includes curricular resources and activities in theater, English, and social studies classes; sex ed classes that promote liberal assumptions about homosexuality; anti-bullying programs; and countless activities created and promoted by homosexual activist organizations. Re-examine the list above and note the cacophonous sounds of “silence.”

Fourth, the rarely told truth is that many students and teachers on both the political right and left dislike intensely the Day of Silence. They hate the dissension that the Day of Silence brings to their school day. Not all liberal teachers use the classroom for political purposes. Many just want to teach their subject matter. Many teachers resent having to modify lesson plans or expectations to accommodate student silence but feel if they don’t, they will be viewed as bigots and bully-enablers.

Administrators:

Tell teachers they have no legal obligation to allow students to refuse to speak in class and that they should not permit political protests in the classroom. Communicate to parents and students that students have no legal right to refuse to speak in class and that classes will take place as usual.

Teachers:

Plan activities that involve student verbal participation and follow all normal disciplinary procedures that would apply to students who refuse to obey instructions.

Community members without students in the school:

Contact your local middle and high school administrators. Ask them if teachers are permitted to allow students to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence. If they permit this political protest, tell them you object to public school teachers who are subsidized by your taxes allowing instructional time to be used to promote controversial moral and political views in the classroom. Send a letter to your local press and read a prepared statement at the next school board meeting expressing the same ideas.

Parents:

Call your children’s middle and high schools today. Ask if the school is permitting teachers to allow students to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence. If the school says “no,” ask them how and when this will be communicated to parents, teachers, and students. It should be communicated at least several days before the Day of Silence.

If your administration does not communicate this expectation to parents, teachers, and students, call your child out of school, because it means the administration is ignoring the issue and tacitly permitting teachers to allow the silent protest to take place.

If your school administration says that teachers may permit students to refuse to speak during class, call your child out of school. Tell your administration and school board that since they are permitting instructional time to be exploited for a political protest, your child will not be in school. This will remove your child from an environment that fosters controversy, and your child’s absence will cost the district money.

Then go to your next school board meeting and lodge an unequivocal complaint.

While homosexual activism has infiltrated public schools in countless ways, the Day of Silence Walkout is is virtually the only organized effort available to parents to express their opposition to such activism. And it’s one that takes very little courage. If we continue to do and say nothing, the pro-homosexual activism increases and the children who are targets of such indoctrination become ever younger.

For more information, click here: Day of Silence Walkout.