- Text smaller
- Text bigger
King Solomon was considered one of the wisest men in the world. According to the Bible, when two women came before him fighting over a baby, both claiming to be its mother, Solomon ordered that the child be cut in half with a sword. One woman was perfectly satisfied with his decision, but when the other offered to give up the child in order to save him, Solomon knew who the real mother was and gave the child to her.
The leadership of the Boy Scouts of America has proposed a similar arrangement in the effort to satisfy its members, volunteers and donors over the issue of admitting open homosexuals into its ranks.
The proposal, which will be voted on May 24, is to admit homosexual young people into Scouting, while keeping the ban in place that prevents homosexuals from serving as staff or adult leaders. This proposal satisfies no one and, if it goes through, will mean the death of Scouting as we know it.
To pretend that this baby can survive is, at best, self-denial or, at worse, hypocrisy!
The Scout Oath, which members pledge to keep, begins:
“On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country …”
Furthermore, a Scout pledges “To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
Since all major religions condemn the practice of homosexuality in the strongest terms, it is as impossible for young people who declare themselves to be homosexuals to keep the oath, as it is for atheists, who also are barred from becoming Boy Scouts.
It is true that some liberal denominations or sects within religions have attempted to explain away the prohibitions on homosexuality, fornication and even adultery. They fool no one, least of all the Creator who designed and made us.
So how did the BSA Executive Committee, which crafted this resolution, attempt to square this circle?
The answer is in the whereases, which are part of the proposed amendment:
WHEREAS, Scouting is a youth program,
and any sexual conduct,
whether homosexual or heterosexual,
by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the
virtues of Scouting;
Hello! Homosexuality is a choice. One is not born that way as some claim. If that were the case there would be no former homosexuals. There is no gay gene. Science has found no biological basis for homosexuality, though not for lack of trying. Homosexuality is a practice, not a gender.
How does a young boy decide that he is a homosexual? It is by engaging in this sexual conduct.
It is no secret that surveys taken on gay issues like marriage show that the younger the respondents, the more likely they are to embrace the idea. The surveys taken by the Scouts in the run-up to this vote were no different.
Why? Because, we sat idly by and allowed homosexuality to be mainstreamed, promoted and, in fact, encouraged in our schools along with all manner of sexual activity.
Do the adults who drafted this resolution seriously believe that a young boy who “comes out” and declares himself to be homosexual and is demanding to be admitted to the Boy Scouts just came to that conclusion out of the blue? Seriously, are they really that naive?
A closer examination of the “findings” of the study commissioned by the Executive Committee reveals that the major force behind the push to admit homosexuals is not from its membership or the chartering organizations but from its corporate donors.
Gay-rights activists, though small in number, are bullies. Large corporations are particularly sensitive to this pressure. Most now have policy statements that include “sexual orientation” (the term invented by gay-rights activists to make this practice appear immutable) in their non-discrimination policy statements.
Over the years, these activists have turned up the heat on corporate donors to adhere to that non-discrimination policy by cutting their donations to the Boy Scouts. Many already have pulled out. Others are being pressured to do so.
That is why the Boy Scouts are attempting to cut the baby in half. This is not about upholding the high moral standards that have characterized the Boy Scouts from the very beginning. It is not even about pretending that boys who declare themselves to be homosexual are not engaging in this activity. It is about money.
The Executive Committee is attempting to shield itself from the righteous indignation of its membership by making members believe it is their idea. Let’s hope and pray that the voting delegates who assemble in May will figure it out. The sword is raised. The jury is out.
(Next week: A closer look at the study that led to this resolution.)