Note: This is Part 2 of a three-part series. Read Part 1, “Boy Scouts want to ‘split the baby.'”
“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” – Mark Twain
Dealing with a sticky issue and want to pass the buck? The timeworn established practice is to conduct a study. That is how the Executive Committee responsible for governing the Boy Scouts of America, decided to deal with the issue of opening its ranks to homosexuals.
The results of this “study” led to a proposal that will be presented to roughly 1,400 voting members of its National Council on May 24. It is a compromise that will please no one: admit homosexual youth but keep the ban in place that prevents openly gay adults from becoming Scout leaders.
A closer look at the Executive Summary released to the media reveals the twisted logic and the true agenda of those charged with running this prestigious youth organization.
The “key findings” are revealing. Some are in italics below.
- Attitudes and opinions among Americans related to gay and lesbian relationships have changed rapidly over the past three years.
This is not about upholding the values that have made Scouting Scouting. It is about public opinion.
- Parents in three of four BSA regions oppose the current membership policy.
A closer look reveals it is not about the opinion of the parents of boys involved in Scouting. This survey had to include parents in general in order to reach this conclusion. It is well understood that conservative parents channel their boys into Scouting because of its emphasis on conservative values, while more liberal parents choose other activities for their children.
However, the same sleight-of-hand was used to make it appear that the majority of the boys in Scouting wish to change the policy.
Not true! In fact, three of the four BSA regions recommended “no change to the current policy.”
- Slightly more members of the Board and Advisory Council initially supported the current policy, but Board members reversed themselves to slightly opposing the current rules after responding to the scenarios.
In other words, members of the Board and Advisory Council were manipulated!
One surprise: Only 33 percent of those identified as “major donors” support a change, but – and this is key – the majority of current and former corporations that have or are now supporting Scouting support a change.
It is clear that this capitulation is about keeping those large corporate donors who have been pressured by gay-rights activists. Money is the bottom line!
But just how much money is really needed to fund Scouting? You need a few pup tents, a printing press, computers, a small national staff, local campgrounds and the insurance to protect the organization and its volunteers. You do not the tens of millions that are poured into the national organization and its sprawling reserves.
The Summit in West Virginia covers over 10,600 acres and, when finished, will soak up hundreds of millions of dollars. It will be more of a monument to the adults who run Scouting than the boys in the local troops.
By far the most troubling aspect of “the study” were the four “experts” on child safety who were consulted: David Finkelhor, W. Walter Menninger, Charol Shakeshaft and Victor Vieth. They are said to be “consistent” in findings such as this:
- The nearly universal opinion among sexual abuse authorities is that same-sex sexual interest or same-sex sexual experience, either in adults or youth, is NOT a risk factor for sexually abusing children.
This flies in the face of common sense: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men, and over one-third of these crimes are with boys. In other words, they are homosexual in nature. Since only between 1-3 percent of the overall population is gay, one must assume that homosexual men, in particular, are a problem for youth organizations.
At least two of these experts, Finkelhor and Shakeshaft, have explained this away by pointing out that a great number of the men who victimize young boys are not “self-identified homosexuals.”
Ah, that makes all the difference. We don’t count those who commit homosexual acts but don’t “self-identify” as homosexuals. We don’t count pedophiles who only want to commit homosexual acts with children. Also, we don’t count those who have been married to women or those the popular culture would identify as bisexual.
This proposed resolution puts the Boy Scouts on a slippery slope. Any rational person knows it will not stop with admitting self-identified gay youth. Who could defend the policy of admitting a gay teen and then kicking him out of Scouting on his 18th birthday?
Gay activists are patient. They take incremental victories. Apparently some activists on the BSA Executive Committee are willing to do the same.
Next week: Following the Girl Scouts’ example