Tag Archives: morality

A requiem for the Boy Scouts

My comments and disclaimer: Before you read this article, please note it is written by Albert Mohler. The article is quite good in exposing what has happened to the scouts.  However, Mohler is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who heads two UN-NGOs.  (UNITED NATION NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS).  Dr. Mohler, who is the founding fellow of Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention is also a board member of Focus on the Family, which was taken over and headed by neo-con Jim Daly. Dr. Mohler’s superior at the ERLC, Richard Land, is a CFR member. To be granted NGO status, they must agree with the UN and its one-world agenda.   Dr. Land wants Christians to be “radical change agents committed to the common good.” This is clearly the language of Communitarianism and the dialectic process. A change agent’s purpose is to get others to compromise their Biblically-held truths for the “common good.” Go here to learn more about the two UN-NGOs Dr. Mohler heads.  (Two Change Agents in the Church is the title of the article.)

May 27, 2015 (AlbertMohler.com) — The Boy Scouts were doomed the moment the national leadership decided to preserve the organization at the cost of the values and ideals that gave it birth. Speaking to a national meeting of Boy Scouts of America leaders, President Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, called for the B.S.A. to abandon its policy of allowing the participation of openly gay scouts, but not the involvement of openly-gay adults.

Speaking in Atlanta, Secretary Gates told his fellow B.S.A. leaders that “we must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.” Gates presented a matter-of-fact briefing to the leaders, speaking in entirely pragmatic terms. There was not a shred of moral insight or argument in his statement, other than his belief that the Scouts must do whatever is necessary, or face “the end of us as a national movement.”

Even as he took office last year, Gates indicated that he was not satisfied with the compromise the B.S.A. national board adopted in 2013. After insisting, just six months earlier, that the Scouts would not change their policy excluding openly-gay scouts and scouting leaders — a policy national leaders acknowledged was expected by the vast majority of scout parents — the national board crumbled under external pressure, largely from activist organizations and major corporations.

By any honest account, the policy adopted in 2013 was a compromise that anyone could see would not hold. By allowing for openly-gay scouts but not openly-gay adult leaders, the B.S.A. put itself in a no-man’s land of moral evasion. As recently as 2004 the Boy Scouts of America had maintained that homosexual conduct is “inconsistent” with the Scout Oath’s requirement that a scout be “morally straight.” By 2013 that policy — successfully defended all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States — was an embarrassment to some leaders and in some regions of the country.

But the 2013 policy was stranded in moral ambiguity. If there is nothing morally deficient with homosexuality, why allow gay scouts but not gay leaders? Furthermore, about 70 percent of all local scouting units are sponsored by religious organizations, who found themselves in the position of choosing between remaining loyal to the scouting organization or committed to their own religious convictions. Some decided to wait it out.

Predictably, the waiting is soon to be over. Gates indicated to the press that a decision is likely by October. The handwriting is on the tent wall, and the direction is set. The compromised policy of 2013 is about to be abandoned, with scouting at all levels, including adult leaders, to be open regardless of sexual orientation.

Back in 2013, those who demanded the full inclusion of gay scouts and leaders registered their dissatisfaction with the new policy. The editorial board of The New York Times called the new policy “an unprincipled position” — and they were right. As the editors pushed onward, they warned that the move “should hardly satisfy” the demand for full inclusion. Once again, they were clearly right. Both sides could see the compromise of 2013 was unprincipled and unsustainable.

Now, Secretary Gates proposes that the compromise be abandoned, accepting the inclusion of openly-gay leaders. His argument is entirely based on the self-preservation of the B.S.A. as a national organization. He made no moral argument at all. He did not celebrate the new policy he proposed on moral grounds, nor did he lament the loss of the older policy on moral grounds. There were no moral elements in his argument.

Tellingly, Gates referred to internal pressures from scouting organizations in several states that were openly defying the national ban on gay adult leaders, and he also made reference to the threat of lawsuits that, in his words, would threaten to “forbid any kind of membership standard, including our foundational belief in duty to God and our focus on serving the specific needs of boys.”

What Gates did not mention was the fact that the inclusion of openly gay leaders and scouts, along with the challenge that already comes from the feminism and transgender advocates, makes the very existence of the Boy Scouts ever more vulnerable.

The inescapable fact is that America is becoming a society in which the very idea of the Boy Scouts is increasingly implausible. The current leadership of the B.S.A. would supposedly save the Boy Scouts as an organization, but leave scouting in yet another unsustainable compromise.

That was made clear when Gates argued that the religious organizations that sponsor local units should remain free to establish their own criteria for adult leaders “consistent with their faith.” But Gates surely knows that this assurance is a very thin promise. Perhaps Gates hopes that the lawsuits will now be directed against churches, instead of against the Boy Scouts of America.

The moral disaster of the Gates proposal is matched by a legal and political disaster. Writing at The Washington Post, Sarah Kaplan and Michael E. Miller called the move by Gates “an astute capitulation,” but they also recognized the predicament Gates had made deepened:

“That’s because the Boy Scouts are now in a position where politically they can do no right. Besieged by the left for decades for not allowing gay scouts or leaders, the Boy Scouts are now being attacked from the right. By allowing gay scouts two years ago and now considering allowing gay leaders as well, a deeply traditional organization is trying to stay attuned to the times. But it also risks alienating many core members, for whom the Boy Scouts have long been a bedrock of conservative American life.”

Writing at National Review, Kevin D. Williamson nailed Gates for failing to make a moral argument, when the issue, regardless of the side one takes, is inescapably moral:

“Instead, he argues from organizational self-interest — never mind if it is right or wrong, the policy puts Scouting Inc. in a tough position, so best to abandon it. Duty to God and country? . . . Depending on your point of view, Gates is either doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason or doing the right thing for the wrong reason. ”

As Williamson argues, those who are committed to both sides of the argument over homosexuality are making a moral argument — and Gates is not. To the defenders of the Scout’s longstanding policy, Gates’s proposal is “understood as simple moral cowardice.” On the other hand, those who Williamson describes as taking “the more contemporary view of homosexuality” will see Gates’s position as “arguably even more distasteful.” In the end, “As a moral rationale, ‘the end of us as a national movement’ fails, and fails pitifully, regardless of one’s views on homosexuality.”

So true, and so sad. As a former Boy Scout, I lament the inevitable loss of scouting, knowing full well how much good the scouting movement has done in the lives of countless boys and men. Secretary Gates has signaled his determination to preserve the Boy Scouts of America “as a national movement.” Again, he told the scouting leaders, “we must deal with the world as it is, not as we might want it to be.”

Of course, he never even said how he wanted it to be. That would have required a moral argument. The most unforgivable truth about Gates’s proposal for the Boy Scouts is that it was presented with no moral argument at all. Nevertheless, the eventual requiem for the Boy Scouts will reveal a moral lesson to be sure. But it will be a lesson learned too late, and at so great a loss.

 

The ongoing war against Christianity

by Star Parker  http://www.urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=599&t=The-ongoing-war-against-Christianity

apple

Columnist George Will points out that Apple’s openly gay CEO, Tim Cook, “…thinks Indiana is a terrible place. (But) He opened marketing and retail operations in Saudi Arabia two months before a man was sentenced to 450 lashes for being gay.”

Will was commenting on Cook’s recent Washington Post op-ed protesting Indiana’s new, now amended, Religious Freedom Restoration Act and similar initiatives around the country.

apple-hypocrisy-faggazoids

World Magazine reports that Cook has recently been in the United Arab Emirates negotiating on behalf of Apple, where homosexuality is against the law and the penalty is death.

Cook’s duplicity is not just in deeds, but also in words.

The Indiana law was passed to protect religious freedom, mirroring existing federal law and law in 31 states around the nation.

Our Declaration of Independence notes our inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But for Cook, who purports in his op-ed to care about freedom, protection of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for a Christian is an act of aggression against gays.

He renders religious freedom meaningless by accusing those who exercise their right of protection of discrimination against those who wish to violate their rights.

“This isn’t a political issue. It isn’t a religious issue. This is about how we treat each other as human beings,” he writes. You would think that Cook, CEO of the most valuable company in the world, with a reported personal net worth of $400 million, could perceive his transparent double standard.

For him and other homosexual activists, Christians cannot observe their religion and live by the Bible’s words they hold sacred without discriminating against gays. If this is about “how we treat each other as human beings,” as Cook writes, then how can he justify a same-sex couple going to a baker or photographer they well know is Christian, for whom homosexuality is a sin, and demand a cake or photography for a gay wedding. Can Tim Cook really believe that this is decent, tolerant, freedom loving human behavior?

The truth is that the objective of the homosexual campaign is not about American freedom. The objective is the de-legitimization and annihilation of Christianity in America.

This did not begin yesterday.

It is now well over a half century that the words of our constitution are being distorted so that the very protections guaranteed for Christians are used as weapons against them.

From the prohibition of prayer in school, to prohibitions of public displays of the Ten Commandments and Christian symbols, to lawsuits against Christian photographers for refusing to provide the photography for gay weddings, the war against Christian presence in America becomes increasingly open and aggressive.

And what has happened over the last half century while this has been going on?

The institutions and behavior that provide the glue holding together a faithful, civil, and virtuous society have collapsed. The traditional American family is in shambles. Forty three percent of our babies now born to unwed mothers compared to 5 percent a half century ago. And over 56 million aborted unborn children.

It was not by accident that America’s first president George Washington warned the young nation, in his farewell address, that religion and morality are “indispensible” to “political prosperity” and he cautioned against “the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”

Meanwhile, as legal violence is used in the war on Christianity at home, physical violence is used in the same war in Muslim countries abroad. The Wall Street Journal reports that Christians today make up 5 percent of the population in the Middle East compared to 20 percent a hundred years ago.

As many political and business leaders cowardly enable this global war on Christianity, Christians must stand in defense of themselves and their religion and convictions.