Timothy Birdnow

My article about Rex Tillerson's breaking of the Boy Scouts made it to Lifesitenews, a website I have always had respected greatly.

Author Peter LaBarbera adds a few interesting details:

"The Boy Scouts’ shift toward homosexual advocacy was especially bitter for American pro-family advocates since the Scouts—in the 2000 BSA vs. Dale case--had already won their right through the U.S. Supreme Court not to hire adult homosexuals, based on their First Amendment freedom to live by their own moral code.

The BSA has had a problem with sexual predators as homosexual Scoutmasters—exposed through a lawsuit that forced the release of a portion of the BSA’s so-called "perversion files.”
Exxon goes "gay”

Tillerson's corporation, Exxon-Mobil, initially resisted adopting broad homosexuality- and transgender-affirming policies advocated by LGBT activists. This led liberal "gay” groups like Human Rights Campaign to target Exxon-Mobil for protests.

Thus Exxon became a part of the corporate "culture wars” as conservatives would go out of their way to buy the politically incorrect company’s gas, while homosexual activists and their liberal allies would consciously avoid Exxon stations.

However, Exxon now has an 85 percent ranking on HRC’s 2017 "Corporate Equality Index,” the organization’s self-serving guide for scoring major corporations on LGBTQ issues and philanthropy. That score is up from 25 percent in 2013.

Human Rights Campaign charged that Exxon-Mobil shifted its homosexual-related policies only to become eligible for federal contracts--after President Obama issued an executive order mandating that the federal government only do business with contractors that have explicit pro-LGBTQ nondiscrimination policies."

End excerpt.

Yes indeed; I would have included that but had to cut it for brevity (always a problem with these articles.) The Boy Scouts was forced into throwing the door open to homosexuals of all stripes - both as Scouts and Scoutmasters - at a time they were under assault for, drum roll please - homosexual misconduct! The BSA was targeted as the next victim after the Left so successfully injured the Catholic Church by uncovering the pedophilia among priests (and there is more pedophilia in public schools than Catholic, but who worries about facts and details?) The thing is, raising a stink about things that were happening in Catholic schools was politically expedient, and many of the people who would have no problem with men sodomizing young boys were morally outraged at priests doing it. The attack worked, because, well, Americans still have some moral compass and the idea of some trusted authority figure abusing a young kid filled them with horror.

It worked with the Catholics, so why not the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts are an enemy to Progressivism, because they anchor young kids in traditional morality and America's culture and heritage. Progressives hate all of that, and demand changes to remake the world.

So, when homosexual sodomy comes to light in the Scouts the Left demands the BSA open to homosexuals. Makes sense to me!
Even more baffling, though, is the BSA went along with it, in no small part thanks to future Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

My article also appeared at Free Republic and Lucianne, both traditionally strong conservative sites.

Strangely enough, I took something of a beating at both as many people don't see this as any sort of an issue.

This illustrates the triumph of materialism and the victory of neo-conservativism. Most of these posters at both sites would be quite wroth if I were to call them neocons, but that is precisely what they are; economically conservative but socially liberal in many ways. Neocons were Democrats who moved to the Republican party because they didn't like the socialist schemes coming out of the Dems. They didn't agree with the Christian morality of the Republicans, though. And I would dare say most conservatives now think that way. One can no longer argue a moral issue on the basis of morality or tradition; the argument must go to materialistic and pragmatic terms or be dismissed out of hand. It used to be the case that in America you could point to the Bible on matters of morality (not necessarily of science or facts) and nobody could argue. Oh, there was argument, but it was always about interpretation of the text; nobody disputed the text itself. No longer.

Now saying "homosexuality is immoral" and spiritually abominable is sneered at. It doesn't matter that the text is plain as day, we can't make that argument. Nonjudgementalism is now our religion, and Tolerance our god. It does no good to point to history and tradition. I could point out that there is no major religion on Earth that is even neutral to homosexuality; it is condemned to differing degrees by all of them. And there are no good historical precedents except in very decadent cultures and very, very limited examples of nations accepting homosexuality. The best the homosexual lobby can do is point to ancient Greece. But the greatest of the Greek philosophers - Plato - considered it an abomination, as did most other major players in Greece in antiquity. Yes, there was a tradition in a few city states of apprenticing young boys to adults who took their payment in, uh, nontraditional ways, but that didn't last very long (the Golden Age in Greece only lasted fifty years) and it earned the Greeks absolutely dreadful reputations among all the rest of the Mediterranean peoples. Greek pedophilia was an aberration, and quickly succumbed to the higher mores of the surrounding Peoples. How was it that Phillip of Macedon - a hillbilly cousin the Greeks - was able to conquer them so easily? Yes, the Greeks were worn out from fighting amongst themselves but they were likely exhausted from moral turpitude as well.

At any rate, there is no major historical precedent that can be pointed to. Our gay agenda is a worldwide social experiment. Up until the last couple of decades most people understood that homosexuality was quite damaging to society in many ways.

The fiscal conservatives don't seem to see it. They think it does not affect, say, taxes but it does. How much have we spent on AIDS research since the disease broke out among the gay population? Oh, it is true non-gay people get it, but it exploded among homosexuals and continues to be a "gay disease". There are others, such as "gay bowel syndrome" a parasitic infestation caused by repeated tearing of the lining of the anus, for instance. And many diseases that occasionally plague heterosexuals are rampant in the homosexual community, such as syphilis and gonorrhea. All of this is being paid for by tax dollars.

The fact is, moral choices often cost money, especially in our modern social safety net world. Also, how much have we spent on "education" to stop "bigotry" against homosexuals?

I'm not meaning to pick on gay people, just make the point that morality saves money and that immorality on any level does in fact impinge on economics. Would we be in such dire financial straits if people held the old principle of self-reliance? They don't, and that is a moral failing; the attitude is "let's someone else do the work". If we hadn't had such promiscuity in the black community would we have Black Lives Matter now? Would Ferguson have been burnt down if a more moral approach had been followed? Illegitimate children cost Americans plenty. So does crime.

Every liberal economic policy ultimately stems from a moral failing.

Too many conservatives don't believe that or want to face it.

THAT is why what Tillerson did with the Boy Scouts is so important; the Scouts taught the old values and Tillerson guaranteed that the old values would be put away. It may have just been one issue, but like a tapestry if you pull out a central threat the thing falls apart. The BSA cannot still promote the Scout Oath while ignoring one big moral failing. This sort of hypocrisy is glaring to the boys, and they will think any other transgression that is pleasing to them is then acceptable. If you can violate the Word of God on your sexuality, why not on other things? Why shouldn't you take something that isn't yours if you won't get caught? (That, by the way, is the essence of the Welfare State.)

Sadly, I fear we have largely lost the culture war, and young people in America think profoundly differently than we did in the past on these issues. They are going to learn the hard way - and that means through horrible suffering and pain and Divine retribution aka the natural penalty for violating Natural Law. Nobody is surprised to break a leg if they step off a 10 foot embankment, but they are horrified to learn that violating moral law has consequences. With the liberal media and academics telling them there are no consequences they often don't recognize them when they come.

Reading these comments at Free Republic and Lucianne I feel a great sadness, because America is clearly apostate to the Almighty and will have to be chastised. I tremble at that, because the chastisements of God are light if people repent, but heavy when they don't get the message. America has turned her face from the laws of God.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1547 words, total size 10 kb.