I don't get this...

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If he chooses to lie, that is HIS decision based on whether it is more important for him to be a Scout and get whatever rewards he thinks that entitles him to.

Oh, so its his fault. I see.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

Oh, so its his fault. I see.

What fault? I wasn't blaming anybody. Are you?

[FishermanTim]

They are adamant against letting gays in the scouts, but I wonder how adamant they are about letting pediphiles have constant access to young impressionable children? That's when they pull the "Don't ask, don't tell" crap!!!

I'm not saying it's that way everywhere, but then again how many gay children are there in the scouts? Surely they can tell just by looking that he is or isn't, right?

Now if a person is displaying attitude and personal traits that are detrimental and damaging to the troop and it's core values, then maybe that individual should be asked to leave, but to defer that stigma on all gay boys/men is just not logical. It almost sounds like the organization is saying that your sexual orientation is the most important factor in your life. I can only presume that you can be a lying, cheating, drug pushing drug user that bullies and assaults other children and be welcomed into the scouts with no questions asked.

But.....if you're gay and an honor student, a pillar of the neighborhood, an heroic award winning philanthropist who has been touted by civic leaders and peers alike, then you are SOL!!!

Sorry, but that's the picture that stories like this convey.

[RIJIMMY]

First - I dont agree with the rule, but for Spences "I dont get this". think of it this way - Would any of you let me take your daughters girl scout troop camping?
No, of course not. Why? I have no record of child molestation, I am responsible, ethical, etc. the reason you wont is beacuse it just doesnt feel right. And you and the girl scout organization cannot be taking your time to evaluate and judge every parent. So rules are made. these rules punish some unjustly. It sucks but its the way everything is. One gay kids could make everyone feel uncomfortable, perhaps unjustly. But I can tell you as a 16 yr old boy, I dont want to be sleeping in a tent with someone who is gay. Sorry, I also wouldnt want my son too. I also wouldnt want my daughter sleeping in a tent with any man besides me.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

They are adamant against letting gays in the scouts, but I wonder how adamant they are about letting pediphiles have constant access to young impressionable children? That's when they pull the "Don't ask, don't tell" crap!!!

First, let me admit that I am neither pro nor anti the scouts or their rules, regulations, goals, or moral persuasions. My younger son attained Eagle Scout . I can't say that made him a better or worse person. I believe how he was brought up at home had more to do with that than the scouts. My interest in this discussion solely rests on the concept of free association as garanteed by the Constitution.

As for the scouts position on letting pedofiles having constant access to young scouts, I'm not familiar with that policy. I would think that the organization would be against that, but if it isn't, shame on it. If some instances of it have occurred, that might be more of a local nature than organization wide. In any event, pedofile activity is illegal and can be prosecuted, regardless of the scouts' policies on pedofelia. Being homosexual is not illegal, and consentual activity other than with minors is not illegal. But it is also not illegal for a private organization to have a policy against admitting "gays."

I'm not saying it's that way everywhere, but then again how many gay children are there in the scouts? Surely they can tell just by looking that he is or isn't, right?

Now if a person is displaying attitude and personal traits that are detrimental and damaging to the troop and it's core values, then maybe that individual should be asked to leave, but to defer that stigma on all gay boys/men is just not logical.

If heterosexuality is a core value, then it is logical to ask a homosexual to leave.

It almost sounds like the organization is saying that your sexual orientation is the most important factor in your life. I can only presume that you can be a lying, cheating, drug pushing drug user that bullies and assaults other children and be welcomed into the scouts with no questions asked.

It is saying that it is an important factor, not necessarily the most, in the core value of a scout and those that believe in all the values of scouting. That doesn't presume, not in any way, that lying, cheating, drug pushing drug users, bullies, and assaulters of children are welcomed into the scouts. Those are also against scouting core values.

But.....if you're gay and an honor student, a pillar of the neighborhood, an heroic award winning philanthropist who has been touted by civic leaders and peers alike, then you are SOL!!!

Sorry, but that's the picture that stories like this convey.

A "gay" person may have all those wonderful qualities (so, BTW, have some mafia dons), but the quality of heterosexuality is missing. And the picture that stories like this convey is that the Boy Scouts are an intolerant organization and should change a rule or two. If the organization voluntarily does change its philosophy and its rules, that is the way to go about it. No doubt, stories like this are at least a subliminal, if not a blatant, attempt to force the change. But so long as the organization chooses not to change, it has the freedom to associate with those who agree with its policies. And those who disagree with those policies are free not to associate.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

75-80% of Scouting units are chartered through religious organizations. The Mormon Church is the #1 organization that holds charters for scouting units and the United Methodist church is #2. The Catholic Church is #3

I guess you guys missed this. It might even be more than 80%

If the offical stand of these religions is that Homosexuality is a sin, and 3/4 of your organization's units are chartered through these religions...why would you says its OK and risk losing the support and backing for most of your units....that would take down scouting in no time.

Its a private organization and can choose its members as it see fit. Your unit can choose its members as it see fit....there is no rule that says you have to accept anybody. You can accept a boy and not accept his parent if you so choose. (this happens in cases of custody where one of the parents is noithing but a distraction)

2 things have to happen if this is ever going to get fixed....either the different church's stands on homosexuality need to change or more units need to start being chartered through civic organizations.

until then I doubt you will see anything change on this front. I would like nothing more than to be wrong and have it change....but as of now thats the stance...join if you want to...its a great organization that teaches a lot of useful skills to youth.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I guess you guys missed this. It might even be more than 80%

If the offical stand of these religions is that Homosexuality is a sin, and 3/4 of your organization's units are chartered through these religions...why would you says its OK and risk losing the support and backing for most of your units....that would take down scouting in no time.

Its a private organization and can choose its members as it see fit. Your unit can choose its members as it see fit....there is no rule that says you have to accept anybody. You can accept a boy and not accept his parent if you so choose. (this happens in cases of custody where one of the parents is noithing but a distraction)

2 things have to happen if this is ever going to get fixed....either the different church's stands on homosexuality need to change or more units need to start being chartered through civic organizations.

until then I doubt you will see anything change on this front. I would like nothing more than to be wrong and have it change....but as of now thats the stance...join if you want to...its a great organization that teaches a lot of useful skills to youth.

TDF, if a large number of scout units are chatrered through, say, the Catholic church. Does that mean that all of those units (chartered by the Catholic Church) would automatically expel a kid for being gay? Or does the local scoutmaster have any discretion in that case?

TDF, you know way more about this than I do...would you be OK with your kids going camping with fellow teenagers, or scoutmasters, who were gay? Even if you could not be there? I have to admit that would worry me.

[FishermanTim]

Unfortunately they are basically excluding an entire segment of the population because of a basic misconception. Sure, as a private organization they can make their own rules and apply them as they see fit, but when they tout their virtues they may want to reconsider what those virtues actually mean.

As for their allowing pedophilia in their group, it's akin to a wolf being in sheep's clothing. A pedophile is not going to broadcast that fact to any group, organization or agency that is supposedly steadfast against it.
Remember that there have been a few instances in private organizations aimed at the youth of America that have had their reputations stained with the poison of pedophiles. The scouts are just as susceptible.

**The most logical solution would be to excluse EVERYONE and then do complete and indepth CORA checks, as well as checking references going back to the point of your conception (just to be thorough).** (not being serious of course)

But seriously, to exclude a person JUST because of their sexual orientation does sound like a backward way of thinking.
So.....when did the scouts start having events that promoted heterosexual activities?
Surely there would have been more scouts enrolling if they had "date nights" or "sexual awareness" parties where they could explore themselves or the girls of their choice?
See how absurd this can really get?

The story makes it sound like they won't bother to find out what kind of citizen the person is, and just say "He's 'out' so let's kick him out and keep him out!!!"

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

TDF, if a large number of scout units are chatrered through, say, the Catholic church. Does that mean that all of those units (chartered by the Catholic Church) would automatically expel a kid for being gay?

Not automatically...but all it takes, as of now, is for one parent to make it an issue. Our troop is Chartered by the Catholic Church (Actually the K of C holds our Charter). Each unit is different though. The BSA sets a set of Guidelines on how to run a unit. Some units may embrace the outdoors as their basis of their program, some may embrace the religious beliefs as their basis.

A civic organization, such as the 4-H, may make Animal Husbandry and Gardening the basis of their program

The Mormon Church, who is the largest holder of unit charters, makes scouts mandatory for their youth as part of their youth development. They are required to do 2 years of it.

Advancement is advancement....what ever is written is what needs to be done to advance...no more, no less.

Never saw anything written down in the BSA handbook about sexuality....my Job as Scoutmaster is to make sure they do the requirements as written....all the way from Scout to Eagle...not up to me to pass judgement...last time I looked there was only one that was Qualified to do that.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Or does the local scoutmaster have any discretion in that case?

Just like every program can be different, every Scoutmaster can be as well. Some, unfortunately, are on a big Power/Ego trip and think they call all the shots. What a lot of parents don't realize is that the scoutmaster can be removed. He is assigned that position by the Chartered Organization, and if they don't want you they are well in their rights to remove you...no questions asked. So parents can speak up if they are dissastisfied.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

TDF, you know way more about this than I do...would you be OK with your kids going camping with fellow teenagers, or scoutmasters, who were gay? Even if you could not be there? I have to admit that would worry me.

Myself, I would not have a problem with a gay Scoutmaster. The same rules of Youth Protection Training apply. No 1 on 1 situations, 2 deep at all times. and as far as a Gay scout...BSA does Venture Scouts which is Coed, so you go Camping with Heterosexual teens of both sexes...they aren't allowed to fraternize when camping so the same would apply for Gay scouts....this is a camping trip not a singles cruise.

I am also on pretty much every campout...I'm the 1st one up and the last one asleep. Not on my Watch

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Not automatically...but all it takes, as of now, is for one parent to make it an issue. Our troop is Chartered by the Catholic Church (Actually the K of C holds our Charter). Each unit is different though. The BSA sets a set of Guidelines on how to run a unit. Some units may embrace the outdoors as their basis of their program, some may embrace the religious beliefs as their basis.

A civic organization, such as the 4-H, may make Animal Husbandry and Gardening the basis of their program

The Mormon Church, who is the largest holder of unit charters, makes scouts mandatory for their youth as part of their youth development. They are required to do 2 years of it.

Advancement is advancement....what ever is written is what needs to be done to advance...no more, no less.

Never saw anything written down in the BSA handbook about sexuality....my Job as Scoutmaster is to make sure they do the requirements as written....all the way from Scout to Eagle...not up to me to pass judgement...last time I looked there was only one that was Qualified to do that.



Just like every program can be different, every Scoutmaster can be as well. Some, unfortunately, are on a big Power/Ego trip and think they call all the shots. What a lot of parents don't realize is that the scoutmaster can be removed. He is assigned that position by the Chartered Organization, and if they don't want you they are well in their rights to remove you...no questions asked. So parents can speak up if they are dissastisfied.



Myself, I would not have a problem with a gay Scoutmaster. The same rules of Youth Protection Training apply. No 1 on 1 situations, 2 deep at all times. and as far as a Gay scout...BSA does Venture Scouts which is Coed, so you go Camping with Heterosexual teens of both sexes...they aren't allowed to fraternize when camping so the same would apply for Gay scouts....this is a camping trip not a singles cruise.

I am also on pretty much every campout...I'm the 1st one up and the last one asleep. Not on my Watch

"I'm the 1st one up and the last one asleep. Not on my Watch"

Good end to a good post. Thanks.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Just as an FYI on this...This Scout's Troop is Troop 212 in Moraga California. Its Chartering Organization is the Moraga Valley Presbyterian Church.

The Presbyterian Church of America's position is this...

"Homosexual practice is sin. The Bible teaches that all particular sins flow from our rebellious disposition of heart. Just as with any other sin, the PCA deals with people in a pastoral way, seeking to transform their lifestyle through the power of the gospel as applied by the Holy Spirit. Hence, in condemning homosexual practice we claim no self-righteousness, but recognize that any and all sin is equally heinous in the sight of a holy God."

This is more than likely why he was denied his Eagle through this troop. The Kids Dad is the Committee Chairman for the troop as well...only one's above him are the Chartered Organization Rep and the Institutional Head.

[likwid]

Big news piece about pedo cover ups by the BSA.
Talk about timing.
And irony when discussing the place religion has in the BSA.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Just Received a copy of this letter from the Chief Scout Exec.....Thought you might like to read it....

To: National Executive Board and Advisory Council

CC: Cabinet, Regional Directors, Group Directors, Area Directors, Department Managers, Scout Executives

We want to let you know that a Scout in California proactively notified his troop leadership and Eagle Scout Counselor that he does not subscribe to Scouting’s principle of “Duty to God” and does not meet Scouting’s membership standard on sexual orientation.

As you know, agreeing to do one’s “Duty to God” is a part of the Scout Oath and Law and a requirement of achieving the Eagle Scout rank. Also, the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, nor do we have an agenda on this matter. Additionally, if a young man has a question about his sexuality, Scouting treats him with dignity and respect and refers him to his parents and other advisors.

Based on his public statements that he does not agree with the “Declaration of Religious Principle,” local volunteer leadership determined he does not meet BSA’s membership standards and therefore he did not pass his Eagle Board of Review. After discussion with his family, yesterday he was informed that he is no longer eligible for membership in Scouting.

Earlier this week his family created an online petition to draw attention to this matter. While we set policies that are best for our organization as a whole, we do not condemn those who wish to follow a different path. I want to assure you that in this case Scouting did not proactively ask for information about his sexual orientation, or made this decision lightly or without careful consideration.

If you receive questions about this news, please feel free to share the contents of this email.

[Typhoon]

I'm as right leaning as you get.

I have no interest in my kids being a part of this.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Thats a shame.....because if the Postive things that scouts do got the kind of exposure this issue receive you might think differently.

Lutherville Scout's Eagle project offers a 'peaceful place' for veterans - Baltimore Sun

Haworth Eagle Scout candidate issues fitness challenge - NorthJersey.com

CCC announces projects selected for The Initiative Today's Front Page The Register-Herald, Beckley, West Virginia

boy scout saves life - Google Search

[RIJIMMY]

my son is a cub scout and I love it. He runs around and acts like an animal with other 8 yr olds, he occassionally gets a few minutes on core values - respect, patriotism, courage, etc. We do a ton of family activities but through scouts he has slept on a battleship, slept at a museum, learned team skills, outdoor skills, etc. I think it really rounds out his boyhood experience. he learns he has to work for things to move ahead.
My new pack required all adults to take online training on scout policies relating to interaction with kids. Things we shouldt do and things we should look out for.
they're pretty strict but comforting to a parent.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Texas always struck me as a state that probably does Scouting up right....I bet Boy Scouts is probably kick-a$$ there. Lots of Great Dutch Oven cooking for sure

[The Dad Fisherman]

We have a few Eagle scouts kicking around S-B as well.....as well as a few dads of some.

[RIJIMMY]

im actually reading this book now, thought it was pretty relevant.
hope the link works...

50 Things Liberals Love to Hate - Mike Gallagher - Google Books

[The Dad Fisherman]

The Boy/Girl Scout chapter was pretty funny.....and sadly true.

Although "Morally Straight" is still in the Scout Oath....

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

The Boy/Girl Scout chapter was pretty funny.....and sadly true.

Although "Morally Straight" is still in the Scout Oath....

unfortunatley many of the chapters are sadly true but those are topics for another day

[Sea Dangles]

New release... Scout perversion file
\— Again and again, decade after decade, an array of authorities — police chiefs, prosecutors, pastors and local Boy Scout leaders among them — quietly shielded scoutmasters and others accused of molesting children, a newly opened trove of confidential papers shows.

At the time, those authorities justified their actions as necessary to protect the good name and good works of Scouting, a pillar of 20th century America. But as detailed in 14,500 pages of secret "perversion files" released Thursday by order of the Oregon Supreme Court, their maneuvers allowed sexual predators to go free while victims suffered in silence.

The files are a window on a much larger collection of documents the Boy Scouts of America began collecting soon after their founding in 1910. The files, kept at Boy Scout headquarters in Texas, consist of memos from local and national Scout executives, handwritten letters from victims and their parents and newspaper clippings about legal cases. The files contain details about proven molesters, but also unsubstantiated allegations.

The allegations stretch across the country and to military bases overseas, from a small town in the Adirondacks to downtown Los Angeles.

At the news conference Thursday, Portland attorney Kelly Clark blasted the Boy Scouts for their continuing legal battles to try to keep the full trove of files secret.

"You do not keep secrets hidden about dangers to children," said Clark, who in 2010 won a landmark lawsuit against the Boy Scouts on behalf of a plaintiff who was molested by an assistant scoutmaster in the 1980s.

Clark's colleague, attorney Paul Mones, said the files "show how pedophiles operate, how child molesters infiltrate youth organizations."

"These guys (abusers) basically were in a candy store, the way they thought about it," Mones said.

The Associated Press obtained copies of the files weeks in advance of Thursday's release and conducted an extensive review of them. Clark also was releasing the documents on his website: kellyclarkattorney.com

The files were shown to a jury in the 2010 Oregon civil suit, and the Oregon Supreme Court ruled the files should be made public. After months of objections and redactions, the Scouts and Clark released them.

In many instances — more than a third, according to the Scouts' own count — police weren't told about the reports of abuse. And even when they were, sometimes local law enforcement still did nothing, seeking to protect the name of Scouting over their victims.

Victims like three brothers, growing up in northeast Louisiana.

On the afternoon of Aug. 10, 1965, their distraught mother walked into the third floor of the Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office. A 31-year-old scoutmaster, she told the chief criminal deputy, had raped one of her sons and molested two others.

Six days later, the scoutmaster, an unemployed airplane mechanic, sat down in front of a microphone in the same station, said he understood his rights and confessed: He had sexually abused the woman's sons more than once.

"I don't know how to tell it," the man told a sheriff's deputy. "They just occurred — I don't know an explanation, why we done it or I done it or wanted to do it or anything else it just — an impulse I guess or something.

"As far as an explanation I just couldn't dig one up."

He wouldn't have to. Seven days later, the decision was made not to pursue charges against the scoutmaster.

The last sliver of hope for justice for the abuse of two teenagers and an 11-year-old boy slipped away in a confidential letter from a Louisiana Scouts executive to the organization's national personnel division in New Jersey.

"This subject and Scouts were not prosecuted," the executive wrote, "to save the name of Scouting."

___

An Associated Press review of the files found that the story of these brothers and their scoutmaster, however horrendous, was not unique.

The files released Thursday were collected between 1959 and 1985, with a handful of others from later years. Some have been released previously, but others — those from prior to 1971, including the story of the three scouts in Ouachita Parish — have been made public for the first time.

The documents reveal that on many occasions the files succeeded in keeping pedophiles out of Scouting leadership positions — the reason why they were collected in the first place. But the files are also littered with horrific accounts of alleged pedophiles who were able to continue in Scouting because of pressure from community leaders and local Scouts officials.

The files also document other troubling patterns. There is little mention in the files of concern for the welfare of Scouts who were abused by their leaders, or what was done for the victims. But there are numerous documents showing compassion for alleged abusers, who were often times sent to psychiatrists or pastors to get help.

In 1972, a local Scouting executive beseeched national headquarters to drop the case against a suspected abuser because he was undergoing professional treatment and was personally taking steps to solve his problem. "If it don't stink, don't stir it," the local executive wrote.

Scouting's efforts to keep abusers out were often disorganized. There's at least one memo from a local Scouting executive pleading for better guidance on how to handle abuse allegations. Sometimes the pleading went the other way, with national headquarters begging local leaders for information on suspected abusers, and the locals dragging their feet.

In numerous instances, alleged abusers are kicked out of Scouting but show up in jobs where they are once again in authority positions dealing with youths.

The files also show Scouting volunteers serving in the military overseas, molesting American children living abroad and sometimes continuing to molest after returning to the states.

But one of the most startling revelations to come from the files is the frequency with which attempts to protect Scouts from molesters collapsed at the local level, at times in collusion with community leaders.

It happened when a local district attorney declined to prosecute two confessed offenders; when a three-judge panel included two men on the local Scouting executive board; when law enforcement sought to protect the name of Scouting and let an admitted child molester go free.

Their actions represent a stark betrayal, says Clark, who won the case that opened the files to public view. "It's kind of a deal. The deal is, our society will give you incredible status and respect, Norman Rockwell will paint pictures of you, and in exchange for that, you take care of our kids," Clark said. "That's the deal, incredible respect and privilege. But there was a worm in the apple."

The Louisiana case certainly contained all the essentials for a police investigation and, perhaps, a conviction: The scoutmaster admitted to raping a 17-year-old boy on a camping trip and otherwise sexually molesting two other boys; the victims corroborated his confession. But evidently, no charges were ever filed.

The man was let off with a warning that should he be found with young men in the future, he was subject to immediate incarceration at the state prison.

The man "was asked to leave the parish, and if he was caught around or near any boy or youth organization, he would be sent to state prison immediately," a Scouting executive wrote to national headquarters. "We are indeed sorry that Scouting was involved."

___

With the deadline to disclose the files looming, the Scouts in late September made public an internal review of the files and said they would look into past cases to see whether there were times when men they suspected of sex abuse should have been reported to police.

The files showed a "very low" incidence of abuse among Scout leaders, said psychiatrist Dr. Jennifer Warren, who conducted the review with a team of graduate students and served as an expert witness for the Scouts in the 2010 case that made the files public. Her review of the files didn't take into account the number of files destroyed on abusers who turned 75 years old or died, something she said would not have significantly affected the rate of abuse or her conclusions.

The rate of abuse among Scouts is the not the focus of their critics — it is, rather, their response to allegations of abuse. In the case of the files released in Portland, most salient is the complicity of local officials in concealing the abuse by Scouts leaders.

Warren told the AP such complicity "was simply quite a natural desire to want to be somewhat protective over (the BSA)."

Certain cases, well-detailed by the Scouts, illustrate how it happened.

In Newton, Kan., in 1961, the county attorney had what he needed for a prosecution: Two men were arrested and admitted that they had molested Scouts in their care.

One of the men said he held an all-night party at his house, during which he brought 10 boys, one by one, into a room where he committed, in his words, "immoral acts." The same man said he had molested Scouts on an outing two weeks prior to the interrogation.

But neither man was prosecuted. Once again, a powerful local official sought to preserve the name of Scouting.

The entire investigation, the county attorney wrote, was brought about with the cooperation of a local district Scouts executive, who was kept apprised of the investigation's progress into the men, who had affiliations with both the Scouts and the local YMCA.

"I came to the decision that to openly prosecute would cause great harm to the reputations of two organizations which we have involved here — the Boy Scouts of America and the local YMCA," he wrote in a letter to a Kansas Scouting executive.

He went on to say that the community would have to pay too great a price for the punishment of the two men. "The damage thusly done to these organizations would be serious and lasting," he wrote.

___

When cases against Scouts volunteers or executives went forward, locals often tried and sometimes managed to keep the organization's name out of court documents and the media, protecting a valuable brand.

In Johnstown, Pa., in August 1962, a married 25-year-old steel mill worker with a high school education pleaded guilty to "serious morals" violations involving Scouts.

The Scouting executive who served as both mayor and police chief made sure of one thing: The Scouting name was never brought up. It went beyond the mayor to the members of a three-judge panel, who also deemed it important to keep the Scouts' names out of the press.

"No mention of Scouting was involved in the case in as much as two of the three judges who pronounced sentence are members of our Executive Board," the Scouts executive wrote to the national personnel division.

In Rutland, Vt., in 1964, William J. Moreau pleaded guilty to "having lewd relations" with an 11-year-old Scout, according to a contemporary newspaper account. According to the files, the 11-year-old was one of a dozen Scouts who stayed overnight at Vermont's Camp Sunrise. The Scouts, as is demonstrated repeatedly in the files, talked to the parents about their concern for "the name of the Scouting movement" if charges were brought, but were rebuffed — the parents were insistent on filing charges.

Moreau, a 27-year-old insurance adjuster and assistant Scoutmaster, resigned his position, but a local prosecutor and the police department made sure the Scouting name was never publicly associated with the crime, despite the fact that the abuse was conducted by a Scoutmaster on Scouts at a Scout camp.

"The States Attorney with whom I talked late last night and the local police assure me they will do everything in their power to keep Scouting's name and Camp Sunrise out of this," a local Scouts executive wrote in a letter to the national council headquarters.

In newspaper clippings attached to the files detailing Moreau's charges and his plea, no mention of the Scouts is ever made.

___

Over the years, the mandatory reporting of suspicions of child abuse by certain professionals would take hold nationally. Each state had its own law, and the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act passed in 1974.

The Scouts, however, wouldn't institute mandatory reporting for suspected child abuse until 2010. They did incorporate other measures, such as a "two-deep" requirement that children be accompanied by at least two adults at all times, and made strides in their efforts to combat pedophilia within their ranks.

According to an analysis of the Scouts' confidential files by Patrick Boyle, a journalist who was the first to expose about efforts by the BSA to hide the extent of sex abuse among Boy Scout leaders, the Scouts documented internally less than 50 cases per year of Scout abuse by adults until 1983, when the reports began to climb, peaking at nearly 200 in 1989.

Attitudes on child sex abuse began to change after the 1974 law, said University of Houston professor Monit Cheung, a former social worker who has authored a book on child sex abuse.

"Before 1974, you could talk to a social worker who could (then) talk to a molester and that could maybe stop abuse," Cheung said, noting that most abuse happens within families.

But mandatory reporting made the failure to report suspected abuse a crime.

"That's the change, that you're no longer hiding the facts of abuse," Cheung said.

The case of Timothy Bagshaw in State College, Pa., is illustrative of the changing national attitude to mandatory reporting. Bagshaw, a Scouts leader, was convicted of two counts of corruption of minors in 1985. But he wasn't the only one to face charges.

The Scouts learned of the abuse months before it was reported, and forced Bagshaw to resign at a meeting, but he wasn't reported to police. That failure was costly for Juanita Valley Council director Roger W. Rauch, who was charged with failure to notify authorities of suspected child abuse.

"I didn't know I was supposed to contact anyone. I felt it was the parents' responsibility," Rauch told the Centre Daily Times.

[FishermanTim]

Boy, when you're right, you're right.

Isn't amazing that an organization that claims to promote positive role models and virtues did nothing to prevent predators, wolves in their own flock, from preying on the innocence of America? Isn't is ironic that this same organization will chastise a young man for being gay, openly ruining his life, yet they were hush-hush about pedophiles ravaging little boys within their own ranks for decades???

When you see this "tip of the iceberg" you can only wonder what infor and events are not being disclosed? What types of perversions were allowed to go on "for the sake of the Scouts"?????

Instead of instilling faith in the organization, they threw the children into the lion's pit and told the parents they were playing at the petting zoo!

How can they expect to continue with these crimes squarely on their shoulders?

How can any scout look at themselves in the mirror and not wonder if these kinds of crimes were happening in their troop?

It truly is a sad day for the youth of America!!!