Boy Scout offical charged in child pornography case

CNN story

Good thing they kept the homosexuals out of there :rolleyes: The depths of human hypocrisy never fail to amaze and sicken me.

He was only trying to get his photography merit badge. And BTK was just trying to get his knot tying merit badge.

Wow. I mean, I guess I expected it, but still. How much do you wanna bet that they’ll say he was a closet case?

Can anyone say they honestly didn’t see this coming?

That something would happen that would cause the Boy Scouts to be attacked, as an organization, on these boards?

Gee, nobody could have predicted that. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that’s exactly what I meant.

:rolleyes: yourself.

What he did was certainly bad, but I don’t see how you can blame the Scouts for it. When they learned he was under investigation, they put him on administrative leave, and he then resigned. The article also says that the Scouts cooperated fully with the authorities.

So, what’s the problem?

I don’t understand where hypocrisy comes into play.

Well, I do hope appropriate justice is imposed in Mr. Smith’s case.

This seems to be a novel approach. Instead of judging organizations by the totality of their actions, in this case we’re invited to judge them by the failings of one individual.

If we were to do that, I doubt any large organization would stand up to scrutiny. I could as easily characterize the Peace Corps as a bunch of child molesters based on this one sad example.

Doesn’t seem fair to me.

If you have a problem with the Boy Scouts, I’m sure you can spell it out without hypocrite shopping, Annie-Xmas.

If the Boy Scouts were defending this man, then I could see charges of hypocrisy being levelled against the organization.


So - exactly who is charged with being a hypocrite, here? Smith, himself? Yes, I grant you that, but I’d point out that most pedophiles, save those who are open and practicing, are hypocrites in much the same way. The organization doesn’t approve of pedophiles, and when discovering that a pedophile was discovered among the ranks of their former employees, they cooperated fully. They can’t fire him - he’s already no longer an employee.

So where exactly is the hypocrisy?

What’s hypocritical? The BSA, as an organization, doesn’t allow homosexuals? I’m sure, as an organization, they don’t condone child pornography, either. That one of their members has been arrested with child porn might make him a hypocrite, sure, but I’ll bet it’s not BSA policy to surf kiddie porn.

Would it be any less hypocritical if some liberal arts professor was busted with child porn, or the leader of a gay rights organization? Would you be so sure to assume that there are no people in either type of those positions who does not look at child porn? Would they be, or not be, a hypocrite if caught with the same material?

I don’t think you are doing liberals any favors by playing the “conservatives who look at kiddie porn are hypocrites, so liberals who look at kiddie porn are________” card. People who look at kiddie porn are sick fucks, no matter what their political preference.

What a stupid OP.

If someone can find a cite that the BSA defended its ban on homosexuals because of a perceived/imaginary/unsubstantiated fear of child pornography, then there’d be some basis for charging “hypocrisy” (or at least “stupidity”) here. If not, not.

I believe the correct word was “Ironic”.

It’s ironic that the BSA instituted standards banning gays from voluntary positions due to their concerns about pedophiles, while headed by a person apparently not gay (we assume since he was the head of the institution) who was, in fact, a pedophile.

When the original crapola arose about them banning gays, the point was made over and over that banning gays would not necessarily result in an automatic ban of pedophiles, since the two groups are not in fact, the same. That point seems to have been demonstrated.

I’ll admit that I don’t like the organization and I took my potshot with that in mind.

It is good to see that they have at least some redeeming value in cooperating with authorities.

It’s this quote that gets me:

He’s “not taking it well”?

Boo-fucking-hoo. I guess he probably shouldn’t have downloaded kiddie porn!

Doing an entire lifetime of good deeds does not grant you the privelege of doing something like this. It’s not like someone put a gun to his head.

He’s supposed to be setting an example for young boys. The last thing he should be doing is downloading kiddie porn.

Or maybe I’m the crazy one.

Hold on a second. I’m not sure that they denied gays from participating in the organization because of pedophile concerns, I think it’s oriented around the religious basis ofthe organization. Remember, they don’t allow atheiests either because it’s a fundamentally religious organization.

I was a Life Scout, and on the way to Eagle, I had some rather serious discussions with the Troop leadership about my religion. They all sort of knew that I wasn’t religious even though they didn’t know that I was actively an athiest, but it was made clear to me that to obtain my Eagle Scout was that I would indeed need to make a good-faith (no pun intended) foray into “finding religion” and produce basically a member of the clergy to vouch for my religious involvement. That’s part of the reason that I never went to Eagle scout.

That said, this whole affair does indeed remind me a lot of the South Park where Big Gay Al gets kicked out of the Boy Scouts only to be replaced by a macho, straight pedophile, the case goes to the Supreme Court, and Big Gay Al comes back to deliver a rousing monologue about why the Boy Scouts, as a private organization, do indeed have the right to restrict their organization but they’re fools to do so.

Ok, time to build a time machine and go back in time to fire the founder of whatever British group it came from.

This guy

Got it. I have Googled his name +gay, and have found the following: