DugNevius

the purpose is to best prepare young men for the world, including teaching them responsability. What lessons would be taught if scouts were allowed to skip out of responsabilities because they dont feel like doing them?

Work needs to get done, tired or not tired. If, at a job we adults decided we werent going to do it, wouldnt we lose our jobs?

thats very true. Adults tend to forget, that many boys are keen observers. They know when the older buys are slacking off on their duties, when they arent helpful or orginized. In a "free" election, they will chose a qualified scout more often then not.

ha, well let it also be known that not all scouters are conservative.

ok, here is another word: Character. Eagle isnt something a scout achieves, its something he becomes. A scout becomes an eagle not by completing requirements like knots and first aid, or canoeing merit badge or basketry, and not by putting together an eagle project. A scout becomes an Eagle through the journey that encompassed all those things. The growing process that results because of all these parts builds character, the easier the journey, the less character is developed. Can anyone honestly say that a boy who is 13 had had the same amount of experiences as he would have when he is 16? That is 3 years of building maturity and character. An eagle scout isnt comprised of camping skills, but rather or leadership, responsibility, accountability, maturity and spirit. If made this analogy before on these boards, ill do it again. Lets say you take 3 groups of scouts and their mission is to get from NYC to LA. One group you give plane tickets from JFK airport to LAX and you drive them to the airport, most likely every one of them will get to LA in only a few hours. The second group you give them some vans and road maps and some cash. It will take them more then a few days, getting lost a few times and in about a week or so, most but not all will get to LA. The last group you give them a map and good walking shoes and they carry everything in their backpacks. They have to find their way across the country, hiking or hitchhiking, earning food, sleeping under the stars and most of these will not make it to LA. Those that do take months. In the end, which group has become, through their experiences more self reliant, more resourceful, more mature and of more character? Odds are the third group. "My two oldest are 21 and 20. If they had been in scouts and you were to grant their Eagles based on maturity, you wouldn't have granted them until each of the boys was 19" Fine. Not every boy is an Eagle scout. Every boy has the chance to become an eagle scout. There is a difference between "Every boy CAN be an Eagle" and "Every boy SHOULD be an Eagle." When i hear from Scouters who firmly believe that scouts can be Eagle's at 13, a large group of them say, as premise to their argument, that when a boy hits High school, all the distractions like sports and girls will make it very difficult for them to get to the rank of Eagle. So what. Not every boy is an Eagle. But boys of character will, despite the distractions, become eagles. Since i have been in boy scouts at the age of 10.5 back in 1989, every Eagle Scout from our troop played a high school varsity sport while pursuing the rank of Eagle. Of the four 16 year olds in our troop that are currently a, eagle project and a couple merit badges away from Eagle, one plays football, one plays soccer, one plays lacrosse and one is on the swim team for their respective high schools. It can be done. Its not easy. Its not supposed to be. Sure, any troop can put together a program that pumps out Eagles at an early age. If the meetings and trips are dedicated to the advancement of rank, if leadership time is generously revolving and if the Adult leaders pull the boys along the troop could produce 10 times the national average of 1%-3%. Think of the recruiting!! Im not saying anyone here does that at all. Im also not saying we as Scoutmasters should be going around denying scouts BOR because of his age. Im saying the program dictates the age AND character of the Eagles. Challenge them to the fullest extent they can handle and build the best Eagles you

Does rank best signify character? Is a scout who is star rank necessarily better suited for SPL then a 1st class scout? Just because a scout is star does that mean hes ready to take on the role of SPL? Just a few questions. Personally, its more about character then rank and we never had a required rank for SPL. That said we have never had an SPL that wasnt Star or life before being elected SPL, and i couldnt see any 1st class boy take it on. There werer plenty star and life scouts that were not ready as well.(This message has been edited by DugNevius)

Im with sturg on this one. The mentality of an eagle scout is much more important then having all the boxes checked on paperwork.

Im not really for it, but not because of the potential for sex, but rather there are few programs where boys can be boys. I would be happy to see programs by th egirlscouts that were as well constructed as the BSA.

we have sort of made that part of our troop historian position, photographing all troop events and putting together a "yearbook" along with having pics for the troop website.

You will be fine with 2 10X10 green nylon tarps for sleeping and another one for equipment. We did a week long trip in Maine just using tarps as shelters. Set them up side by side and low to the ground- the middle poles only 3-4 feet up and the sides just a foot or less up from the ground. We would refer to these shelters as "roman slave ships" with all the scouts packed in a long row of 18. Like this: _____________________ [______I________I_____]

haha yeah, and like pornography, dancing causes crime.

Ah, Texas and its wondeful laws... where "sexy" cheerleading is against the law, because it causes pregnancy.

"There is no automatic removal of leaders who cuss, use pornography, lie, cheat or even steal." again, how would the BSA know if an adult leader owns porn or curses?

what would you propse they do? Should the BSA be allowed to have surprise home morality insepctions, seeking out "contraband" deemed immoral, such as playboy, Maxim, and other "immoral" possesions? If a scoutmaster is found with any photogrpahs of scantaly clad women he will no longer be allowed to participate in scouting?

I dont see a problem with it at apporpriate times. At summer camp or a camping trip, if its free time, when the work is done its fine with me. Our troop loves Risk, the game of world conquest.

what is surprising? That, with a expanded subject group you got a variety of answers concerning morality that are not consistent with the answers you got from members of your own conservative church group? Thats like going to a republican Rally to poll public opinion about an upcomming election and being amazed that they are all against abortion and Afirmative Action. As for porn IN scouts, thats a totally sperate issue. Im sure most all of us would agree that veiwing the Pamela Anderson/Tommy Lee video as a scout activity would be out of line...

anyone not being paid can work it. Just dont have old ladies digging trenches with shovels and picks.

the question becomes at what point do we as Adult leaders stop leading by example and it is exceptable? We are supposed to live by the scout law and oath if we expect our scouts to do so. Of course, physically strong does not have to mean olympic athlete. What becomes acceptable violations of leading by example? Obesity? Smoking? Drinking? irresponsibility? Disorderly?

...the beach, Lands End and Macy's cataloges, Marvel Comic books, NY Fashion week, reality television, Olympic Beach volleyball...

Ha, first, Tortdog, i shall address the porn points. Your statistics do not at all prove that Porn cause crime. They simply point out that sex criminals like porn. It does not show how many millions of americans watch or read porn and do not commit any crime. That is like saying knives make people murder because of all the people who used knives to kill someone used a knife. It can not be proven that porn turns good men into sex offenders and of all the studies of sex offenders none have stated that it was porn or that porn led up to the crime. Rather, studies can not prove that porn causes crime at all. http://www.netspeed.com.au/ttguy/refs2.htm#lab evidence regarding the postulated causal link between pornography and rape, using data on the incidence of rape in 4 societies (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and the US) where pornography is widely available. While earlier research found no evidence of a causal link between pornography and rape, a new generation of behavioral scientists has attempted to prove such a connection, especially for aggressive pornography. Aggregate data on rape and other violent or sexual offenses in these 4 countries seem to exclude the possibility that the availability of pornography has any detrimental effects in the form of increased sexual violence. Before the civil rights movement many whites classified African Americans as inferior. Before the civil rights movement there was mass conflict and tension between races. AFTER equality was established the violence between races decressed drasticly. The same goes for the anti-semetic ideas in Europe before the holocaust. Would not hate crimes against homosexuality decrease if society accepted homosexuality? There IS a direct link to discrimination and crime. You skipped my question about the jews. Since the jews do not accpet Jesus as the messiah are they immoral? If they are immoral, why should we allow them to exist as normal and why shouldnt we try to stop public judaism? Again, subjective faith is not evidence. Stick to what you can prove. Lastly, i do not feel that porn is any more a violation of the scout oath and law then fire arms, a case of beer, a g string bikini or a Victoria's Secrets cataloge are violations. If you dont like playboy dont buy one. If you dont like gay sex dont have sex with a man. If you dont want to listen to Howard Stern on the radio change the channel. To attempt to restrict basic human rights is the beginning of facism.

where/what is boundry waters?

Barry, i think you are off on what i have been saying. I have not tried to minimalize God at all simply injecting objectivity and logic into a debate where most of one side has been built on subjective opinion and faith. I said before, faith sure is a slippery way to make an argument because its unsubstantiated. Faith is subjective. It relies totally on interpretation. It evolves drasticly over time. Its the same as the Life On Other Worlds debate. Some say it exists, some dont. Morality, as shown in this very debate is not universal in many cases. Tortdog veiws homosexuality as immoral, i do not. Who is right and who is wrong? Its not mathmatics. There is no defined answer. I never said i view religious people as ignorant! I also have not been saying its either free will or God. The logic is free will or A PERFECT God. There is a difference. Now, your examples of Scoutmaster judging his scouts and a parent judging his child are again not the same as Tortdog judging Mr X, because Tortdog does not have, nor should he had, any authority over Mr X. Tortdog is not a prophet like Abraham or Moses. It would be no different then if i were to go around and say some other adult is immoral because he eats Veal or drinks Coffee. I dont have that right, i should not have that right. My examples of using race is simply this, we, as citizens of a free society should not begin to try to sperate and classify other neighbors based on differences they have even if those differences have zero consequence to us. Ill use a better example then: religion. At what point do we say "Well the jews dont believe in Jesus as the messiah, so they are immoral and their immorality will directly influence my christian son and i can not allow that. Therefore, Temples must be closed down and the jewish faith must not be 'normalized' by society." It is no different that the persuit to incriminate sexual preference. Immorality would be the departure from an attempt to make society more civil. Vastly different cultures can co-exist in relative peace but only when each side accepts that the other is equal at the same time as being different. Blacks and whites can now co-exist in America and relative peace. Tension begets conflict. If homosexuals were accepted the only thing that would happen would be peace and civility. However, to further promote inferiority only promotes confict, conflict only results in pain. I am not minimalizing God at all or ignoring him. I see the importance in spirituality in life. However MY God is not the same as Your God, the same way that there are a million varried interpretations of God. Tortdog- In all honesty, any kind of sex between consenting adults is perfectly fine being that it remains in the privacy of a bedroom. Because you may not like it does not mean it is definied wrong, because you are no authority established to moderate what a couple does. There may be things that you do in your privacy that I would not like to do, but even though you do them my life remains utterly unchanged. Im not particularly attracted to big girls, but that does not mean i can stop my friend from chasing them. You seem to think you have more rights then you should and this philosphey is more than a bit pretentious. As for your veiw on pornography, it is simply conjecture based on no substantial evidence. Factually, there is no link at all to porn causing sexual or violent/nonviolent crimes. Im not "pooh poohing" anything. fact. This is the same empty argument made for years by those attempting to promote censorship. Personally, i veiw censorship as much more immoral then a naked woman. thats an opinion. We must establish here on that Opinion is NOT tantamount to fact. sometimes that point gets fuzzy.

Tort your examples are not legit. sex between two consentual adult males is not the same as incestuous rape or beastiality, because children and animals are not capable to consent to sexual activity. Incest can lead to handicaped offspring, and this is why its is wrong. However, two adult men have sex, no one is at all effected. There can be no handicapped offspring and Mr Tortdog is never effected. Suicide by canniblism is hardly the same as gay sex. So your arguement is as follows: Homosexuality is wrong. It is wrong because it will teach kids its ok. Sort of circular reasoning here. Also, there is no credible link to child porn and magazines like playboy. This is a false argument that is frquently made but can never be proven. There is no credible link to porn and violence. Playboy does not turn people into rapists, assaultists or murders. Neither do gay male porn. Only consenting adults can buy porn and it is the responsability of parents to keep their children away from porn. The women photographed are consenting and paid well. The existance of porn does not effect children, rather the lack of responsible parenting guidance is a factor. If Mr X has gay sex with an adult male in his bedroom, along with owns a few gay porn mags which stay in his bedroom then children are not effected at all. It would be like trying to restrict what two heterosexual adults do in the bedroom. Millions of adults all across the world do nothing different then what two adult gay males or two adult gay females do. You think we need to stop the homosexuals? How? do we make laws to persecute them for bedroom activity? Are heterosexuals under the same guidlines? When is it enough? Should gay men be allowed to kiss? Hold hands? Can heterosexual adults kiss in public? While we are at it, lets outlaw bikinis on the beach. And plastic surgury. And Miniskirts and tube tops. lets move to censor TV and radio heavily. Hey, in texas there are a few politicians trying to put laws on the books regarding cheerleader outfits. While we are at it, lets have seperate bathrooms for the "coloreds". Isnt this America, land of the free? Mr X isnt raping anyone. Hes not hurting anyone. If you dont want your kid watching gay sex, keep your kid away from peeking through Mr X's bedroom window. Society has the right to govern its members when its members are causing problems that effect each other. Rape. Theft. Fraud. Child endangerment. Not sex. I am not effected by what Tortdog does in his bedroom the same way Tortdog is uneffected by what mr X does.

In what way does what a homosexual couple does in the privacy of their bedroom brind down society, and in what way does what a homosexual couple does in the privacy of their own bedroom any different then what a heterosexual couple does in the privacy of their own bedroom in terms of directly harming children? Sorry to say but children are just as effected by witnessing strait sex as they are gay sex at a young age. The same as seeing strait porn and gay porn. So, if homosexuality was accepted, how are children bieng harmed? ...more so then they are today? Since pornographic material IS legal, how is its existance hurting young children if the young children are being PROPERLY supervised? In the 60's, im sure a few people said that if "negros" were allowed to go to the same schools and bathrooms, then it would hurt the minds of children. Also, there are many stupid laws on the books across the country. Doesnt make them anything but stupid laws.

yes but the difference is that we as adult leaders are to guide and help build boys into young men and leaders of charactor. The youth are dependant upon us. When heterosexual male X judges homosexual male Z, mr X has no place or reason to judge mr Z at all, because mr z does not effect mr X at all. Mr X has no right to judge, or to place himself at a higher position. Homosexuality doesnt effect nonhomosexuals at all. It has the same effect as a person being hispanic does. Or jewish. Or short. Or Blonde. Nothing. If being homosexual is such a sin, then when Mr Z dies and is judged he will get what is comming to him. His afterlife has no influence ever on mr X and vice versa. In life Mr X was never effected at all by mr Z's sexual preference.