Kahuna

Latest update: The eBook is now available from lulu.com. It will be on Amazon in a week or so, but Lulu is charging the same price, $8.99.

Latest update on the ebook from Lulu is that it will probably be available by early July. They're moving fast. Don't know the price yet.

There are valid reasons, pro and con, why gay marriage is or is not good for society. However, what we are obviously seeing is a very rapid change in public opinion in favor of allowing gays the same privileges in society as others.

Last Jamboree there were lots of Scouters in Fredericksburg motels and at the trading site a hotel there. This time, there's a trade-o-ree set in Mt Hope, but no lodgings there. I assume anyone not staying at the Jamboree will be in Charleston.

So, anybody plan to make the trip who is not going to be on staff or troop staff? Where are you going to be? I'm considering whether to include it in my vacation plans.

Thanks for posting these links. I looked up your book a few days ago; do you have any plans for a Kindle edition anytime soon?

At the risk of shameless self-promotion, those interested in Scouting history might want to check out http://www.facebook.com/menofschiff and http://www.menofschiff.org. Both center on the book, Men of Schiff, A History of the Professional Scouters Who Built the Boy Scouts of America.

Scouting, along with everything else related to kids, has gotten bogged down in procedure, rules and political correctness (not referring to the sex orientation or religious issue here). B-P and Hillcourt emphasized that Scouting is a program intended to build character, citizenship and enable boys to grow into men who could care for themselves. The best way then and now is through a robust outdoor program and strong male leadership. Uniforms, badges and other things are merely methods of helping them to attain those goals. They are unimportant in themselves. So, is it prissy? Definitely. Is it overly bureaucratic? Absolutely. It will still succeed only where there are troops that understand those principles. Scouting is not for every boy and every parent. We'll never be able to make it so.

I certainly would not bring his religious beliefs into question. That would be a big turn-off for a religious 17 year old. Personally, I agree with TJ in thinking that most anti-gay people are that way for reasons that have nothing to do with religion and use it as a justification, but that doesn't necessarily apply to a young guy like that. Talking about the fact that he will pretty much have to associate with people who have different beliefs of all kinds in his life would be a better approach. Certainly associating with people who are openly gay is going to be a bigger issue as time goes on, so preparing kids for that is not a bad objective in Scouting. I just read a local article about Gay Days at Disney World. The article points out how much more accepted they are now than back when they started Gay Days. Disney takes no stand on Gay Days, but they sell a lot of red and rainbow merchandise during this time of the year. It was mentioned that a straight parent was quoted as saying they purposely brought their kids during this time of the year just to expose them to the idea of tolerance. Who'd have thunk?

Along the lines of this issue, I keep hearing about the lack of anti-gay policies "back in the day,"

I thought this was an especially thoughtful piece. It would be good reading for anyone with doubts about the issue, but for the more conservative Christian elements, it's something they really should consider before deciding the BSA no longer has any redeeming value.

Our fearless leader is engaging in some pre-vote vote writing. Amazing that we pay this person to write opinion pieces in USA today espousing

views that are in stark contrast to the poll he just commissioned. I wonder what his response will be if his side loses tomorrow.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/22/boy-scouts-president-let-in-gay-boys/2351907/

I just learned that my old Scoutmaster, W. Warren Murray of Holbrook, MA, passed away last week at the age of 86. He was only my SM for one year, because of all our military moves, but it was the year I made Eagle, was elected to the OA and became an ASM. He made a point of keeping in touch with me throughout his life. We lost connections once, years ago, and he wrote to National Council. National wouldn't give out addresses, but forwarded his letter and we reestablished contact.

Warren stayed in Scouting to the very end of his life. He had earned the Silver Beaver and was serving on the commissioner staff when his health failed. He was a Navy veteran of WWII. He was a tough Scoutmaster, but he knew how to run an outdoor program and insisted that his troop go to camp for two weeks each summer at Camp Massasoit, on the Cape. BTW, he still had his old 1950s era wool leader uniform and could still wear it!

Feeling a touch of sadness and a little old today.

I just learned that my old Scoutmaster, W. Warren Murray of Holbrook, MA, passed away last week at the age of 86. He was only my SM for one year, because of all our military moves, but it was the year I made Eagle, was elected to the OA and became an ASM. He made a point of keeping in touch with me throughout his life. We lost connections once, years ago, and he wrote to National Council. National wouldn't give out addresses, but forwarded his letter and we reestablished contact.

Warren stayed in Scouting to the very end of his life. He had earned the Silver Beaver and was serving on the commissioner staff when his health failed. He was a Navy veteran of WWII. He was a tough Scoutmaster, but he knew how to run an outdoor program and insisted that his troop go to camp for two weeks each summer at Camp Massasoit, on the Cape. BTW, he still had his old 1950s era wool leader uniform and could still wear it!

Feeling a touch of sadness and a little old today.

I just learned that my old Scoutmaster, W. Warren Murray of Holbrook, MA, passed away last week at the age of 86. He was only my SM for one year, because of all our military moves, but it was the year I made Eagle, was elected to the OA and became an ASM. He made a point of keeping in touch with me throughout his life. We lost connections once, years ago, and he wrote to National Council. National wouldn't give out addresses, but forwarded his letter and we reestablished contact.

Warren stayed in Scouting to the very end of his life. He had earned the Silver Beaver and was serving on the commissioner staff when his health failed. He was a Navy veteran of WWII. He was a tough Scoutmaster, but he knew how to run an outdoor program and insisted that his troop go to camp for two weeks each summer at Camp Massasoit, on the Cape. BTW, he still had his old 1950s era wool leader uniform and could still wear it!

Feeling a touch of sadness and a little old today.

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) just published a pastoral letter opposing the proposed new policy: http://wmltblog.org/2013/05/boy-scouts-of-america-why-the-proposed-policy-change-matters/

 

[h=1]Boy Scouts of America: Why the Proposed Policy Change Matters[/h]

A statement by the Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, President,

The Lutheran Churchâ€â€Missouri Synod

May 16, 2013

 

Western culture is at a crucial moment in history. After 103 years of existence, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) may vote to change drastically its membership policy. For those who may be unaware, the BSA, in recent months, has discussed allowing both gay Scouts and Scout leaders into its organization. Recently, however, the BSA has changed its course. Now the vote will determine only whether to include openly homosexual Scouts as members.

 

LCMS leaders have been carefully monitoring the proposed BSA policy changes. When news of the proposed change was made public, I sent a letter to BSA, imploring its leadership not to make the proposed policy change. And even though the initial proposal to focus on Scout leaders has been shelved, I believe the current proposal still has unknown implications for the future of BSA as well as LCMS support and involvement. The proposed change will highlight sexuality, which has not been and should not be a matter of focus for Scouts. I suspect it will make it more challenging to care for young people struggling with same-sex attraction and perhaps open our churches to legal action.

 

This vote matters to the LCMS. The proposed change in BSA policy on values and membership to include openly homosexual Scouts adversely affects, even supersedes, the authority of the local pastor and congregation by allowing and promoting a moral position that we as LCMS Lutherans believe is against the will of God and in opposition to Holy Scripture.

 

This vote matters because, if enacted, the proposed change to BSA policy on values and membership will cause a crisis of conscience for our church leaders, pastors, parents and congregations. Even if the decision of values and membership remains at the local level, Scouts from troops sponsored by congregations of the LCMS will be affected because, as part of the scouting program, they also participate at regional and national scouting activities.

 

This vote matters because, for more than a century, scouting has sought to uphold moral values at a level greater than that of general society. The capitulation now to societal pressures would mar the long and honorable history of the Boy Scouts to honor the natural law of God, which at least for now, is still reflected in the current scouting membership policy.

 

For these reasons, I and some 25 other Protestant church leaders have signed onto a statement, copied below, that implores BSA not to change its policy, noting that, “In our current culture, it’s more important than ever for our churches to protect and provide moral nurture for young people and for the Scouts.†The statement will be released in conjunction with its delivery to the BSA office and before the organization’s vote, which will take place May 24.

 

I share this with you today because it is difficult to know which of our LCMS BSA members will be part of the 1,400 members who will vote on the policy change later this month. I am hopeful that all of you will share this information with those in your congregation who are involved with BSA and even those in your community who will cast votes later this month.

 

As the church awaits the BSA vote, we still have much to do. We repent, and we pray. We confess Christ and elevate marriage among us. We do what the church does best: We bear witness to Christ, show mercy to those in our midst  including those challenged by same-sex attraction  and care for all in our life together.

 

Pastor Matthew C. Harrison

 

President, The Lutheran Churchâ€â€Missouri Synod

 

Statement

 

We strongly support the Boy Scouts of America current prohibition on open homosexuality and retaining it without revision. Nearly 70 percent of BSA troops are hosted by churches and religious institutions. Upholding traditional morality is vital for sustaining this partnership, for protecting Scout members, and for ensuring BSA has a strong future. A proposal from the BSA board to prohibit “discrimination†based on “sexual orientation or preference†for BSA members potentially would open the Scouts to a wide range of open sexual expressions. In our current culture, it’s more important than ever for our churches to protect and provide moral nurture for young people and for the Scouts. We implore members of the upcoming BSA Council to affirm the BSA’s present policy, which the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed, and which has served BSA well.

 

 

Bishop David C. Anderson, Sr.

 

President, American Anglican Council

 

 

Sara L. Anderson

 

Executive Vice President

 

Bristol House, Ltd. (United Methodist)

 

 

The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey

 

Chief Operating & Development Officer

 

American Anglican Council

 

 

Dr. Robert D. Benne (Lutheran)

 

Jordan Trexler Professor Emeritus

 

and Research Associate

 

Religion and Philosophy, Roanoke College

 

 

Dr. Robert H. Blackburn

 

Past Chairman, National Association of Covenanting Congregations

 

 

The Rev. John Bradosky, Bishop

 

The North American Lutheran Church

 

 

Pastor Mark C. Chavez

 

General Secretary, North American Lutheran Church

 

 

The Rev. Sue Cyre

 

Executive Director of Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry (PFFM)

 

 

The Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison

 

President, The Lutheran Churchâ€â€Missouri Synod

 

 

Doug Harvey, Executive Director

 

Disciple Heritage Fellowship

 

 

The Rev. Charles Huckaby

 

Dean, Western Classis of the Calvin Synod Conference United Church of Christ Term 2010– 2013

 

 

Dr. Jeffrey Jeremiah

 

Stated Clerk

 

Evangelical Presbyterian Church

 

 

John Lomperis

 

Director, United Methodist Action

 

 

Alex McFarland

 

Director for Christian Worldview and Apologetics

 

 

Senator Patricia Miller

 

Executive Director, Confessing Movement (United Methodist)

 

 

Bob Morrison

 

Secretary, REVIVE! (Iowa United Methodist renewal)

 

 

The Rev. Dr. Mary Holder Naegeli

 

Minister-at-Large, San Francisco Presbytery; Moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition

 

 

Rev. Kevin C. Rudolph

 

National Covenant Association of Churches

 

Windwood Presbyterian Church

 

Houston, TX

 

 

The Rev. Dr. Frederick J. Schumacher

 

Executive Director, American Lutheran Publicity Bureau

 

 

The Rev. W. Stevens Shipman

 

Director, Lutheran Coalition for Renewal

 

 

The Rev. Paul Stallsworth

 

President, Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality

 

 

David M. Stanley

 

Director, Institute on Religion and Democracy

 

Chairman, United Methodist Action Steering Committee

 

Co-Chair, REVIVE! (Iowa United Methodist renewal)

 

 

Bishop Ray Sutton

 

Ecumenical Officer, Anglican Church in North America

 

 

Mark Tooley

 

President, Institute on Religion & Democracy

 

 

The Rev. Dr. David Wendel, Assistant to the Bishop for Ministry and Ecumenism

 

The North American Lutheran Church

 

 

Dr. George O. Wood

 

General Superintendent

 

General Council of the Assemblies of God

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Wayne Brock have any 12 year old sons or grandsons? If so, I offer to find two gay guys that are willing to take them into a wilderness area for 10 days. Just the kids and the two gay guys. I will guarantee that the two gay guys have passed the local school's child protection background check and have watched a video about Youth Protection on BSA website.

 

Think he'll bite?

In the Navy, it is "tradition" that the one with his hands on the helm steering the ship is one of the lowest ranking sailors, and the Officer of the Deck issuing orders is a junior officer. If the ship runs aground, the Captain gets fired, even if he was in his bed asleep at the time. The charge is "loss of confidence in his/her ability to command". The Captain is accountable for whatever happens on his ship, whether he knew about it or not. He doesn't get to go to the Board of Inquiry and say, "i had no knowledge of what the minions were doing". It's his job to know, or to establish the "command climate" to ensure that the right things happen, even in the absence of a direct order. The POTUS is rapidly "losing the confidence" of his superiors, WE THE PEOPLE, and needs to be relieved of command. We do not accept the juvenile excuse of Holder, Lew, Geithner, Hillary and others, of "we had no idea", and "what difference does it make". It makes a LOT of difference. And for you to characterize this as "hysterical belly aching" is, quite frankly, insulting and infuriating. I agree, we need to fix the economy and put people back to work...and the first step is to get rid of the corrupt thugs occupying the White House.

Does Wayne Brock have any 12 year old sons or grandsons? If so, I offer to find two gay guys that are willing to take them into a wilderness area for 10 days. Just the kids and the two gay guys. I will guarantee that the two gay guys have passed the local school's child protection background check and have watched a video about Youth Protection on BSA website.

 

Think he'll bite?

I say again, there are no valid reasons, other than religious, for the exclusion of gays at any level of Scouting. If the BSA is truly nonsectarian, then there is no reason to ban them. For the benefit of those concerned about gay leaders taking boys into the woods, Wayne Brock stated that we have the best youth protection program of any youth organization. So, either the BSA is a religious organization with a particular religious bias, or it isn't.

Regardless of what happened recently, the IRS is a political tool that is used by politicians of all stripes to modify social or business behavior. The only solution is to repeal the 16th Amendment and institute a flat tax, fair tax, 9/9 tax or something else. The tax code was ridiculous 30 years ago when i studied it in law school and it has grown exponentially since.

Kahuna, either we will keep things as they are, or allow homosexual scouts. People will be unhappy either way. Even if we allow in homosexual scouts, some people will be still be unsatisfied because we won't allow homosexual or bisexual or transvestite adult leaders. Other people will be unhappy because we don't allow in atheists. Others will be unhappy because we don't allow girls in as scouts. Others will be unhappy because we don't allow scouts to use medical marijuana in summer camp. Others will be unhappy because we won't let someone with a past felony conviction become a scout leader. There are always new causes, and new groups advocating those causes, on the horizon. The BSA occupies the precarious position of being seen as a National Institution, along with Mom and Apple Pie, so any group seeking validation will always advocate for inclusion or change of policy to accommodate them. Sometimes that will be appropriate, other times not, and we will all unfortunately have to disagree on some of those.

 

I don't belong to any group with whose policies I am in complete agreement. Because every group is made up of other humans who also think (as I do) that they know best how to run things, there will always be disagreements. If new policies make the group unsafe for youths, legally hazardous to me, or if they are immoral, I will leave. I'm still on the fence on the proposed new policy, tending towards retaining the old policy, which is workable and strikes the best balance for youth inclusion (DADT, without sexualizing or discussing scout's identities) without becoming mired in a legal morass. I get that others disagree with me, but the majority seem to favor my position at this time. We will never have a compromise or solution that makes everyone happy in our politically polarized society. Never. Things may change over the years with a new generation coming in, but most people also tend to become more conservative as they age, so public opinion may not change as much as some think, and recent history has shown us that the public opinion on some liberal positions (and some conservative opinions, to be honest) that once seemed certain to become the dominant mode of thought in society have, in fact, reversed themselves, so nothing is certain. Today's Scouts will also be tomorrows Scouters, so the same process will apply to them. Certainly, my views were more liberal when they I was younger, but people change and evolve.

 

Certain politically liberal regions of the country may have a loss in membership if the new policy doesn't pass, and certain politically conservative regions may take a larger hit if the new policy does pass, but in most cases, personal inertia will be the guiding force and as long as people are generally happy with their son's involvement in Scouting and with the personal relationships they've formed in Scouting, I think the majority are likely to remain.

 

They may grumble, post angry forum messages, and wear rainbow kerchief slides or those little rainbow knots to broadcast their disappointment to whomever will notice, (or a "Does not Equal" symbol patch, or whatever) but I think most people will be okay with the status quo, or the new proposal. If the new proposal is the foot in the door that causes radical changes within the organization that some fear (mandatory gay sensitivity training in adult leader training or NYLT, gay scout participation in Gay Pride parades as in Canada, etc.), then yes, expect a lot of people to start leaving.

I didn't get the email and no one I know did either. I'm happy about that, but very disappointed in the fact that such an overwhelming majority of leaders and parents are in favor of keeping the ban. The ones I work with directly seem to be pretty much on the side of letting gays in at all levels. Now, I don't see that happening in the near future. I fear the vote will be in favor of keeping the status quo. I guess I could live with that, but knowing all these other Scouters feel the way they do makes me uncomfortable. I will probably continue as a Scouter, but will never feel quite the same about Scouting again.

As I read the posts here, it seems to me one thing is missing. WHY would the BSA even want to consider this? Never mind the obstacles, boys will be boys, tears, sex, whatever. The purpose of Boy Scouting is to put boys in an outdoor environment and offer them fun activities that will lead to their becoming capable adults. Leadership, ability to care for yourself in the outdoors and elsewhere, patriotism and encourage (not teach) spirituality. How exactly would inclusion of girls promote any of these goals?

"The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916."

As I read the posts here, it seems to me one thing is missing. WHY would the BSA even want to consider this? Never mind the obstacles, boys will be boys, tears, sex, whatever. The purpose of Boy Scouting is to put boys in an outdoor environment and offer them fun activities that will lead to their becoming capable adults. Leadership, ability to care for yourself in the outdoors and elsewhere, patriotism and encourage (not teach) spirituality. How exactly would inclusion of girls promote any of these goals?

Some of these comments are hilarious.

 

I was a boy. I don't remember hurting for time "being a boy." I pretty much was one all the time. How does having girls present keep boys from being boys? If the boys aren't allowed to swear, go skinny dipping in the pond, or talk about girls & sex with male leaders present, then how does adding girls change anything? The program has already neutered the boy-specific activities and boy-oriented nature of the scouts. It is essentially already primed for girl participation.

 

As for the Cub Scouts, I have no idea why that is not co-ed now. Girls already come to everything, and cub scouts is run by women. What the heck are we resisting there?

So: What if this? What if that? What if space aliens wanted to join your troop? There is a lot of arguing going on here that has nothing to do with the principal point of all this. Everything turns on what the Scout Oath means when it says "morally straight," doesn't it? Belief in God or the Twelfth Scout Law don't come into it, if different religions have different takes. Ergo, it is purely a matter of your religious belief. Nothing else. Youth safety? We have the best in the world. Adult role models? Psychologists and behavioral scientists tell us that youth sexuality is not determined in the long run by role models. Boys emulate a lot of behavior from adults they admire, but not their sexual leanings. Boys seducing other boys? See above. Besides, boys DO seduce each other all the time in Scouting and out. It's part of growing up and has nothing to do with their adult sexual orientation. The BSA has always been tolerant of differing religious beliefs. We accommodate Jewish boys who are Kosher. We accommodate Hindus who don't like to see meat being eaten. We accommodate Muslims who don't want to cook bacon for their patrol. We accommodate Unitarians who believe who knows what at a given moment. Even the religions who teach that homosexuality is wrong generally (Muslims don't and probably others) subscribe to something like "hate the sin but not the sinner." I'm a Buddhist. HH The Dalai Lama says the Buddhist teachings are that homosexual behavior is wrong, but that it is also wrong to chastise, hate or refuse to associate with those who practice it. So, if this is an organization that holds that a belief in Supreme Being is necessary, but other than that we can practice our religion any way we choose so long as legal and not harmful to others, how can we not make allowance for those who don't believe that homosexuality is wrong? Why should some people leave the program because of a principle that has been there all along? Would you leave because you have boys and leaders who must pray five times daily facing Mecca? It's simple, really!

BTW, although I agree with Beavah on most things (excepting that Obama governs from the center ), I strongly disagree with his statement on homophobia. I think there are many out there who do hate and fear gays. A psychologist can explain this to you, but I won't. In my heart, I believe this is the main issue and that the other stuff is just self-justification.

Incidentally this Sunday the anti-gays in Scouting coalition OnMyHonor.net is planning a big national simulcast. At least one of the speakers will say that the gay agenda is Satanic and that the object is to tear down the image of Jesus. That, my friends, is pure religion and I doubt that other speakers will say anything that will address the meaning of this as it relates to religious discrimination in Scouting. I mean by this discrimination among religions, not against or for religion, which is a topic for another time.