NJCubScouter

Disney, Inc., one of the great philosophers of the 21st century. I'm not surprised that you'd quote them. When they're right, sure, why not?

FOG, I agree with that only up to a point. It depends how far back in the past, and what kind of behavior is in question. This makes me think of a movie that my kids watch a lot, I think it is the Lion King. There's a scene that goes something like this: Character A says that some past event doesn't matter because it's "in the past." Character B hits Character A over the head with a stick, causing A to ask why. Character A: "It does not matter why. It's in the past." In other words, "past" is sort of a matter of perspective. I could give some actual historical examples

FOG says: Why is that no one cries about the displaced Picts or about the Gauls who were pillaged by the Scandnavians. What about the Rus who ravaged the land? How about the countless Arab tribes that were slaughtered by other Arabs looking for water? The Persians stormed all over the place, enslaving and killing people. The Mongols did the same. Why? Maybe it's because we hold ourselves, as a nation, to a higher and more principled standard than did the ancient and medieval conquerors of whom you speak -- and some modern-day marauding nations as well. The treatment of the Native A

It doesn't mean that you can't help out in teaching these to your younger Scouts (with the approval of the merit badge counselor), but the counseling and signing off part needs to be done by an actual merit badge counselor with the appropriate 2-deep leadership. Just a little note here, "two-deep leadership" is NOT a requirement for merit badge counseling. (Obviously if the counseling is taking place at a camping trip, meeting or other activity where two-deep leadership is required, then two-deep leadership is still required, the merit badge counseling is irrelevant.) The materials

Having just read this entire thread in one shot, my head is spinning from trying to figure out which answers have been withdrawn, which are in question, and which are still "in effect." Bob, even if you had been correct that only the IH/CR can remove a boy from a unit, I would still disagree with your implication that this is not a subject that unit leaders (SM/SA/CC/MC) should concern themselves with. A good decision-maker, particularly one who is some levels "away" from a situation or who does not have the opportunity to observe it personally, will always ask those who are "closer" for

It's possible to not embrace any one particular religion as a guidepost and still see the immorality of certain behavior. Certain behavior, yes. But homosexuality, in and of itself, is not one of those behaviors. The BSA itself says its policy against avowed gays is based on "faith-based values."

Rooster says: First, no one is passing judgment on homosexuals or anyone else in regard to their salvation. That is God's job and no one can take it from Him. Rooster, you are judging them right here on Earth. You say they are immoral and engaging in "perversion." So far, that's ok with me, because you are entitled to your opinion. But when people who share your opinion and who happen to control the BSA cause the organization to exclude people based on their (and your) opinions -- and that exclusion has nothing to do with the BSA or its program or true values -- that is when I ob

First Rooster said this: I think "avowed" is pretty straight forward (no pun intended). It's people who dislike the policy that want to make it complicated. If the policy were against avowed alcoholics, no one would even try to play the word game. Then I said this: Rooster, once again you feel free to impugn the motives of others, but if someone questions your motives, you raise a big ruckus and start new threads with peoples' "names" in them. Evidently your indignation over "personal attacks" only runs in one direction. And Rooster responds with this: NJ, And

Scoutmaster Ron, Just as SPLT15's "Ropemaster" is probably really an Instructor, it could be argued that your "Gamemaster" is really a second Quartermaster -- but it also doesn't sound like the "Gamemaster" would qualify as a whole "position of responsibility" -- whereas the Ropemaster/Instructor sounds like it would qualify.

NW: I agree. (My ideological leanings prohibit me from saying "Dittos.") I would just add (for about the 25th time in this forum) that the BSA's own Declaration of Religious Principles say that the BSA is "absolutely nonsectarian" on religious matters. It cannot base a policy on religious beliefs that are not accepted by many people, and be "abolutely nonsectarian" at the same time.

In my last post, him = Him, if you like. I personally feel much more comfortable leaving the issue of the morality of consensual conduct in His hands. The very fact that there is such deep division among mankind on this issue suggests to me that we are not really up to the task.

Rooster says: So, we can debate this til the cows come home, but in the end - He will judge us all and it will be a righteous outcome. So why not just let him? And save the judgment of mankind for those people and acts that do actual harm to others?

Rooster, once again you feel free to impugn the motives of others, but if someone questions your motives, you raise a big ruckus and start new threads with peoples' "names" in them. Evidently your indignation over "personal attacks" only runs in one direction.

ProudEagle, with all respect, I think that your focus on the definition of "homosexual" in the BSA policy is misplaced. The phrase in question is "avowed homosexual." Since "homosexual" is modified by "avowed," the question as to whether one is homosexual is really only relevant if one is also "avowed." That fact allows the BSA to avoid most of the definitional issues attached to "homosexual." In other words, the BSA allows the gay person to define himself or herself as such, or not. If you say you're gay, then you are an "avowed homosexual," and if you don't, you are not, regardless of t

DS, I am aware that James Dale "publicly" avowed his sexual orientation. (Although, based on the published facts, one might argue about the word "publicly." That is probably best saved for a separate thread. I think the more important thing is to try to arrive at a common understanding of what happened in the Dale case, as some people (like me) rely on it fairly often as "the" example of the BSA policy in action.) However, I was responding to what silver-shark said, which did not deal with what "people in general" may know, but with what a Scouter discusses with Scouts. I think th

Silver-shark "asks": I'll pose this question to you and anyone else that would care to enlighten me. When is the best time to avow anything of a sexual nature to 11 to 18 year old boys, be it heterosexual, or homosexual, or a combination of them? Should it be only at campouts? How about only at Troop Meetings... or only at COHs... or only at Patrol Meetings... or only before the Scout Oath and Law are recited at the beginning of a meeting? Is there any time that would be even better or the absolute best time for this? I get the distinct impression, fr

First of all: Kerfuffle? It is clear what it means in context, but I've never seen it before. Is that of your own coinage? It sounds like it could be from the language of some of my recent ancestors (Yiddish), but it isn't. Second, I'm not sure why the fact that an organization was the victim of a crime is necessarily a reason not to donate to it. I suspect they had insurance for this sort of thing. Plus, businesses and organizations, including ones that you would figure would be able to prevent it, get embezzled from every day. Two million is a lot to steal, but I've seen and heard

Mostly against my better judgment too, but... Acco makes an excellent point that takes us out of the interpersonal sniping here and back to the main point of the BSA policy itself: Got a beef with a particular activity, opinion, cause, or indivudual? No, problem. But don't try to smear a group. That's the problem with the BSA policy regarding gays. It says that all gay people are of insufficient moral character to be adult leaders. Not just those who are depressed or suicidal or who have a particular "lifestyle" or who "live in a dark world" or whose lives are "driven" by sexu

Acco, that's funny because I start singing (only in my head, fortunately for those around me) a different song when I see the title of this thread. I guess it is called "Try to remember," where the singers repeat the word "follow, follow, follow." I guess it was by some folk-singing group, maybe it was in some movie too.

But, now that I think about it, every guy in our Troop 15 years and older has water skiing MB. HUMMM?!?!? Sounds like an amazing coincidence to me.

Rooster, I am satisfied to let the words that you and I have written speak for themselves. People who read what we have written can draw their own conclusions. But I can't help pointing this out: You accuse me of "tactics" that "impugn" you personally... but in the very same post, you again "impugn" me personally. Do you think that a different set of "rules" applies to you than to me?

Hmmm. I guess what I should have said is that, Most of all, the Lone Scout is not getting the benefit of the patrol method OR the leadership development method. I do realize that they are two different methods, but they are practiced in conjunction with each other. I also realize that, using modern methods of communication, a Lone Scout could participate with other boys to some, but I don't think the boy is getting the full application of these methods as they are intended.

SM406, you ask an interesting question about the Lone Scout program (which I believe does still exist, I just found a fact sheet for it on the BSA's official web site), but I think an argument can be made that a boy in the Lone Scout program is probably not getting the full benefit of the BSA program anyway. I think Lone Scouting exists as a last resort to allow boys who for whatever reasons cannot have access to a troop or pack to participate in Scouting. Most of all, the boy is not participating in the patrol method, and the issue of "leadership" as discussed in this thread, and the patrol

It's like the gay topic (and NO! I'm not trying to send this thread in that direction) when some people argue about the moral reasons for the policy and others focus on the legal part of BSA's right to make that policy. Did someone say "Niagra Falls"? Slowly I turn... Just kidding. I'll restrain myself.

I don't even mind if you expound so long as you make reference to a specific quote and not a twisted interpretation of the same. Well, who is doing the accusing now? What did I give a "twisted interpretation" to? I think it's pretty clear what you meant when you accused me of "dishonesty." I think it's pretty clear what Dedicated Dad meant when he suggested that I was in favor of sexual abuse of children. (March 14, 2002 at 7:06:26 AM.) I won't repeat exactly what he said. If you think I "twisted" what he said, that's fine. Just so you know, Rooster, when I talked about expressions