Rooster7

I understand the frustration expressed by the author, hops_scout, and others. Those who would like to see hops_scouts original post moved somewhere else (because its not related to Scouting), dont get it. If they did get it, theyd understand that it is Scout related very much so. I am Chezc and German on my fathers side, and Hungarian on my mothers. It has never bothered me that this country was founded by the English. Nor do I get rattled when its pointed out that Columbus, an Italian, discovered America. I wasn't even slighted when I discovered that our country was named after an Italian. I am intrigued by our countrys history. And although I do not have an English heritage, I am proud of the founding fathers George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and the like. Too many today, not only want to deny our heritage, they spend their time finding ways to insult it. Post Civil War America has gradually brought about changes, which has since allowed others to participate in a more meaningful way. And of course, its great that we can now point to the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Eleanor Roosevelt, Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver, Susan B. Anthony, and many new faces which are molding our countrys future. I have no problem with this kind of diversity. However, when in the name of diversity we must deny the significance of others, or worse denigrate their accomplishments by pointing to their failings (real and contrived), I take exception. The religious aspect of this controversy is a big ugly ball of string, which I dont have the energy to untangle. Still, I agree with the author theres way too much time being spent apologizing for a past that needs no apology, and accommodating those who want to erase our history in the name of diversity. Undeniably, Christians and their faith have deep roots in America. Many of our strongest traditions stem from this history. Some folks would like to revise the record to belittle their significance. Others simply deny the facts all together. Still others prefer to slur the past contributions of Christians by highlighting the misdeeds of a few. Its difficult not to be angered by these narrow-minded and hateful people. Irony of all ironies, they defame and/or deny the influence of Christians in the name of diversity. The worst of the bunch are self-proclaimed Christians who malign the faith of other Christians as if its their God given right. They seem to believe because they claim the faith, they are enlightened and empowered to carelessly profane those who do the same. So along with the Amens, Id like to add God Bless America and Merry Christmas. If those words bother you, perhaps the next time you want to call someone out as being intolerant or bigoted, you should look in the mirror. Note if this article was so baseless, it would not solicit the reaction that it does. There is truth in the authors words which strikes a chord in many, if not most, Americans. btw - I find the reference to napalm quite distasteful. The post should be removed as it is not up to the standards of good taste for these forums. Give me a break. If that offends, how do you even manage to navigate through the Internet for more than five minutes?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I agree with FScouter. So long as your opinions (right or wrong) remain private, no one can accuse you of slander. Just replace her. You have no legal obligation to give justification. Just to be argumentative - not that its part of my nature ;-) ...the fact that she wears clothes, does not mean she is dressed appropriately. There are other things to consider, such as the size of the shirt or blouse vice the size of the women, the type of material, how it is cut, whether or not she make use of buttons, and so on. Laugh if you will, but I had control of those variables as a 16 year old, I'm certain that the women around me would not be lacking in allure. Bottom line - women are free to do as they please, just like men. But ones choices have consequences. If she wants to send out signals to every male around her, then thats her prerogative. However, it is also the prerogative of a childrens organization to reject that kind of behavior.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

You forgot one. One to say, Jesus is the only true light of the world. ;-)

Judging by the most recent posts on this and other subjects, I'd say there are way too many Ostriches in this bunch for any mountains to be spotted, much less built. Its easy to be cavalier, especially when ones head is buried in the sand.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Hunt, I vehemently disagree. Is this what we want to teach our boys? If the current powers-to-be have no problem with it, then shut up and get out of the way. Keep those pretentious ideas about morality to yourself. Simply pass the buck up the line. If the next guy up agrees, then youre merely the messenger and you dont have to defend your ideas. If he doesnt agree, then you can wash your hands of the whole ordeal and turn the other way. In Scouting, were supposed to be developing character in these boys. I'm not willing to teach: Disregard what youve been taught about right and wrong, consult the next guy up the food chain and follow his lead. It's not a noble path. If the CO approved the Cubmaster when he was originally selected, then I think the CM already has their confidence to resolve these matters. If he should discover otherwise, so be it. But I dont think the CM has to run to the COR every time he/she encounters a situation. And even if the COR disagrees, I don't see the matter ending there. I see it ending with my resignation or somewhere else. We owe it to our children to fight for what we believe is right.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Aah, I see. The sophisticated Europeans and the rest of the world's elite have clearly demonstrated that America is nave and ignorant, for we stubbornly cling to Old World puritan ethics. We rudely force our outdated standards on others. I hang my head in shame. Surely, most parents would love nothing more than to "expose" their children to the finer things in life, which no doubt includes this delightful woman's breasts. So please forgive me and my ilk. I am, forever, a neophyte. As such, I advise that you tell the lady to act like one and to keep those puppies under wraps. But that's just me. I like to think that the world (or at least our part of it) still has some standards which don't have to be backed by laws.

If the facts as I understand them are true: 1) She is a well endowed woman. 2) She wears clothes which makes it obvious that she has no bra. 3) She attends the pack meetings. Then unlike some, I agree that there is a problem. Pack meetings should be a place where the boys and their families can enjoy a wholesome atmosphere. Perhaps I am not as enlightened as some, but I definitely see her presence as previously described, to be a problem. No doubt, this is a sensitive issue and would need to be dealt with privately. I suggest that you find a friendly woman Scouter or parent who's willing to politely address this woman with your complaint (although it doesn't have to be presented as a complaint - maybe a "concern" would be better received). Regardless, in the end, I think you not only have the right, but an obligation, to put an end to that situation. Unfortunately, there doesnt appear to be an easy, non-confrontational solution to your problem. Good luck.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

In my mind, hands down - Second Year Webelos Leader.

My comments were directed to ehcalum who inferred that the expression of my Christian beliefs concerning the New Covenant may cause Jews to be offended. The point was - while some folks may not like my beliefs, they need not take offense because those beliefs are not being forced on them or anyone else. NJ, You may or may not have reason to be upset with someone else, I don't know. But I don't understand how a single incident constitutes a systemic problem. When I express my opinions, religous or otherwise, I see no difference between my treatment and yours from others on this forum.

Upon consulting my bible, although I didnt say it before, the Old Covenant is obsolete. Of course, Jews are free to think otherwise so please spare me the sensitivity training. But according to my faith, this is what the book of Hebrews taught about Jesus and his New Covenant: 6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. 10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."[c] 13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. Hebrews 8:6-13 Okay, my apologies...we now return you to our regular scheduled programming.

How is the Old Covenant not a means to salvation? I would highly suggest not telling our Jewish friends that the Old Testament and the Old Covenant has become null and void. Ehcalum, Are you a believer a Christian? If so, I must ask what exactly do you believe about Jesus? The Old Testament is not null and void. I never said differently. To the contrary, if it were not for the Old Testament, we would not have Gods precepts. And Jesus himself noted that all of the law will remain until heaven and earth pass. As to the Old Covenant, here again I never said that it was null and void. I did say that it was essentially superseded by the New Covenant. If my Jewish friends insist on earning their salvation by attempting to conform to Gods Laws, that is their prerogative and I wish them the best. However, if you take the time to read the book of Matthew and in particular the Sermon on the Mount, I think you will find that obtaining salvation by that means is unlikely. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that conforming to Gods precepts is not only a matter of remaining faithful to all of his commands, but doing so with unmixed motives a pure heart for God. This essentially invalidates anyone Ive ever met as being worthy for salvation. Does it nullify the Old Covenant? No. But who do you know that is capable of obtaining salvation through the Old Covenant, other than Jesus? His blood is the only way in which I will ever see salvation. I know my heart all too well. I would love to say that I intuitively respond with Gods love and seek his ways in everything I do, but making that claim would only add to my already long list of sins. And I havent met anyone yet who can make that claim. I have many friends and not all of them are Christians, but my faith which I know in my heart to be true, will not be subjugated to political correctness so to not offend. My Jewish friends worship and believe as they please and with no criticism from me when they do. But my beliefs are mine to keep. I think its quite possible that most Jews feel the same way about their faith.

OGE, The Old Testament is still relevant. Its the old covenant which is no longer tenable. Or rather, one might say - we have been offered the new covenant as a means of meeting the demands of the old.as a means to opting out so to speak. We can stand before God as sinless beings. Our inability to conform to the Law will not be our undoing because Jesus blood will make us righteous men before the Father. Consequently, Gods Righteousness will not result in our condemnation. Nevertheless, the moral law taught in the Old Testament is still valid. In fact, for those who reject the new covenant, they will be appear before God without the covering of Jesus blood and thus they will be judged by the old covenant. Given Jesus Sermon on the Mount, it seems implausible to me that any ordinary man can conform to the Law. Without Gods intervention that is, Jesus; meeting the tenets of the Old Testament would be our only hope for salvation. And of course, this is like saying the only hope of a drowning man is the ship that is sinking beneath him and in which his leg is entangled. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

OGE, FUnny, I thought it read "Thou shalt not kill" Not "Thou Shalt not Kill unless you have a really good reason like the person is a convicted murderer" Per my understanding, Thou shall not kill is a poor translation. A more appropriate reading is Thou shall not murder. I dont view an executioner, who is carrying out a sentence determined by the state, as a murderer. Furthermore, Gods Word gives the state authority to judge and punish individuals under its dominion. Read the Old Testament. What did God command Moses to do after he came down from mountain to discover the Jews embracing a Golden calf as their god? Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day." Exodus 32:27 - 29 This was shortly after God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Per your interpretation, is God commanding His people to break a commandment? I dont think so.

Acco40, Like today, I don't want to hit the hornet's nest with a stick but could an abortion doctor or executioner be thought of as morally straight today? Only one of the above is responsible for the intentional killing of an innocent life.

Even if you accept the idea of slowing a Scouts progress, which I dont, this Scoutmaster is making some huge assumptions. He doesnt think a Scout should complete his Eagle rank before the age of 16, therefore he slows their progress if any Scout is on pace to complete the rank before then. But heres something that this Scoutmaster has obviously not considered. Many boys do not work at a steady pace. Some kids will advance through three ranks in two years or less, and then just sit and smell the roses for the next two or three years. What if a boy started out on fire and was on pace to have Life by age 12 or 13? I say - so what? He may very well stay at Life until hes 15 or 16 or even later. If this Scoutmaster had his way, the same boy would be slowed (by the Scoutmasters self-imposed rules) and would not achieve 1st Class until he was 12 or 13. Thus, in the end, the Scoutmaster may ruin this boys drive and motivation. The boy may never achieve the rank he could/would have had the Scoutmaster just did his job and not play the role of Emperor of the Troop.

I look forward to answering the questions. It will give me an opportunity/excuse to study my faith more. However, it seems me, this is a can of worms begging to be open.

NJ, What can I say? Youre an awesome example of open-mindedness and tolerance. Youd make Michael Moore blush...something that you have repeatedly demonstrated.

As already noted, Im fairly certain that the BSA does not recognize Satanism as a religion that is compatible with BSA values. Regardless, anyone can create a religion. Scientology didnt exist 50 or 60 years ago. NAMBLA could create their own religionIf they did, do you think the BSA would feel compelled to recognize and accept them as a legitimate religion? Non-sectarian means the BSA does not require its members to be of a particular faith. Nevertheless, you must have a faith in God, and that faith must be compatible with the BSAs values. How about this for catch-22If all faiths must be accepted, what would the BSA do if an unnamed religion taught the antithesis of the Scout Law? In my opinion, theres more room here for counseling and guidance than what most folks are indicating. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

If the parents of a Scout was to tell me, "Weve taught our son that it is his religious duty to attend services every Sunday", then I'd expect that Scout to make a serious attempt to be there every Sunday. If a Jewish Scout is taught by his family to never eat pork, Id expect that Scout to comply with this teaching. These are reasonable expectations. We should be teaching and encouraging Scouts to take their religious obligations seriously. If a Scout has been given permission by his parents to pursue whatever religion he pleases, then fine. But we should inquire what faith he has embraced, and ask him to show us how he's been faithful to its teachings.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Thus, BSA will recognize ANY religious belief, no matter how strange, how vague, how individual, or how far out of the mainstream. First - the above statement is simply not true. Not every religion is openly accepted by the BSA. Secondly - I submit, if we take our obligation as mentors seriously, we should not mindlessly accept whatever a Scout happens to spew out. Kudu in context, I find your quote much more agreeable. "If it is pushed too far, religion becomes almost a consumer productPeople choose what they like, and some are even able to make a profit from itBut religion constructed on a 'do-it-yourself' basis cannot ultimately help us. It may be comfortable, but at times of crisis we are left to ourselves." Pope Benedict XVI

From time immemorial boys have lied with facility, have thought adults hypocritical and have resented any attempts to make them appear to be ostentatiously virtuous. Interesting. Is he referring to boys as they enter Scouting...the "raw material" so to speak, that we get to teach and counsel? Or, are these boys the product of our mentoring...perhaps a boy we might see at an Eagle BOR? If its the latter, you have a lower opinion of our Scouts than I do. Or maybe, your Scouts have a lower opinion of you than what I might expect to see elsewhere. Or perhaps, I just missed your point.

Three pages on what constitutes "water over your head"? I must be sick, but I'm going to join in this debacle. I tend to agree with the folks who have addressed the spirit of the requirement vice "the letter of the law". Since passing the test qualifies a Scout to be classified as a swimmer, the administrators have a responsibility to ensure that the test is conducted in a manner whereby the results are meaningful. If the boy is allowed to push off the bottom of a pool to get to the surface in short order, then something is wrong. The purpose of the test is being circumvented and allowing the boy to qualify as a swimmer would be reckless.

Okay. I'm spent. I disagree with a number of presumptions and conclusions made in the last post by CalicoPenn. But alas, I only see a scenario in which, in the end, I wind up pounding my head against a wall. So have it your way...It's a horribly offensive question. AND, because one's faith is soooooooo personal, if a Scout wants to cover his body with peanut butter and streak through the streets at high noon in order to serve his God, who am I to judge him? Gee I can't wait to see how you wonderful folks explain duty to country.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

No doubt, I did. But these days, not much surprises me. Basic words like IS, SEX, and now GOD (even in the most generic sense) are all relative terms and subject to debate. No wonder this country grows increasingly divided, it appears we don't even have a common language.

Trevorum, Although I am not Buddhist, I doubt one would baldly say, as you suggest, "God does not exist." Rather, the Buddhists I know are much more apt to say, "I do not believe in your God". Do you see the difference? (It's important.) Your God exists for you, certainly, but not for him. That is not a scientific possibility of course, but we are talking about belief systems, not empirical reality. Youre proving one thing. If you continually modify your argument, eventually it will either appear as if you were right all along, or youll unwittingly agree with the person with whom you chose to debate. I never said that a Scout had to believe in my God. That was a recent modification of your argument whereas you chose to put words in my mouth that I never said or ever intended to imply. I simply said he had to believe in God. If a Scout refuses to acknowledge God then he cannot fulfill his duty. From one of your earlier posts: But what of the 13 year old Buddhist? By even asking the question, do you think you would be "respecting the convictions and beliefs of others in matters of custom and religion"? When you said the above, I took it to mean that you understood and agreed with a previous poster (fgoodwin) who said if one was to ask, "Do you believe in God?" A Hindu or Buddhist Scout might very well answer "no"! I see that as an unacceptable answer for a Scout. Pertaining to the original point of the thread, I see the question as being very unbiased and practical. Hunt, The more authoritative and patronizing you present your argument, the more your words ring hallow to me. Try this on for size and let me know if youre more incline to see my point of view. I wrote it in the same style that you chose: I'm sorry if you don't like that, but there are other organizations you can join if you prefer a more confusing approach. In other words, if a boy says, "I don't know what God is exactly, but I believe that the Martians are in control of the Earths destiny, and I see doing my duty to that higher power as clearing a landing path in my uncles cornfields. That's really just the beginning of the discussion. He's has not proven to me that he understands who or what God is, or why he should be committed to serving God. Hes simply embraced some non-sense in a poor attempt to comply with the letter of the policy, which clearly falls short. AND I'm really sorry that some folks can't see the value in a simple, straightforward question. I think it's pretty clear that BSA recognizes "religions" that do not feature a single God (or perhaps any God). As Ive said repeatedly, while this may be true, its not consistent with the Scout Oath, which clearly requires every Scout to recognize God (or at least, a god). You have an opinion (although you and some others like to state their opinions as fact) and I have mine. I dont see my views as being inconsistent with BSA policy. Until you can produce the document with the same vague, meaningless gibberish that you offered as a definition for belief and duty to God, I will stick with my interpretation. In meantime, I accept the possibility that I might be wrong. I would be saddened by such a revelation because Ive always given the BSA credit for having values that are tangible and significant. As opposed to some political drivel that gives the pretence of morality, but really offers nothing than a placebo for those who want to appear to be moral. Regardless, I seriously doubt you will produce the BSA documentation that contradicts my interpretation.