Rooster7

Phillip, But those of you who feel that homosexuals in Scouting hinder the program apall me. Just because someone is homosexual, does not mean they spend every waking moment flagging down people looking for sex. Yes that may well be true, but how does that fact justify their perverted acts? Is there another sexual perversion that we should accept as healthy and normal, simply because its practitioners may not be ensnared by it 24/7? If you are the great parents you say you are, your boys (hetero and homo) have been taught morals. Those morals will include common decency. No one claimed to be a great parent. We all do the best we can, but we are also flawed beings. Be that as it may, since when does common decency mean one must accept the deviate behavior of others? I have a problem with swearing occasionally (just to name one of my sins), but I don't want others to accept my misdeeds as normal. I want a society that sees the wrongness in my swearing, and keeps me accountable. I am tired of this stupid criticism. Baseless criticism is stupid. However homosexuality, as sterile as that label may sound, is a lifestyle choice that degrades humanity and all those that accept it as normal. A homosexual seeks self-gratification and/or acceptance. He does not honor his partner (or more typically - his partners). His love for his mate is twisted, and the resulting physical acts are perverted. I have many a gay friend, and none of them are morally impure. We are all morally impure. The difference is, homosexuals want the world to accept and celebrate their impurities. None of them make 24/7 sexual advances on any man in sight. No ones sexual drive, normal or abnormal, consumes them 24/7. This was a meaningless defense. So what are you afraid of? Whether a homosexual is consumed by his lust for other men (or boys) five hours a day or five minutes a day, I will not entrust that man or boy to be in custodial care of my son and/or share a tent with him. Conservatives take the honor right out of me, because I do live up to the Law I promised to strive for. No one can take the honor out of you, except yourself. The question iswhat do you honor - Godly principles or Human frailties? John, You speak about the rugged individualists who helped form this country, but seem disinterested in allowing certain people their individuality. Now, I suppose you can argue that they can be "individual" elsewhere, but your love and respect for Scouting is obvious, so "elsewhere", to you, is obviously a "lesser" place. That seems contradictory. Your reasoning can be applied to murders and rapists after all, their misdeeds make them individualists too (although rugged may be argued). Yes, I know that you will dutifully point out that homosexuals are not murderers I agree, but how does their perverted acts make them rugged individualists. If the criterion is simply a person who goes against societal norms, then they indeed share the company of murders and rapists. So lets play fair. I will concede that a homosexual is not a murderer, if you concede that a rugged individualist as described by TrailPounder, is in reference to the God fearing, principled men who founded this country and not a bunch of anarchists who embraced rebellion in all its forms. Everyone here respects service and Duty to Country. And we encourage it in everyone we meet --- well, . . . almost everyone, . . . you seem to be saying some people shouldn't be welcome to serve the country, or the country's children. Again, contradictory. Is he simply and arbitrarily saying, Some people? Or, is he saying, some people who act reprehensively should not be allowed to serve with others? Your statements seem to be implying that homosexuality is an inherit physical trait, such as race. Sorry, but that argument falls flat. Homosexuality is about behavior. One can chose to have sex or not to have sex. One can seek the company of a man or a woman or something else. It's about choices and what one is willing to subject himself and others to. While many thoughts and desires may run through our hearts and minds, we all have the ability to chose good. We all have the ability to deny our own wicked desires, and chose what we know is right. You want your kids raised the "American Way"? Shouldn't TRUTH be a large part of that. CC, discovered America (well, it's close enough to truth that I think we can live with it and honor his efforts) but he was more than disrespectful of what and whom he found here. Thats one version of history. We have the last 30 years of liberal theology in the public school system to thank for this revisionism. Educators (and the media) did not portray Christopher Columbus in such a manner prior to 1970. I realize that American Indians have suffered as a result of European exploration of the Americas, but why must we denigrate every icon of American history as evil? Why do you so willing accept this latest version of history, which portrays Christopher Columbus as selfish and bloodthirsty? I digress. It's not that I find it difficult to beleive that some of our forefathers may have performed acts of evil. It's that I am sickened by how quickly we are willing to rewrite history and portray every white European founder of this country as someone less than honorable, simply because liberals in this country have some kind of axe to grind. GW deserves every kind word we can say about him, but he WAS a slave owner and imperfect in other areas of his life, as well. I don't think it made him, or Jefferson, or most of the others, "less". They struggled with these choices as real men. I agree, but I see no relevance to the point being argued. Is there nothing we have to offer these children?? These children? Are we talking about children of homosexuals? If so, to my knowledge, there is no reason such a child cannot join the BSA. Or, are we talking about a child who claims to be a homosexual? Now thats interesting. Old enough to embrace the idea of having a sexual relationship with a partner of the same gender, but still young enough to be viewed as a child. In my mind, if this child is old enough to lust after other boys, then hes probably not as young and innocent as your supposition suggests. Still, we can offer him this. Your decision to seek an intimate relationship (i.e., sexual relationship) with another boy is WRONG! Sorry about being so blunt - but I doubt if anyone reading this does really know this to be true. Are we so afraid of their impact on ourselves and our children that we deny their existance?? If we were denying their existence, then we wouldnt have a policy to address them. Were simply denying them access to our children. AGAIN, I don't disagree with the policy, but if our reasoning is that they aren't good enough for us, then, again, I worry that it's OUR problem, not theirs. For someone who agrees with the policy, you have a lot of self-doubt. Its not a matter of being good enough. Its a matter of morality. Some folks try to embrace morality. Others try to redefine it. The BSA wants boys and leaders who are willing to embrace traditional values not tailor them to their liking.

She was manipulated knowingly. That's one of saying it. Another is - She exploited the opportunity to be manipulated. Certainly, if I found myself on this show, I would have tried to win the game - no question. BUT, I wouldn't have gained people's trust by claiming to be a moral purist - AND more importantly, I wouldn't have used my status in the BSA as validation of that claim. That's my gripe with Lil. Not being perfect is fine. But she flaunted her affilation with the BSA to gain people's trust and then stabbed those people in the back. Dont get me wrong. I think shes probably a decent person at heart. I just dont think she or anyone else should be puffing her up as some kind of great example. She wasnt.

My guess is If the offending party is not willing to make amends voluntarily, this will be a huge headache. Furthermore, unless your chartering organization gets involved, I dont think you (the committee or the parents) are in a legal position to do anything about it. That is to say, I believe the chartering organization is the only legal entity that can claim damages here. Equipment, property, funds, etc., acquired by the troop belong to the chartering organization.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Since Lil was stranded in her uniform, I saw her as having two choices: 1) Stake claim to the BSA and everything it stands for, and act accordingly. This choice would have been the most noble, but it doesnt give one much of a chance to win the game. 2) Openly recognize that Survivor is not the real world its a game, and declare to those around you that youre here to play the game. This choice, while not as noble as the first, would have been an honest approach. It recognizes the realities of the game and gives fair notice to everyone. Unfortunately, Lil saw a third choice. She staked her claim to the BSA and its ideas - without any disclaimers, but then she proceeded to play the game exactly like everyone else. Only at the end game, when her fate was already decided, did she declare to those around her that she intended to play the game like anyone else. Now, there are some who would say she was subjected to a double standard. Why should she feel compeled to announce her intentions of playing the game? Heres why She was the only one wearing a BSA uniform. She was the only one who openly staked claim to the ideas of the BSA. Given these two facts, I feel she not only did not represent the BSA well but she was the most dishonest and exploitive player of the game. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too. NOTE I am most curious. If the shows producers had not thrown these folks a curve ball (i.e., stranded them without forewarning on the island), I wonder if Lil would have still worn her BSA uniform and/or told others that she embraced the values promoted by the BSA. Bottom line She used her affiliation with the BSA to gain the confidence of others and then acted as if she was just another player.

In regard to the fired den leaders - Given your description of the events, I have to say it does sound as if your CM is a little power hungry. All that firing stuff seems over the top, but to be fair your story seems to lack a lot of detail. Where is the committee chairman in all of this? And if people are truly being forced out, on whos authority is this supposedly being done? Does he have the support of the chartering organization? In regard to the false accusation The CM is guilty of not being straightforward that is, if he had simply confronted you about your drunken appearance, he would have discovered (hopefully to his delight) that you were in fact not drunk. By appearances, he is also guilty of gossip. Nevertheless, couldnt you resolve this situation by simply avoiding the same error that the CM has committed? Be direct and avoid all the non-sense by confronting the CM and the CC. Tell them that you are aware of some gossip and you want to put it to rest. Unless these guys are morons, the situation does not have become any uglier than it has been. I suspect that they would recognize the mistake and apologize profusely (unless you go into attack mode). In short, give them a chance to make it right before seeking outside help. Thats my two cents. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

In the spectrum of the history, I see very little room to justify behavior in the present. Todays actions (relatively speaking) often provide impetus for tomorrows reactions (relatively speaking). This I understand. Most everything else is merely a record, which one might use to predict and prepare for the future. However, history should not be used as a mirror that reflects the hearts and minds of its descendents. I realize that the bonds of blood and heritage are strong. But why do men continue to seek satisfaction for their ancestors? And worse, why do they seek to exact that revenge against the children (or grandchildren, or great grandchildren, etc.) of those who purportedly did the misdeed? Its ridiculous. They knowingly enter a circle of self-destruction that will see no end no resolution no peace. I have no respect for this. There is no history that can be shown to me that would ever make me understand terrorists. Suicide bombings, which kill women and children: this is not a sign of a wounded people, but an evil society. How they became so evil is another question, but evil they are.

Heres my read on this. A registered Cub Scout signs up for a trip in the month of October. Afterwards, he decides that Cub Scouting no longer appeals to him. The Cub tells his dad. The family decides that its okay for their son to quit. Dad, being an honest man, informs the Cubmaster that the Cub will no longer be attending meetings starting in September. If the Cub attends the October outing, the Cubmaster believes people will talk. Thus, he feels he has a dilemma. I agree with BW. Hes paid. Hes officially registered. The BSA has no mandatory attendance polices. Therefore, hes entitled. And he may even change his mind about quitting. Let him go. If we were discussing a Scout, instead of a Cub, I might be inclined to take a harder stance. But even then, if hes registered and paid and not a problem, why not let him go? As much as I like the Scouts for building character mentoring boys to become men (and anyone whos seen my posts know this to be true), I think there are times when we need to lighten up. This is an opportunity to provide a good kid with a good memory. If people talk and complain, perhaps you should do a Scoutmaster Minute on the evils of gossip and complaining.

If I could go back in time, heres some advice that I would give my self at age thirteen: 1) Despite your impressions, most adults really dont know nearly as much as they lead you to believe. So be bold, and dont be afraid to express your thoughts and fight for your ideas. 2) Despite the former, most adults really do deserve much more respect than what the average teenager is willing to give. So stand out from your peers and spend the time it takes to get to know the adults in your life well. But thats just the stuff that comes to my mind today. Im sure theres plenty more that I wish I could say, like - History or even English Literature can be fun! And buy Microsoft!

I think Hops does pretty well myself, but I also think he's old enough to hear a little descent. You did say teenager - right? For a second, it appeared as if you were saying toddler. I'm sure he's big enough to handle himself. And from what I've read, I don't think the criticism has been all that harsh.

I think its a little hypersensitive to close a thread simply because a rescue team is being subjected to second-guessing. This is not the Washington Post. It's highly unlikely that those directly involved are going to stumble upon this thread. My heart aches for a family that has probably lost a son. Yet, these discussions have not done anything to increase their pain. Second-guessing can be constructive - asking "what if" opens the door for a potentially more effective course of action next time. It may not help this boy and his family, but it could help the next. As to the comparison to heart surgery, that's a little bit overboard.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

John, I know I'm thick-headed Why dont we just stop there since were finally in agreement! Were not living in a lab so I cannot scientifically demonstrate my assertions as being true. And since neither of us have the power to craw inside the head of the opposite sex, it appears this argument will continue for a long time. Still, without any insult or arrogance intended, I know Im right. Ive been living too long to deny the truths that are so plain for me to see. I can't explain these differences between the sexes any easier than I can explain love to someone who claims they've never been loved. And even if I could, you or someone else could always point to the exception as opposed to the rule. So let's do each other a favor and call a truce. Bottom line: The resolution of this debate is not going to bring about world peace. So, I bid you peace and voluntarily withdraw my participation from this thread.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

BadenP, I have a question for you. Do you believe that you could not be a good mentor or a good role model to your daughter because you are a male? Yes, I can be a role model to my daughterBut her education would be painfully incomplete without a woman of good character as her mentor. how do we deal with the reality of today that we have all been talking about and still make scouting work without women being involved in leadership roles? I never said women should not take leadership roles in Scouts. My basic premise was, assuming there are no other obvious discriminators; men are better suited for these roles because of the need for boys to have male mentors. I suppose, though it pains me to say it, Bob White answered that question fairly well. KS, At the risk of sounding like my 15 year-old, you rock buddy! You really do get it or perhaps I get you. Either way, were in agreement. Eamonn, Perhaps my life experiences are extraordinarily different than most on these boards. But I have observed many men and women of good character throughout my years and I have discovered many differences. For example, Ive seen a multitude of women embrace the profession of nursing with not only compassion and love, but a willingness to perform the most repulsive acts of service without so much as a peep of complaint. While there are certainly a few male nurses whove joined their ranks and performed the job admirably, they are not the rule. I have to ask myself, what did God instill in women that enables them to care for the sick with such great kindness. Perhaps, those of you that had to witness a loved one under such care in a hospital or hospice understand what I am saying. Regardless, this is but one example. Conversely, I have seen men perform acts of heroics, which seemed to be instinctive and without regard to personal safety, to save the life of someone theyve never met. Again, there may well be examples of females doing the same. Yet, I remain convince that it is much more common among men, because of the way God created us. Both of these traits demonstrate self-sacrifice, and each speaks well of the gender that they represent; yet they are different. Man and women are not the same. They have gifts and character traits that God has imparted that are unique. I stand convinced that this is true. Not only because Gods Word makes it plain to me, but by my lifes experiences. Fotoscout, What part of the Scout Oath is male specific? The Boy Scout program is male specific. Why? Could it be that there are differences among the sexes? Could it be that those differences extend into adulthood? Do you plan to raise your son and daughter in the exact same manner, blind to their gender? I truly hope not. If you want your programs to continue and thrive, you are going to have to accept women in leadership positions within Scouting. I know this thread is under Issues and Politics, but do you have to act like a politician? I have not seen a single post, which stated that women should not be in leadership roles. Yet you and others continue to post as if that is the crux of the argument. This is a political strategy and its known as a straw man argument. Heres how it works: 1) Create a feeble and indefensible argument (i.e. Women cannot be good leaders). 2) Attribute the premise to your opponent. 3) Add enough truths to make it sound as if your opponent believes and supports the premise. 4) Then proceed to knock down the argument, which is rather easy since most folks universally accept the opposing view without descent. Its called a straw man, because its so easy to knock down. Of course, the reason its so easy to knock down is because it was contrived specifically for that purpose. BUT TO BE CLEAR, many women are good leaders and their energy and skills are needed in the BSA. They just cant be men. And boys, need to see how good men act in a given situation. They need to have male role models. These two ideas female leaders and male role models, do not have to be mutually exclusive. Both can be present without hindering the other. If you want to know my personal preference Yes, Id like to see a man of good character act as my sons Scoutmaster. If given the choice between a woman of good character and a man of questionable character, Id take the woman every time. But all things being relatively equal, I think a man is better for the job for the reasons I already stated.

John, "A boy needs to learn how to cope with life and relate to others as a man." Is that thought any less true if we leave off the final three words?? Theres nothing wrong with being a man. Were not better or WORSE than women but we are different. Im willing to recognize those differences. What are you afraid of? Bella Abzug???? Wow, Rooster, you're dating yourself (and, unfortunately, me!!)!!! But, as a Native New Yorker, I understand and am honored by the comparison!!! Clear thinkers are difficult to find anywhere, at any time in history!! DEEP sigh here - This explains a lot as to why we are butting heads on this issue. In short, one man's clear thinking is another man's utter nonsense. PEACE.

KS, I dont think we have any disagreement. You seem to understand exactly what I was trying to communicate. John, Boys become men no matter what anyone does for them or to them. I strongly disagree. In my book, manhood is not so narrowly defined. A boy will often become a product of those around him those mentoring him. He does not become a man simply by passing through puberty. It's men and their attitudes and behaviors that cause the world most of it's conflicts, most of it's anguish. Wow. That sounds like the lead sentence in an article written by Bella Abzug. While I cannot deny your assertion, your statement does lack clarity and some degree of honesty. Yes, more men than women have caused this worlds problems. But what your statement does make clear is that there have been many good men. Nor does it acknowledge the existence of differences between good men and good women (although they certainly share many admirable traits as well). A boy needs to learn how to cope with life and relate to others as a man. I freely accept whatever labels people chose to sling my way. My conscious is clear. I know in my heart of hearts, and by the gift of reasoning that God gives each of us a boy is not a girl, and he needs to see and converse with men of good character to understand and embrace his future role as a man. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

1st century, 5th century, 1950s, or 21st century Men were different, are different, and always will be different from women. Boys need men more so than women as mentors, not because women are inferior, but because when these boys become adults they will confront a mans world. I dont see why this is so difficult for so many to grasp.

Men bring some things to the program that women don't and the same can be said for women. Yes. Yes. Yes. Undeniable. BUT - these boys will grow to become men one day, not women. At least, we can hope.

The next logical step/conclusion to your supposition is the Boy Scouts of America should not be so narrow minded as to serve boys only. If there are no differences between men and women of good character, then there must not be any differences between boys and girls of good character. I say: Viva le difference! Yes, I value women no less than I value men. But lets open our eyes a little more here. Men are uniquely suited to mentor boys.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

definitely

In the effort to guide and develop young girls into women, many in our society have suggested that females should take the lead as role models and seek the forefront. I find this to be very reasonable. Who better? Yet, when the same is suggested about men in regard to the guidance and development of boys, there seems to be some hesitation, as if this suggestion is an insult to women. This is not reasonable. Acco40, Try doing a little research next time. Frankly, I am a little more than a bit surprised that you would challenge me on that statement. Do a word search for mentor on the national site. There are 28 references. This particular excerpt is from a BSA press release: "The purpose of the Boy Scouts of Americato help America's youth reach their full potentialhas not changed in our 93 years," said Chief Scout Executive Roy L. Williams. "That stability and clarity of mission is one reason Scouting is as successful as it is today. Scouting focuses on mentoring youth, building their character, supporting their faith traditions, and helping them establish patterns for lifelong learning, healthy living, and serving others. These attributes have never been more important than they are today." And this from another press release: "Our volunteer leaders are excellent role models, providing mentoring to the youth they serve," Creighton added. And this from a third press release: Unfortunately, no one is born with good character and strong values; those are learned from friends, peers, mentors, and religious leaders. Since its inception, The Boy Scouts of America has recognized the importance of strong role models during a child's formative years. In years gone by, these people were called neighbors, teachers, and community and religious leaders, as well as Scoutmasters. Today, we call them mentors. Who better to mentor boys than men of good character? Of course the knee-jerk liberal response is to say - Women of good character! Good answer, but then again, it assumes that men and women have no differences...that men have no special wisdom or manner which uniquely pertains to their gender, that enables them to uniquely understand and communicate with a boy . I feel that assumption is a gross distortion of reality. Certainly, by all appearances, the modern world seems to grasp this reality when it comes to women and girls. Yet, a double-standard seems to be widely accepted when the discussion turns to men and boys.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Im agreeable to female leadership, especially in the absence of willing males. Nevertheless, there are many folks including myself, who embrace the idea of male leadership in a program designed to mentor boys. It has some degree of logic to it. Lest we forget that there are differences between men and women that go beyond the physical.

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I like speaking plain and being blunt - which the web allows one to do. On the other hand, this freedom tends to make me a little insensitive. Even speaking to like minded folks, face to face, its easy to inadvertently send the wrong message. So, it's easy to see how some of these forums can get a little out of hand.

While I agree that the U.S. is a super power, and has a moral obligation to defend its allies, we cannot be everywhere all the time. With the implosion of the USSR, the need for a buffer in Western Europe to fend off communist aspirations is basically non-existence. The greater concern, as youve noted, is terrorism and the need to contain and disarm those rogue nations that embrace their cause. The Middle East is the obvious hot spot. Bush is simply being smart about how we distribute our military resources. Certainly Europe is a target for terrorism. However the threat that Germany and others face is not the potential force of an invading army. The threat that Europe must confront is militant religious radicals who masquerade as peaceful citizens. The power of the U.S. military will not dissolve that threat. Especially since so many Western European leaders want to bury their head in the sand and blame their woes on America. The key to peace and security in Europe depends on the Europeans themselves and their leaders. They must face these ugly truths: 1) the terrorist threat is real, 2) it is a long-term problem, and 3) Europe is as much a target as America. Upon accepting these realities, they must be brave and persistent in this fight. They cannot dismiss the threat by cowardly placating to the demands of those who hate the U.S. Once they come to grips with these truths, then they can start addressing the problem in a real way. Otherwise, their weak-kneed and shameful approached to terrorist threats (i.e., the elections in Spain) will only invite more violence. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Its Me, I agree. But I feel obligated to defend some of my friends who were blessed with a loving family and wealth. In fact, its been my observation - many folks who are successful in building a career and obtaining wealth, know quite a bit about what is required to build a loving and supportive family; And have prioritized their time accordingly. No doubt, wealth can lure people away from whats important. On the other hand, some of the wealthiest men in America built their financial empires by focusing on principles that emphasized the importance of people and Gods love.

OGE, I believe your analysis is correct. Whatever America chooses to do, especially with a Republican in the White House, we will be portrayed as opportunistic.

Before you give me that number, tell me how many men with Lear jets do you know personally - well enough to attend their funeral? I know plenty of poor slobs who wouldn't be recognizable by that eulogy even if you threw in the Lear jet for free. If you ask me, while the ad doesn't impress me - this thread does seem to have the taint of jealously all over it.