Rooster7

Ever consider the possibility that the guy with the Lear Jet has it all - tons of time with the family, tons of wealth, and a generous heart to boot Im just saying a Lear jet is not a telltale sign of family neglect or selfish ambition. It is what it is - an expensive jet. The owner doesnt have to be some cad who trades his family for wealth. But to be clear, given the choice between wealth and my family - I'd take my family every time.

Parents may sit quietly outside the room and listen to the meeting. but remain unseen and unheard. Being that it is the boys meeting, dont they have a say in this matter? What if they saw wisdom in inviting some parents as SMEs and wanted to discuss their options with them? My point is, you stated the above as if its carved in stone. It seems to me that there may be opportunities for parents to share.

Reading over the last four posts, perhaps I have no argument here with anyone on this subject. It seems like everyone is taking a reasonable approach. This subject can be a sore point with me, because I feel we (any leader involved in youth activities) have the power to make family relationships stronger. When I sniff out anything that sounds as if its counterintuitive to that process, it disturbs me. Parental participation and boy-run are not mutually exclusive concepts. Though, I agree that there may be times when the leader needs to step in to preserve the boy-run program (as KS noted). Still, just I as I appreciate a boy who can put forth and develop a idea into a planI also enjoy the camaraderie of fathers and sons, and the passing of wisdom from one generation to the next. We can do a lot to make that happen or we can drive a wedge between them.

You said, scouts like to use the time that they spend at scouts, as a break from being around their parents. I feel we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by catering to this presumption. Even if a Scout or two sought this so-called break from their parent - Is it healthy to adopt that as the standard and apply it to the troop? We should be encouraging and fostering better relationships between parent and child, not accommodating an attitude that seeks to separate them. In a typical day, it seems to me that boys (and girls for that matter) spend about 8 to 10 hours sleeping, 6 hours at school, and at least another 2 to 4 hours watching TV and playing with their peers. Now thats just a baseline. Throw in extracurricular activities such as organized sports, band, choir, karate, dance, church youth group, etc. and Id say most kids have something to do 24 x 7, most of which does not include a parent. Given the aforementioned, I say Scouts need Scouting as a break from being around their parents, like they need a hole in their head. Devotion to family being one of the three primary values that the BSA emphasizes, I would hope that most leaders try to accommodate parental participation, not discourage it. As I said (and as you might guess - this is a pet-peeve of mine), parents should not be treated as outsiders who must be tolerated. They should be treated as partners who have a vested interest, with wisdom, knowledge, and energy, which the troop can draw upon as a resource. When it is made known that parents are not welcomed to attend PLCs and/or allowed to participate by offering advice, I feel we do our Scouts a huge disservice. Not only is the wrong message sent to the boys, but an invaluable resource is cavalierly dismissed. The boy run philosophy will remain intact so long as leaders encourage the boys to draw upon the advice of parents like any other resource. As a group, they should weigh the validity of it, consider the benefits and risks, and then use a fair and logical process to determine a course of action. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Okay, now that my sarcasm is out and done with, let me explain. I understand and agree with the philosophy of learning by your mistakes. But this can be over done. That is to say, there is nothing wrong with adults providing their wisdom and advice any parent should feel welcome to do so. Its when the adults force their opinions into becoming a reality that the Scouts have a legitimate beef. Or another fair complaint is when adults dominate the meeting. But both of these transgressions can be resolved without barring parents participation. Someone once told me that if you show enough faith in a parent, and take the time to explain things at their level, parents can show an amazing amount of maturity. Oops, I did it again sorry. ;-) FScouter, I agree. I harbor a little resentment towards some Scouters (no one in particular) that treat parents as if theyre the enemy. Ive seen this attitude from a lot folks involved in youth programs - sporting clubs, Scouts, even church youth groups. Conversely, I have a lot of respect for those folks that work with parents. After all, a Scouts biggest advocate is probably his mom or dad. I believe we need to cut each other a little slack and remember 1) parents should be treated like the adults they are, and 2) ultimately, we all want the same thing whats best for the kids. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Yes, those wicked parents...always getting in the way, always trying to teach children something, always acting as if they have wisdom...just makes my blood boil when they show up at meetings.

Just as an aside...as I understand it, the G2SS sets the minimum requirements for safety. So, for example, if the adult leader in charge does not feel its safe to do a water activity for any reason (i.e., too many drunk college kids in the water), then he has a right and a responsibility to cancel or veto the activity. I think this too should be addressed in your PLC meeting. The boys need to make sure all safety issues are addressed, not just the minimum requirements spelled out in the G2SS.

NWScouter, The only position available to an under 21-year-old adult in a troop is Assistant Scoutmaster. In a Cub Pack it is Assistant Den Leader. I dont think this information is right. If it is, its changed in the last 25 years or the Baltimore Area Council made a mistake in 1979 when they allowed me to be a Webelos Leader at age 20.

Eamonn, I agree. It's easy for me to say, but you should speak up at your lodge. No matter how worthy the cause, deception is too high of a price to pay. At best, this kind of strategy has all the appearance of snake-oil salesmanship. At worst, it is what it appears to be Scouters exploiting the boys naivet and their excitement for collecting, in the name of a worthy cause. The ends do not justify the means. Scouters should know better.

John, I would not be happy with the BSA if they attempted to force feed a religious tolerance program (whatever that means Im not sure) on my kids. I, and those I explicitly entrust to do so, will train my children in matters of faith. I feel the program you are suggesting, is not appropriate (even if Paganism wasnt an accepted faith by the BSA). Is that clear enough?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

NJ, Debating religious beliefs can serve many purposes. A thoughtful conversation can reaffirm ones faith or give one pause to investigate another. And if nothing else, these debates serve to sharpen our ability to explain and/or defend our religious beliefs to others. Furthermore, as a Christian, I believe I have an obligation to others. That is to say, part of my faith compels me to share what I know in my heart to be true. If that results in a debate about faith, so be it. I wont feel disrespected if someone expresses an opinion different from mine; so long as I am given a chance to share my thoughts as well. If Johns religious tolerance program ever becomes a reality, I hope it emphasizes tolerance to honest religious discussions as opposed to the religions themselves. That is an idea that I can respect. I cannot respect, nor would I want my boys trained by the BSA to respect, non-sense such as Paganism.

Johndaigler, Yes, Ive been up on that box a few times What would you add to a religious tolerance program? Don't you think it's a good idea? The boys should be encouraged to respect individuals based on their own merits. If a Scout starts talking to his dog as if his pet is some kind of god or spiritual creature, are the other boys to be scolded when they laugh at him? I know thats an extreme example, but you are asking me to respect Paganism, right?

BadenP, What can I say? You're obviously the more educated man. Grace and Peace to you.

NJ, By definition, Christians believe Christ to be God Lord and Savior of all. Its not something I hope for (although, I am happy to embrace it as the truth)its simply what I believe to be true. If you chose to believe differentlyif you stated that Jesus was not the Son of God, I would not be offended. Id probably debate you, but why should I take it personally. Its your belief. I understand it as your belief. Id like to convince you to believe otherwise but its not a reflection upon me if you dont. Your beliefs, contrary to mine or not, dont harm me in the slightest way. Are you offended by any religion that does not proclaim salvation for all - unconditionally? If so, Belief-O-Matic may be in need of a repair, because I would peg you 100 percent as a Unitarian (Universalism). Im sorry to say, all paths do not lead to God. Christ Jesus is the only way to the Fatherthats what I believe. Its not an insult. Its just my beliefits that simple. Johndaigler, That soapbox seems to be getting higher and higherdont fall off now.

BadenP, The title of this thread is GOD. The rules of this particular forum, Issues and Politics, allow for discussion outside of Scouting. At least, they did a few months ago. What they are today, Im not sure. Rest assured though, I do not intend to take you up on the offer for counseling, whether that be on this forum or else where. My request for your help was facetious. As for my consistency or inconsistency, Ill leave that for others to decide. As for your qualifications, I dont doubt that you have a degree from two top schools of theology. There are many schools teaching heresy these days. Case in point I am sure that God in his infinite mercy has made allowances for people of other faiths to obtain salvation, after all Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were devout Jews, and the term Christian did not come along until the fourth century. I suppose it is possible to accept Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, and practice another faith, but I dont see how. As to Mary and Joseph being that God chose them, and revealed His plan to them, I dont doubt that they realized and accepted Jesus as the Son of God. Salvation doesnt rely on accepting a label such as Christian; it relies on us accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. As to Jesus status as a Jew Old Testament prophecy predicted that he would be a descendent of David. He is the fulfillment of that prophecy. The Jews were, and still are, Gods chosen people. However, their salvation rests on their acceptance of Him as the Messiah. New Testament prophecy predicts that this will occur in the end times. If you want Biblical references, I can provide them, but I would think that the aforementioned is common knowledge for anyone that picks up a Bible more than once a month. In the end, it does not appear that you are willing to provide a logical explanation, supported by Scripture that backs your beliefs. The closest you came was I am sure that God in his infinite mercy has made allowances for people of other faiths. I suppose its possible. However, as a minister you should not preach what is not supported by Scripture. I caution you to take Gods word seriously. James 3 1Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. Ill make you a deal: Ill read Matthew 5 (although I have before) If you read 2 Peter 2.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

BadenP, Over the Internet, one can claim a wide assortment of qualifications. You are not the first to do so. When providing an argument, they really have no value. As in real life (vice the World Wide Web), the only qualification that can be proven or appreciated is a well-reasoned argument. In my post, I merely quoted Scripture. The point was to dispute the claim that Jesus accepted everyone unconditionally. Gods love is great, but so is his judgment. I havent completely reconciled some of my theological views (i.e., Calvinism verses Arminianism). Nevertheless, even if all of us have free will and can ultimately chose good life in Jesus, many do not exercise that choice. Jesus clearly warned, those that reject him will not be allowed into the kingdom of Heaven. John 3 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[1] My previous post was not an attack, nor was it unprovoked. It was a reasonably restrained response to this assertion: Religious intolerance is alive and well I see from most of the posts in here, and its ironic that it comes from so called Christians. It seems to me, this statement was designed to goad someone. It should come as no surprise to you that someone chose to respond or that the response was rather direct. Im sorry if you felt it was harsh, but those words are not mine they are the words of Jesus. As far as me being over my head, Ill take that chance. My swimming skills are just fine. I suggest you talk to your pastor about your anger and intolerance. Perhaps you can provide me with that counsel? You are a minister, right? That being the case, Im sure you make a point to conscientiously practice love and tolerance - so to be an example to others. I thought you learned your lesson in the other thread on religion a while back, I guess not. Im sorry Did you or someone else teach me lesson? I dont recall the exchange. Now, instead of reciting your credentials and hurling insults, perhaps you could provide a well-reasoned reply to my question: Do you believe that Jesus died for all unconditionally, regardless of what they believe? If so, explain to me John 3:35 & 36. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

BadenP, Before you claim the entire world saved in the name of Jesus, please read your Bible. Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[ 5:22 Some manuscripts brother without cause] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[ 5:22 An Aramaic term of contempt] ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. Matthew 23:15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. Luke 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Does this sound as if Jesus has no expectations for those who want salvation? Do you believe that Jesus died for all, regardless of what they believe? When he was on the cross, one criminal hurled insults at him while the other, confessed his sins and asked Jesus to remember him. To the repentant criminal, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." He made no such comment to the other man who apparently remained unrepentant. Jesus also said, Matthew 7 13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

NJ, Yes, I understand. Nor is it acceptable to yell fire in a crowded theater or scream obscenities in a church. However, there was a time in this country, when many individuals literally found a soapbox and stood on a corner off of Main Street, or in a public square, or in the middle of a city park, and loudly proclaimed their opinion. Sometimes the message was religious, sometimes it was political, and sometimes it was just non-sense. Nevertheless, I believe they exemplified the free society that our founders fought for, and it was not only legal, it was celebrated. I think in the name of political correctness, many individuals have taken this country backwards. I don't think our forefathers would be pleased. I know I am not particularly happy about it. Freedom works both ways. Yes - everyone has a right to ignore the message of others. BUT - everyone should also have the right to proclaim the message of their own choosing in public squares. Otherwise, our freedom is only a faade.

I wonder what is more discourteous - Forcing others to hear your opinion (or prayer as the case may be)? Or Forcing others to keep their opinions to themselves? In a free society where ideas are encouraged and opinions shared, I prefer the former over the latter. AND, in my opinion, this country needs more prayer, not less.

Prior to this post, this was my sole contribution to this thread: Nor does prayer have to be banned. Prayer is a form of expression just like any other. The focus of that expression should not hinder one's rights. Which prompted Boleta to include me in this post: Since you want public prayer so badly, allow me to choose the one we will all use. Thank you for being so gracious in your religious tolerance, Rooster, BSATSPL, FOG, and the rest. Boleta, you obviously cannot tolerate religious expression in public. Apparently, these peoples prayers threaten you. What power do they have over you that makes you want to ban them? How is the quality of your life being destroyed? You sarcastically address us as if we have no tolerance for people with different faiths, yet it is you that want all signs of public faith erased. It is you that wants religion hidden from public view. Yes, religion is a private matter. And if one desires, he may keep it private. But others feel different. And the First Amendment gives them the right to act on those feelings.

I was trying to refrain from comment, but since Boleta went to the trouble of mentioning me by name I feel compelled to rejoin. So I ask Boleta, how tolerant are you of other peoples religious convictions, beliefs, and practices? On the one hand, you tout and uplift the BSA 12th point of the Law. Yet, judging by your last response, it seems to me you have little patience for people who demonstrate their faith. Perhaps you are of the thinking that religious faith is great, so long as one keeps it in a box, sealed, and restrained from public view. If so, Im sorry you are of that opinion, but allow me to broaden your horizon with this little revelation. Many folks believe that their faith is a part of who they are regardless of place or circumstance. Their spiritual life is a part of their everyday life no matter where they find themselves, whether that is in a church, the grocery store, or a forum for Scouting. Try to be a little more consistent in your open-mindedness. Otherwise, youre not really being open-minded at all are you? Rooster keeps bringing his Christian morality into the discussion which is why I suggested we keep in mind that BSA does not care how we do duty to God or show reverence, just that we do. So why cant you show this same courtesy to me without insinuating that I should keep my morality to myself? My faith requires me to speak my mind on moral issues and to evoke the name of my God. If yours doesnt then great, youve done your duty but dont criticize others that have different convictions. Finally, consider an 11 year old boy who joins Boy Scouts and is a great Scout. So farso good. He discovers at age 16 that he is gay and decides to be honest with his best friend who is not and tells him about it. Hmmm. Now how does a 16 year old boy, or any male for that matter, come to the conclusion that he is gay? Could it be that this boy is becoming sexually aroused by some of his male friends? What causes a boy to think he is gay? It cant be a simply matter of affection since many boys have strong friendships. And besides, homosexuality is not a matter of love, but one of sexual attraction. I submit, this boys revelation is a huge red flag. And those who fail to see it - are simply not dealing with reality. He never acts on his homosexuality and is otherwise a model scout. Now, how do you know this to be true? How can you prove that a boy has not, or will not, act on his sexuality? This is a huge presumption. This is a benefit of doubt, which I cannot even afford my own son in regard his heterosexuality. I want to believe that he doesnt act on his urges, but I cannot state it as fact. I know, it will take a tremendous amount of restraint on his part, to not act. Are we to presume that homosexual boys have better control over their sexual urges then heterosexual boys? NOT likely especially so for a boy whos willing to ignore natures design and embrace deviate sexual urges, which society has scorn for the ages. His friend violates the confidence and everyone finds out. Who was violated? The boy who looked at his male peers with sexual lust, or the boy who took his responsibility to others seriously and shared that information with an adult leader. Throw him out? It seems likely to me. But then again, this is a hypothetical and we can create the facts that would make that action seemingly wrongor right. It depends on the facts. According to the intolerant folks in this thread- yes. So, apparently you agree Boleta. ;-) I see no reason this should be the course of action unless he acts upon his sexual orientation, which is the only thing not acceptable here. Hmmm. Thats an interesting philosophy for upbringing and protecting the children under your care. It does help explain why teenaged pregnancy is so high though. And by the way, youre wrong. A boy doesnt have to act on his orientation to be booted from the BSA. Fortunately, the BSA is a little wiser than the average hip, lets be friends, liberal parent. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

FOG, I agree with many of your points - i.e., boys need men as mentors; boys do not want to discuss certain issues with a female, and so on. However, I have to admit that I tend to agree with the thought that men should not be trusted. That's not to say, all men or most men are bad. Obviously this is not true. Yet, I'm convinced that every man alive today has struggled with sexual temptation at some point in their lives - and many do up until the day they die. I realize that many women have inappropriate desires and failings in behavior as well. But lets not ignore reality...when it comes to child molestation and other sexual deviations, history tells us that collectively, men have much more to be ashamed of than women. Interestingly, liberal women have little problem accepting this stereotype (don't trust a man with your child alone). Logically - per the liberal theology, the GSUSA policy is not very consistent. Nevertheless, as a practical matter - I believe their policy is sound. Of course, when I think of two women as being chaperones, I am thinking of two heterosexual moms. The lesbian non-sense is another matter. One day, people will open their eyes to this evil ill in our society and recognize it as such. Unfortunately, the way of the world seems to be drifting in the opposite direction. I hope I'm wrong about that drift.

So my point won't be lost, it is not important what states are willing to prosecute 16-year olds for having consenting sex with 13-year olds. The point was/is, the boy can always claim that the advances were welcomed and the subsequent sex consentual. This would make any kind of prosecution difficult, even rape. Legally, they may call it molestation in some states (i.e., a 16-year old with a 13-year old or a 15-year old with a 14-year old), but these days, I don't see too many judges or juries being sympathetic. Furthermore, I envision the gay boy claiming one of two defenses: 1) The other boy only objected after someone else found out about his "gay" experience. OR 2) The morning after syndrome - The boy cannot face his own homosexuality and thus wants to believe it was rape - although in his heart he knows better. Does anyone really doubt these things coming to pass if gays are allowed to share tents with heterosexual boys?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Rooster, what you say in your post might have some bearing on the BSA, if the BSA was predicated on your particular religious beliefs or your particular way of thinking about and relating to God. But it isn't. I dont keep a secret as to where my beliefs come from. My faith is a driving force in my thinking and my morality. I like to provide folks with this background when I explain my position on certain issues. Nevertheless, this fact should not be used as a justification to cast off my opinion or the moral position of other folks who embrace their faith. Every organization has rules. Virtually every rule can be traced to a moral principle. With God, morality has a basis. Without God, all morality is subjective. These things being trueI feel it is not only wrong but also illogical to discount peoples opinions on morality (or rules) because they have religious roots. If you must, simply take in the opinion and discount the source. But dont take in the source and discount the opinion. I think the BSA or rather those empowered to oversee the BSA, are smart enough to figure this out. As for boys in tents, if that were really the concern the policy would not be limited to those who are "openly" gay. Please, how are they supposed to write a policy that addresses closet gays without encouraging a witch-hunt? I dont think it can be done. Regardless, I dont think the BSA is willing to risk that with a new policy. The present policy is clear enough and makes sense. If someone admits to this behavior, they will be booted out the door. I find the whole discussion of gay boys to be almost completely academic anyway, because I have never even heard of someone still of Boy Scout age publicly proclaiming that they are gay. Gee NJ has it ever occurred to you that these boys might be hiding their orientation because half of the countrys population considers their desires and/or behavior to be perverse? Ive never heard of a teenaged boy publicly proclaiming his lust for the girl next door. I guess those kids dont exist either. As for your hypothetical 16-year-old, let's say he does have those thoughts, and let's also say he is inclined to act on them, which takes him over the line from being a "homosexual" to being a molester or a rapist. First, if a 16-year-old boy has sex with a 13-, 14-, 15-, or 16-year old, no state that I know of claims that to be molestation. Molesters are adults acting upon children. As to rape now were talking consent. So, if the 16-year old can cast any doubts about as to whether or not the other boy was willing, he walks free. Do you really think he's going to tell anyone before he does it? No, but how does this question come into play? The local option policy would open the door for boys to make passes towards one another and/or sexual advances under the pretence of consent. If a boy complains, then the gay Scout can claim that he never forced himself and/or that the other boy responded favorably. I can easily envision scenarios whereas older gay Scouts manipulate younger, impressionable boys. Does anyone really think that this would not be a springboard for secret games and/or secret societies within the BSA? In the end, I can see some liberal judge writing the whole thing off as being a victimless situation whereas confused adolescents merely went through a discovery stage. In short, if boys are hiding their sexuality because they dont want to be booted out of the BSA, then that probably means theyre not going to risk exposure by making advances on your son. This is a good thing. If they are allowed in regardless of their sexuality, then the advances are merely in the eyes of the beholder. The local option will open a Pandoras box. And the results will be very ugly.

It's an unfair question for me to answer. Two of my sons (20 and 17) are off to college. My third and youngest son (14) is becoming disinterested in Scouting - or rather he's gaining a interest in his Church youth group. He doesn't seem to have time for both. In short, my involvement in Scouting stemmed from my desire/need to be involved with my sons. Now that they have all essentially left the organization, I only have a tacit relationship with the troop (although, officially, Im still registered). I could have ripped off an answer like No question, Id resign immediately, which by the way, is the truth. BUT, if my sons were still involved, I might not have given that answer. I suppose if they were still active, I would wait and see how my sons troop approached the issue. Whatever the outcome, if the BSA made it a local option, my high opinion of the BSA as a national organization that promotes strong character in boys, would be destroyed. Presently, my esteem for them is extremely high. They have maintained their resolve to traditional values better than most churches. I will be greatly saddened if they should ever falter, and cave to the political pressures of the day.