Rooster7

Acco40, Im afraid your post and your attitude in these matters are typical. Its amazing to me - that standing around the campfire (so to speak), I encounter so many progressive thinkers pontificating about being open-minded while looking down their collective nose at those embracing traditional values. Its all very high minded, and the possibilities are so intriguingthat is until you have to put your 13-year son in a tent with a 16-year boy who has wet dreams about 13-year old boys. Then, suddenly, we are not as open minded as we lead others to believe. When we have a true personal stake in the philosophy that we espouse, when those we love are potentially impacted by the stances we take, then we tend to put more thought into these matters. At one point in my life, when I treated God more like a theory than a reality, and when I naively envisioned a humanity that could permanently resolve its own ills, I intellectualized these issues and pondered the possibilities just like you. How I came to my epiphany and rejected that line of thinking is another discussion. Still, I cant help but noticing a strong parallel between those on this board who discuss accepting homosexuality as an intellectual and a morally righteous eventuality, and those who discuss God as if hes more theory than anything else. They talk bravely, boldly, and brightly about how homosexuals are a misunderstood people, about how these guiltless souls suffer greatly against unwarranted discrimination and unprovoked hateand they agonize as to how homosexuals can be painlessly integrated into our ranks. We are, after all, a civilized society that loves all people. Interestingly, it seems to me that many of these folks like to think of God in the same way. They say, If God exists, hes a loving God and He will accept all people. They argue that this represents the evolved and educated viewpoint of a healthy, loving member of the modern world. Again, it is the high-minded approach to these matters. Those that think differently are obviously fearfully and ignorantly grasping onto an antiquated religion; a religion that has been manipulated by previous generations to keep the poor oppressed (or so the argument goes). Of course, there are branches of truth in this line of thinking. Homosexuals should not be hated. We should find a way to make all people, including homosexuals feel loved. Though, I say, at what cost do we achieve these things? I want thieves to feel loved too, but Im not going to ask them to housesit my home while Im away on vacation. Needless to say, I agree that God is a loving god. So, I can understand how some folks are drawn into this kind of thinking (i.e., all things are acceptable so long as they do not hurt others) and how people accept many behaviors, no matter how bizarre. Furthermore, I cannot dispute the fact that many people have abused the Christian faith for their own gain. But everything under the Sun has been abused at some point for personal gain this does not mean that nothing can be trusted. This fact just demonstrates how corrupt mankind has always been. Lest we forget, the human heart is a deceitful thing. Nor should we ever forget that Gods ways are not our ways. If you have sought God, determined that you already know His character, then youve never really sought Him. To find truth, we must find God. To find God, we must approach him as if we are children. Let God reveal to you who He is, then the truth will follow. Ive made both of these journeys. Only when I opened my heart to Him, without the assurances and comfort of my preconceptions, did I truly open my mind. Im confident that I know God, at least to the point that I understand this God is holy, righteous, and loving. Yes, His righteousness does not negate His love for us. But neither does his love for us negate His righteousness. Christ is the only one that can reconcile this. Proverbs 9:10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

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.

Scoutldr, Wow, Rooster, what a leap! Was it really? Lets examine your post. If Im not mistaken you basically said, other than overt sexual behavior, you had no objection to homosexuals in Scouting. Is that a misrepresentation? If so, I apologize. If not, lets apply a little logic here. So for argument sake, lets say the BSA allows avowed homosexuals boys into Scouting. And for argument sake, lets say these homosexuals do not flaunt their sexuality. Now, how do you propose to stop the situation that I described from happening? There is no reason to believe that your heterosexual son will always share a tent with another heterosexual. If the BSA allowed homosexuals into Scouting, are you proposing that they modify their Youth Protection policy to prevent homosexual boys from sharing tents with heterosexual boys? If so, how would this be monitored and enforced? If homosexual boys are allowed in Scouting, how are the YP guidelines going to protect the heterosexual boys? Are there going to be separate tenting arrangements? Just for the record, put me down for the following Yes, we all have own our sins. But, to be sure, homosexuality is a sin. Its a perversity. In fact, Im convinced that it eventually leads to more perversity. And despite what some on this forum say, there are a disproportionate number of homosexual pedophiles. My biggest objection is the BSA's seemingly selective morality. As I have said before, once we get rid of the homos and atheists, who will be next? Alcoholics? Wife beaters? Fornicators? Fat guys? Perhaps these self-avowed adulterers, alcoholics, wife beaters, and fornicators have better representation? Or maybe, since these are conservative sins, they are just over looked by the right leaning BSA. OR, PERHAPS, if these folks made their bad behavior public and then lobbied the BSA to have their lifestyle accepted, PERHAPSJUST PERHAPS, the BSA would treat them just like the homosexuals. PLEASE, make a fair comparison. If Alcoholics created a national advocacy organization, solicited the backing of Hollywood, and then attacked the BSA for not being open-minded, they too would be rebuffed. And clearly, if a self avowed alcoholic proclaimed his right to be one or rather argued that he had no problem, no troop would have him as a leader.

Scoutldr, Yes, there are homosexuals in scouting. Just as they are in every other segment of society. It's their behavior that I would object to, just as I would object to an "avowed" heterosexual whose behavior was overtly sexual in nature. Interesting. So, if my avowed 16-year old heterosexual son could control his behavior (not be overt about his sexuality), youd have no problem with him sharing a tent with your 13- or 14-year old daughter? I use this example, because your thoughts suggest that youd allow your son to share a tent with a homosexual (given that the said homosexual is not flaunting his sexuality). I know a little something about hormones in teenaged heterosexual boys and how well they control their urges. Armed with this knowledge, I have no problem in saying youd be a fool to put your daughter in my sons tent (hypothetically speaking). I cant say I have the same knowledge about teenaged homosexual boys. However, Im going to climb out on a limb here. If you know of a particular 16-year old boy in your troop thats a homosexual, Id highly recommend that you ask your son to stay out of his tent. The BSA policy is sound- for many reasons.

Yes Sir it is time for the Trash Lovers of the World to Unite. Hmmm. A myriad of insults and jibes have entered my head. Being the "good" Christian that I am, I will resist the urge to share them...not close enough to November yet. ;-)

I like Bob. As I have told him before, I really, really do! Bob was/is a smart guy. Bob knows all (or most) of the rules. Bob supports the BSA. Occasionally, I even agree with Bob. Most notable, Bobs name spelled backwards is Bob! But least we forget, Bob is a mere mortal. Sorry ;-) Bob will return to this forum one day. When he does, there will be, undoubtedly - a chorus of hallelujahs. But until that day arrives, lets try not to elevate his stature to mythological proportions. No jealousy here Just trying to bring back a little perspective to this thread.

Sorry TwoCubDad. Your first post hit a nerve. I have three sons. The first two earned Eagle at 16. The third earned his at 13. All three earned the badge. Each had difficult projects. Yet, I hear the occasional quip from some folks that implies that my last son had some how not earned his rank. It irks me. In many cases, its the parents of boys who have floundered at 1st and 2nd Class. I make no comment about these boys. Draw your own conclusions about their parents and their comments. I feel strongly - when a boy earns a rank, unless you can point to something definitive, no one should impugn his accomplishment. So, to bring my post in line with your topic, I agree that there should be a minimum age for joining. Otherwise, we'd be mixing 4th and 5th graders (or younger) with high school boys. This trend will further diminish the idea of Scouts being cool. Let's face it...on average, high school boys don't want to hang with 4th graders. As it is, in most troops, there is a gap in ages that the boys have to reconcile. In my experience, most boys manage to cross that bridge and make things work. Yet, I do think we can push their limits. In short, Im worried that if there isnt a floor (i.e., minimum age for joining), the dynamics of the troop will be destroyed.

And another voice joins the chorus... I too agree with Fuzzy Bear's first post (and his second for that matter). Pat yourself on the back for speaking so well for so many. No sarcasm intended (just so there's no mistake about my intentions).

Twocubdad, Now, the boy is 12 1/2 and is a couple MBs and a project away from Eagle. Because of his age, he's not really been given any tough leadership roles. He was the "acting" PL for a big council camporee and did a good job leading a drill for his Emergency Preparedness MB a month or two ago. But already I've heard a couple comments from leaders along the lines of "he's too young/immature to be an Eagle, what are we going to do with him?" Given this description of the boy and his leaders, I am given to one of two possible responses: 1) Basically, I see a good kid thats about to earn Eagle. However, the leadership is unhappy with this idea. The leaders are gossiping about the kid and labeling him too immature for Eagle, yet your post seems to indicate otherwise. So whats missing from this story? 2) Or perhaps its the leaders? That is to say, if the kid is doing everything hes supposed to be doing (i.e., meeting the requirements and standards of behavior necessary to become an eagle), maybe theres something wrong with these leaders. Why are they stigmatizing a kid thats following the program? I dont like stereotypes about age, even those linked to 10, 11, and 12 year olds. Ive seen kids act like evil monsters at 12 and angelic geniuses at 10. I suspect that most of the leaders involved in that discussion dont know this kid very well. Else, there seems to be something missing. What are you going to do with him? Forget about his age and treat him like a sharp, shy eagle with respect and appreciation.

Whoever he may or may not be, taking parting shots at someone who cannot defend himself, is not necessary or Scout-like.

SR540Beaver, I never said push the boys to the forefront and use them as shields. I just said there's nothing wrong with a youth organization making a stance on a moral issue, in particular when that issue affects children. And even if that were the result (Scouts being confronted by pro-choicers), at worst it would force the boys to think about what they believe. On a realistic note, do I believe the BSA will do this? I doubt it seriously. But if they did, I'd have more respect for them, not less. Also on a realistic note, I doubt that your 11 year old is as clueless about babies as you believe.

SR540Beaver & NJ, The question at the beginning of the thread, and the one I responded to was: Does the BSA Have a Position on Abortion? Im saying they should take a position, just as they have taken a stance on homosexuality. We are a values based organization. If a reporter asked a BSA representative what's our stance on child molestation or rape, I would hope he'd be bold enough to say, "We're against it!" as opposed to "no comment". There will be a day, whether itll be in heaven or on earth I cant say, when all men will look back to this time in history and say, How could theyve allowed those monstrous things to be done against such innocent and helpless children? History will judge. If the BSA has any foresight, they'd speak out against abortion. How can any organization that claims to love children, not speak out?

Why would they? How does it relate to Scouting? Okay, I was trying to ignore this thread, but I feel compelled to answer these rhetorical questions. Why, because the BSA is a youth organization that should be interested in protecting children, even none members. If abortion were illegal, some 2 million more children would be born each year in these United States. I dare say many of those millions would be Scouts. Furthermore, if the pro-choice crowd had the gusts to look at the photos of pre-born children, theyd realize that abortion is the MURDER of innocent children. In other words EVERYONE should care! Controversial or notHot button or notit everyones concern, especially those groups that claim to support children.

Rather than give up a forum that you care about, may I suggest that you simply ignore the Issues & Politics threads.

lead or encourage prayer FirstPusk, Aaah, I love how liberals mix issues to create straw man arguments. I know you know this already but for those who have fallen prey to your deception - let me take the straw out of that man you just knocked down and stuff him with something a little stronger. The law (which was struck down by an activist court) and Reagans stance on the 1st amendment, both sought to have students exposed to voluntary prayer. They did not advocate teachers leading prayer. You sloppily say, lead or encourage as if these words are interchangeable in meaning. Encouraging children to freely pray and/or mediate is not the endorsement of a religion or the establishment of a state church. Only in the twisted minds of liberal lawyers who are attempting to save the world by purging these United States of any hint of God, does this law represent a Constitutional violation. You are simply misrepresenting the facts, and thus creating a bogus and weak argument a straw man argument, which makes it appear as if youre standing on the right side of reason. Sadly, those with weak arguments LIBERALLY employ this kind of deception. And BTW, Reagan was not obtuse He was a great man of intellect, which was only exceeded by his character. Painting him otherwise, is simply inaccurate and spiteful. But thats just another tactic of those who embrace the leftist agenda.

Merlyn, I didnt think that I had twisted your words. If you werent attempting to imply that all religions were false by referencing those bizarre creatures and teachings then what were you trying to say? You seem to be promoting mindless gullibility; if you can't tell me why I should believe your religious views and not the snake-handler down the street, what use is your advice? Dont believe my religious views or the snake-handler down the street. Why not do your own search and use your God given mind and heart to find the truth? Havent you ever explored the possibility of Gods existence outside of a science textbook? To some, your cavalier dismissal of Gods existence suggests a man who is confident in his stance. Im not convinced. To me, that in your face attitude, indicates a man who is trying to convince himself. Youre doing yourself a disservice.

Merlyn, So, the existence of false beliefs scientifically proves that God does not exist. Does the existence of placeboes cause you to conclude that all medicines are bogus? Do revisionists have you concluding that all of history is a sham? Does the willingness of others to spread lies nullify reality? If you believe this, then I suspect that you are the one who is superstitious, not me. Are you afraid to confront the truth? Barriers are not broken unless one is brave enough to explore. Seek God in earnest, and do not presume that you know Him or His ways. If you do this with an open mind, and a willing heart, then I think you will find Him. "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Matthew 7:13 & 14

If the definition of bigotry is one cannot be swayed from a strongly held belief, then call me a bigot. I love God and I know He exists. My faith is not without logical, but it doesnt rely on it either. That probably sounds contradictory to people like Merlyn. Regardless, the spiritual world is real enough. While there is plenty of physical evidence that supports my claim, the lack of that evidence (or the keen arguments of an educated skeptic) wouldnt make it less real to me. God is.

Merlyn, If you believe logic is a sign of intolerance, then I can understand why youre still an atheist. If youre an atheist for the usual scientific reasons, let me ask you something. If something cannot be proven to be true or false (although concerning Gods existence, I dont agree this to be the case I think theres plenty of proof that He does exist), why do you presume to know the answer? Do you really believe that the multitudes are superstitious? Do you discard every possible belief about God as nonsense? Is love simply a biological/chemical reaction? Are good and evil merely concepts contrived by men? Do you believe in anything that is supernatural? And if so, why cant you extend that belief to the existence of God? Is His existence just too incomprehensible for you to consider?

As an atheist, I think this thread is another good example of religious intolerance by scouts. As an atheist (non-Scouter), your level of discernment concerning these discussions should be on par with that of a blind man witnessing two deaf people signing their opinions on deafness. I dont see how youre qualified to criticize people of faith about their disagreements when you have no basis of reference. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

BadenP, Without regard to the current debate, but just as an observation concerning your previous post, from one Christian to another I hope youre not using that Bible verse to support a call to Universalism. Least you forget the most important declaration of that verse but one in the Body of Christ." One can make an argument that Jason has not shown great patience or that his example is less than perfect (though we all fall in that category). Nevertheless, I believe he is sincere and that his efforts are inspired by his faith. 1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. 2 Timothy 4:1 - 5

Bob, You both have strong beliefs, that's wonderful. But you are not the only two, so do millions of people in many different ways. In Scouting religion is like politics. Scouting doesn't care what party you are just don't force it on others. The BSA promotes active citizenship but not support of a specific party. In light of your last post/lecture, I think youre either making a lot of assumptions about me and/or youre distorting my views on this topic. I do have strong religious beliefs. Beyond that, you lost me.

228 years and going strong...

Bob, Despite what you may believe, I am not trying to get into some sort of ******** contest. Perhaps, I misunderstood you when you said, "Jesus doesn't have to be mentioned for me to enjoy that gathering." In the context of the thread's discussion up to that point (generic service verses faith specific), I understood that to mean that you could worship well enough at a generic service - i.e., a service where the name of Christ Jesus would not be allowed to be said aloud. If that's not what you meant, then again - I stand corrected. Although, I am a little confused as to what you did mean. This thread has two basic themes - What is true religion (which has been broad in scope) and how do we serve the Scouts so that they can appreciate their religion or fulfill their duty to God. At least that's how I've been viewing it. Some of my comments are personal in nature and address my views on religion. Ive included those views because I wanted to demonstrate that some Scouts and Scouters have ideas about religious services that do not necessarily jive with the concept of a generic service. Some other comments I made were in respect to how I see us serving the Scouts. I think the nature of those comments were relatively self-evident. With that saidI am not going to respond to the other things you have said or asked in your last post. You seem to think every thought or opinion that I have attempted to express in this thread is a jibe directed at you personally. Thats simply not the case. Nor have I ever claimed that I can quote or even reference BSA policies to support all of my thoughts. They are just that...thoughts on the subject. Although, as Ive already indicated, I doubt that I am so far off base that those in authority will be hunting me down. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

"This statement, as well as some others that you made (not all), represent your personal feelings about such a service." Excuse me Rooster, but did I represent it as anything other than my personal feelings? It was just an observation. You made it clear that a generic service which would forbid the name Jesus Christ being evoked, would not hinder your ability to worship. I wanted to reiterate that not everyone feels the same way. That there may be some Scouts and Scouters present that would prefer a faith specific service (Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.). I guess a better way to say this is - if we are planning religious services with everyone in mind, we should not assume that a generic service is always the best answer. I am suggesting that a better alternative could be multiple faith specific services (assuming there is enough Scout interest to support that effort). "As to the BSAs intentions concerning such a service, and what constitutes a BSA sanctioned service, please point me to the proper documentation (if such a document exists). I am curious." Gladly, but just for fun..you go first. You have now written several posts on this topic. All of which was your personal opinion. None of which has any relationship to the scouting program. You show me one scrap of BSA material that supports any of the personal diatribe you have offered us on this topic. Then I will post the BSA resources supporting the information I shared. I think you're reading too much into my posts. I am curious. There was no inference in this statement (as you seem to believe). I never claimed to speak from any perspective other than my own as a Scouter with a number of years of experience. Although, I think your assertion that my opinion does not have "any relationship to the Scouting program", is a little excessive. I am discussing the topic of religious services and how they could be used to serve all Scouts. Nothing more to it than that. By the way, I never called it a BSA sanctioned service. I did not even call it a service. Those are your words. I never even suggested that the BSA was in the business of "sanctioning" any religious "services". In fact I said that they were not services at all. I did indeed choose the word "sanctioned". I don't see it differing much from the word "approved". If you prefer "approved" over "sanctioned" - great. It's seems to me, regardless as to which word may be in the BSA material, they have very similar meaning. But if they don't, then I stand corrected. In my experience, these services have been referred to by many Scouters at BSA camps and elsewhere, as "religious services". Many or most of my comments stemmed from the idea of what a religious service means to myself and others that I know. Since the BSA encourages all Scouts and Scouters to embrace their faith, I assumed that they would have no problem with Scouts and Scouters that want religious services that do the same. Loosen up Bob. I am not insinuating anything about your knowledge or expertise. When I asked - "please point me to the proper documentation," I meant every word, including the "please". I realize that my opinions may not meet your approval, but unless we're splitting hairs on word choice or some other minor issue...I don't think what I have suggested concerning this topic will cause the BSA to gather a posse and purge me from their ranks. I thought we were sharing ideas. Laurie, As I thought, I just read too much into your post. We are in complete agreement then.