Rooster7

Bob, Jesus doesn't have to be mentioned for me to enjoy that gathering. This statement, as well as some others that you made (not all), represent your personal feelings about such a service. This statement does not reflect the feelings of all Scouts and Scouters. In other words, some folks may not feel the same way. 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. SR540Beaver, Please go to page 13 and read my response to your specific situation. I think youll find that we more or less agreed. My post on this page does was a hypothetical and not a retort to your experience.

First, the point of a religious service (a.k.a. a worship service) is to recognize and worship God. I disagree that it should necessarily be a talk on a point of the oath or law. It might include that as an element, but I dont see it as being the focus of the service. Because many faiths may be represented at a Camporee, I understand the concern and the desire by some to have a generic service. However, if an invitation is extended to all Scouts at the Camporee to help create a variety of religious services, then I see no problem with offering these tailored, faith specific services as an alternative to a single generic service. In fact, I think its more in tuned with helping these boys meet their duty to God. One, it will force some of these boys to become more familiar with their own self-proclaimed faith. Two, while a generic service may or may not help the boys acquire a sense of unity in Scouting, it wont help them to focus on the God of their faith - the God that they claim to know and love. Even if there are some Scouts and Scouters that can claim otherwise, surely there are many Scouts that fall into the group that I just described. Thus, its not always the best solution to offer a generic service, when some of those in attendance will not feel as if they are truly worshiping God. For example, if a Christian has to attend a religious service whereas the name Christ Jesus cannot be mentioned, it greatly diminishes his ability to recognize and worship God. As Boleta might say, this is his truth. The Bible teaches us (Christians) to gather in his name and to hold no others before him. Furthermore, we are instructed to never deny His name or we ourselves will be denied as His children. I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises. Psalm 22:22 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ephesians 5:19 & 20 Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Matthew 10:32 & 33 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. Matthew 18:20 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praisethe fruit of lips that confess his name. Hebrews 13:15 My point, asking Christians to conduct a worship service and to censor themselves from saying the name of Christ is tantamount to asking them to commit blasphemy. Whether or not all Christians recognize this fact is another debate, but the Bible clearly teaches that we must recognize Him - and Him alone and by His name. In short, a generic service is not conducive for this purpose, and thus those Christians that believe as I do are being denied the ability to worship God as they are taught. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Boleta, As I understand your last post A Scout (and an adult leader) organized a religious service at a BSA campout with a Christian evangelical message, which was previously advertised to be and/or was presumed by those in attendance to be, a generic religious service with a generic message. When those in attendance discovered differently, they were offended by the message and annoyed with the organizers. Given this specific example, I understand. I agree that the Scout and the leaders in charge acted inappropriately and without regard to those that they were supposed to serve. Yet, I feel there are times when such a service could be acceptable in a BSA setting. For example, if all Scouts are given the opportunity to organize such a religious service, and the nature of the service is advertised in advanced. That is to say, when equal opportunity is afforded and the organizers dont plan any surprises. Also, just to be clear, I dont believe truth is a function of ones personal preference. If I am confident that I know a truth i.e., the sun is always bright and water is never dry (absolutes which I refuse to yield as being anything else) Im not going to refrain from speaking it, simply because someone within earshot strongly opposes the idea that these things are realities. Why? Because they are realities. I may refrain for other reasons, but it wont be because Im afraid to offend my neighbor who believes in a different truth. A different truth is an oxymoron. This phrase has no validity. Those who refuse to use logic and/or engage in reasonable discourse invented it (no offense intended). Hiding the truth to avoid discord is not an option. Harmony is great, but not when the truth has to be sacrificed to achieve it. I cannot state this strongly enough by definition, there is one singular truth. A statement or belief that directly contradicts the truth is a falsehood (by DEFINITION). Perhaps my rant on word meaning stems from semantics. When you say - truth, you might really be saying, ones belief as to what is true (not necessarily the same as truth). If so, then you can ignore my little lesson on this topic. However, true as that maybe (insert smiley face here), I disagree that we should keep our mouths shut because someone believes differently (in order not to offend). Truth should always be preserved. But please note that I have separated this thought from the first section of my post. I dont feel it is my right to use BSA events as a platform to spread the truth to those who dont want to hear it. And that my friend is the Gods honest truth!

I can appreciate someone who is willing to provide alternatives. Yet, I dont think that has to be done for every circumstance. Every Scout should be allowed the opportunity to express himself, including in prayer. And I would hope that most leaders are not afraid to make that happen. I dont necessarily believe it is warranted or practical to give every Scout the same opportunity on every occasion. For example, say you have 9 Scouts on a campout that is going to last three days. It seems appropriate to me if a different Scout was encouraged to offer his own prayer prior to one of the meals. Thus, every Scout is given the opportunity, but not at every meal. If this means one specific faith or denomination is represented more than another, then so be it. As youve already indicated, every Scout is free to not participate or to silently say his own prayer. Religious freedom does not mean one must be exposed equally to all faiths. In a nation, which proclaims to be 90% Christian, that is not a practical reality. It would also mean that a majority of individuals would have to suppress their religious expression in order to maintain that so-called equality. I have nothing against equality, but equal exposure to something does not make one free or even equal in status. Nor is it fair when the population is not perfectly divisible by demographics. However, everyone has the right to embrace the faith of his/her own choosing. I respect that. And I respect the policy (whether it is written or not, I dont know) that we as leaders should provide every Scout with an equal opportunity to express his faith.

Laurie, In regard to respecting others vice their religious or political beliefs, VERY WELL SAID. In regard to having a passion for faith and the BSA, we diverge slightly. I have PASSION for my faith and God. I like the BSA. Theyre not on the same level to me, not even close. Perhaps I misinterpreted your words here. No matter, I agree that we should run the program as prescribed by the BSA (it is their program) i.e., we should not exploit it for our own means. Still, there is probably room for legitimate debate as to exactly what the BSA has prescribed. Thats a can of worms that I dont really want to open, but I believe it to be valid. For example, some folks seem to feel every public prayer ever offered at a BSA event must be generic. I dont believe that to be a BSA policy and no one has yet to show me otherwise.

How someone can respect a religion while simultaneously thinking that every single person in it is fundamentally wrong and is going to hell is something I may never understand. EXACTLY. That is exactly why I dont respect every religiononly every persons right to pursue a religion of his/her choice.

Hunt and Packsaddle, I dont know about you, but I can keep my commitment to the BSA as a leader and maintain my passion for truth. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

ScouterPaul, You said, Fanatical christians may not behead someone, or fly planes into buildings, however, they do use bombs and have done so recently. I'd like for you to explain that one to me. What fanatical Christians would these folks be?

ScoutPaul, No, that is not what I was trying to say. My post was in response to two earlier posts by Boleta. He said, The Christian fanatic is no different than the Muslim fanatic is no different than the... In my post, I was juxtaposing the purported threat of Christian fanatics vice that of Muslim fanatics as cited by him. Secondly, Boleta inferred that several geo-political and ethic conflicts were religiously inspired, specifically as misdeeds by Christians. Let's see... Northern Ireland- Christians killing Christians in the name of Christ. Bosnia-Serbia- Christians killing Muslims in the name of Christ. Nazi Germany- Christians killing Jews in the name of Christ (don't protest, they were described Christians). And so on.... This is equivalent to saying every act by Israel represents those who embrace the Jewish faith. Its not reasonable to conclude they are always the same. In short, he overstates and distorts the threat of Christian fanaticism. The real and imminent threat of religious fanaticism, as is evident in todays world, is not coming from the Christian community. Any one whos willing to keep their mind and eyes open can see this.

Boleta, Let's see... Northern Ireland- Christians killing Christians in the name of Christ. Bosnia-Serbia- Christians killing Muslims in the name of Christ. Nazi Germany- Christians killing Jews in the name of Christ (don't protest, they were described Christians). And so on.... If this is in response to my post, it has no relevance. Your previous post accused some posters on this thread of fanaticism (if not directly, then by inference). The sins of Christians in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Germany, or elsewhere have nothing to do with them or this particular discussion. Explain to me how posters on this thread can be fairly described as fanatics. Furthermore, just for clarification - no one claimed that Christians had no sins, or that no Christian was ever guilty of fanaticism. So, listing the crimes of Christians does little to prove your point. Nevertheless Your description of NAZI Germans attack on the world as being inspired by Christians has the ear markings of bigotry. A novice student of history knows better. German was a wildly nationalistic country commanded by a mad dictator. Your summary horribly distorts the reality of that war and those who embraced it. Similarly, the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Bosnia are more about territory, ethnicity, and those peoples desire to be independent from one another, than it is about religion. Case in point, how many Catholics travel to Northern Ireland to fight the Protestants (the British)? How many Christians ran to Germany or Bosnia? How many self-proclaimed religious sympathizers from other countries supported those conflicts? Answer - very few, if any. Now look at Iraq, how many insurgents are Muslim extremists from other countries? Look at the Muslim web sites Do they condemn or support the cause of terrorist groups? How do they view these cowardice murders that behead civilians (whos only crime is, not being Muslim)? Look at the Arab television network Do they portray these fiends as criminals or holy warriors? Religious fanaticism is alive and well. So much so, you should be careful as to make proper distinctions. Heres an easy test. If you were a vocal, self-proclaimed Muslim living in the U.S., would you be able to sleep well at night knowing that youre relatively safe? If not, how realistic would those fears be? How many Muslims have been murdered in this country since 9/11? Now, put yourself in Iraq, or anywhere in the Middle East, or any Muslim dominated country, as a vocal, self-proclaimed Christian and ask yourself the same question. Can you honestly say that you would feel safe from harm? How many Christians have been murdered in the Middle East and elsewhere by Muslims since 9/11? My point, you can cavalierly make the comparison and act as if one should have equal concern about extremists in the Christian community, but thats a lie - and the facts support that conclusion.

Boleta, The Christian fanatic is no different than the Muslim fanatic is no different than the... Thats an interesting statement. Last time I checked, no Christian fanatics had flown any planes into BSA headquarters in Irving. If you want to defend your statements please do so. But dont label me or anyone else a fanatic unless youre going to back it up with something relative to the discussion. I respect the religious fervor of some on this thread Great, so can I, but I think it was you that labeled those same folks as arrogant. and would never try to dissuade them from their beliefs. I dont see the second half of your statement as noble. If you thought their beliefs were wrong, why wouldnt you tell them? If you believe in Universalism, then that makes life easy thered be no need to tell them, because everyones beliefs are equally true. However, Universalism is a belief system that defies itself. For example, both Jew and Christian cannot be right. The Messiah was either Christ Jesus or not. Both cannot be true.

Jason OK, It sounds as if you and I are on the same page. Recently, I heard a sermon on the radio. I thought it was very powerful. Thats usually just another way of saying it was the truth. Here is the truth that the preacher preached: Unless one realizes his own sinfulnessuntil a person understands the depths of his own depravity, such a person will never come to the joy and/or know the peace of being a believer and follower of Christ Jesus. It is the self-actualized need for salvation that drives one to his knees and makes one realize that without Gods grace, there is nothing to be gained. He went on to use an analogy that went something like this. Two men were traveling in a plane with a large group. A mutual friend convinced the two men that the plane was not safe. Having convinced them, they both clad themselves with a very heavy parachute. As they entered the passenger compartment, they noticed that no one else had a parachute. Their colleagues started to mock them. They called the men names like foolish, ignorant, and spinelessness. One man became immensely embarrassed. His parachute grew heavier by the second and he soon began to doubt his friends advice. Eventually he discarded his parachute. He became infuriated that his friend had convinced him to wear it. He resolved himself to never trust that friends advice again. The other man was not embarrassed. While he was distressed that his colleagues would make fun of him, and concerned that no one realized the need, he took comfort in knowing that he was secure. He had listened to his friend and was convinced by the evidence presented that the plane was in fact unsafe. Furthermore, he was so convinced, that even if his friend wanted to convince him otherwise, he would not be able to reverse his mind. Whenever the plane incurred any signs of trouble, while he grieved at the idea that others were in real danger, he remained calm and peaceful, secure in the knowledge that he was not in harms way. From the perspective of a sinner, if one sees that judgment is inevitable and most deserving, then one realizes that there is a real need to be born-again, to believe in, love, and follow Christ Jesus. Indeed, He is the truth, the Light, and the one and only way to God the Father. So, as for me, I dont intend to sit back and let my children find their own way. I know that they will not inherit my salvation; yet I am not going to withhold the truth or call it any other name while they conduct their search for God. I will forever point them to Christ Jesus. This approach may not be as open minded as some, but it gives me peace. If you have the same peace when you are instructing your children, then you probably sleep as well as I do.

Boleta, Each religion that claims to be the only way to God is mutually exclusive of every other religion. This shows an arrogance that says "only I can be right." This is either a very unenlightened understanding of the Christian faith or a purposeful misrepresentation of those who embrace Christianity. In the vast majority of cases, per my lifes experience, those who claim to know the one and only way to God are not trying to prove their superiority they are not arrogant. Quite the opposite, most of these folks are very humble. They share their faith with others - because they have a heart for those who do not know and understand what they have come to know and understand. Many true believers know full well that the world does not what to hear their message. Yet, they will share their faith with very inhospitable people, because the God they love demands that they do. They strive to fully submit to His will. Out of humility, they thankful and joyfully accept the gift of salvation provided through Jesus sacrifice on the cross. I find your accusation of arrogance to be very much off the mark, and in fact a distortion of reality. There is only one Supreme Being and God is the same for all. Too bad the true believers don't recognize or accept this Your statement reeks with hypocrisy. You judge others to be arrogant (because of their confidence in who God is), and yet you declare just as boldly that God is NOT who we recognize Him to be. Granted, one of us is wrong. However, describing true believers (to use your words) as arrogant, is not only wrong its hypocritical.

You can believe that mankind came up with the Ten Commandments plus the other 600+ commandments in Exodus and Leviticus (that only some Orthodox Jews follow all of) and all of the other various moral principles that have come, gone, changed or stayed throughout history, without assistance or "example" from God, and yet believe in some higher power or supreme being, and therefore not be an atheist. Part of my worldview includes this premise - God is an unchanging/unyielding (and righteous) force. That is a separate debate. However, NJ wants to make this premise the focus of discussion to discredit my question. His lamentation infers that I am unfairly holding atheists to a higher standard. This is true if you agree with his assertion that God has not left us with an unchanging/unyielding creed and/or example. So for the sake of argument, lets say this is true (although this is clearly not the case). How does this assumption negate the validity of my question, which was If his morals are not rooted in a creed and/or an example given by God what stable (unchanging/unyielding) force sustains the moral values of an atheist? In other words, higher standard or not, an atheists values are subject to the whims of men and/or their institutions. Without God as an anchor, there is no reason for mankind to cling to quaint traditions (such as marriage), or prudish prejudices (like the rejection of homosexuality), or superstitious taboos (like abortion or incest), or even silly paradigms (like the belief that harming others is somehow unacceptable). Without God, what moral imperative demands that I even care about a collective community? Why shouldnt I focus all of my attention on myself and myself alone? If there is no God demanding that my heart comfort to His and tend to the needs of others, why would I? I realize that our society is not falling apart at the seams because of atheists running amuck. However, they have no reason other than the fear of societys reprisal not to do as they please. And if a society starts to breakdown, logically they have two paths to choose from contribute to the decade (by behaving in a manner that suits their will and needs) or resist the urge and help rebuild in order to provide some measure of protection against others. Both motives are inspired out of self-interest, and self-interest alone. I cannot expect an atheist to logically behave in any other manner. They have no foundation for anything else. NJ, your argument has power if you can convince others that God has not left any clear teachings, or that Christ was not His Son - and a living example for us to follow. As for me, I maintain that God has left His unchanging/unyielding Word first the Old Testament, and then His living Word Christ, as revealed to us in the New Testament. We have no excuse for not knowing His Will. Proverbs says The beginning of wisdom is the fear of Lord. I believe this to be true with all of my heart. But it is His love that sustains my desire to conform to His Word. Can an atheist show love for another? I believe he can. But without God, I think that love has little hope of being sustained and/or without the overcast of ones self-interest. Achilleez, I would say that common sense, human decency and the knowledge of right and wrong that every human possesses would be the force of which you speak. If God is not instilling this common sense, this human decency, this knowledge of right and wrong that every human possesses, then who is? Where did this force come from and how do you know we ALL possess it? You are making an argument for the existence of God, not a counter argument to His existence.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Achilleez, I would wager quite a bit (from my own experiences) that a boy who has committed himself fully to a religion or belief in a specific God is much LESS likely to open his heart to a new one than a boy who is yet undecided on faith as a whole. Possibly, but lets clarify something. An atheist has a belief about God. He is not someone who is undecided on faith as a whole. An atheist denies the existence of God. And in my experience, they usually do so just as confidently as I proclaim His existence. Secondly, I would also safely conclude that all four of your conclusions could also be applied to many many athiests. Okay. Youve got my attention and interest. Lets just go with the most intriguing supposition His morals beliefs do not rely on the stability of an individual or an institution. If his morals are not rooted in a creed and/or an example given by God what stable (unchanging/unyielding) force sustains the moral values of an atheist?

Hunt, Strictly speaking on a personal note (i.e., I am not lobbying to have BSA change their policies, nor do I necessarily believe they should change), I will attempt to answer your question. If a boy does NOT believe in God, and refuses to even entertain the possibility of His existence, then I feel these things are reasonable to conclude: 1) This boy has great potential to negatively influence the faith of other boys. Especially as he becomes an older Scout and younger impressionable boys enter the troop. 2) This boy does not respect the power and authority of God, only that of whoever or whatever he puts in His place. He only knows, understands, and trusts the physical world. 3) While the boy may embrace a set of morals, they will only be as stable as the institution or person from where they were derived. If a boy believes in a false god, then we can safely conclude these things: 1) This boy believes in a power and authority greater then humanity. 2) While his faith is not placed in the true God, he understands that our existence goes beyond the physical world. 3) His morals beliefs do not rely on the stability of an individual or an institution. 4) As long as hes examining the world spiritual and physical, there is hope that he will open his heart to the true God. So, I tend to like the BSA policy although not necessarily for the same reasons as those empowered to make policy. Separate from the BSA policy discussion, I want to say - While some might judge my belief in God to be that of an elitist, my attitude does not affect anyone elses ability, in or out of the BSA, to pursue and/or practice his/her own faith. We can all sit around the campfire believing that we know something that maybe the other guy doesnt know or understand. But, what is wrong with that? As Ive tried to state in other threads, my confidence in knowing who God is, does not preclude others from having the same kind of confidence in their own faith. I find it amusing (in a sad kind of way) when self-proclaimed people of faith are offended when others express their faith in a strong manner. There seems to be a consensus among some folks (posters on this forum) that says something like this, Its okay to have a faith different from mine, so long as youre willing to express doubt in your faith as being the only way to God. What kind of faith is that? Is that the kind of faith you have? It seems to me, these folks are looking for validation of their own faith, through the faith of others. Why else would they take offense by my confidence or that of someone else who does not agree with them? If this is true, then by definition, I think one would have to say their faith is weak. Belief in God ones faith, should not waiver because someone might find reason to take offense. If these folks are not looking for validation, then they should not take offense to the level of confidence that others might display about their beliefs. Having said the above, I realize theres a huge difference in maturity, between us (i.e., adult leaders), and that of a teenaged boy (i.e., Scouts). Hence, my previous statements support the BSA policy, which I believe, helps create the right environment for boys to develop a godly character.

Since this religion clearly violates your idea of an acceptable belief (as determined by your previous posts), does this Scout's duty to God pass your muster? Ed Mori obviously understood my post, for he stated it perfectly. My beliefs and those of the BSA do not have to be in sync. My sons and I can function within their framework. It was never our mission to force the BSA to believe in the same things that we do, much less make them change their policies.

But I can't think of any question which separates the sheep from the goats better that, "Do you believe that yours is the one true religion." I agree. Indeed, this is an excellent question to ask. Personally, I can't think of anything much more arrogant than for someone to think that their religion is the One True Religion to the exclusion of all others. Now thats an interesting reaction to that response. Mine is quite the opposite. If you are not confident that you believe in the one and only true God, why stake claim to your so-called faith? To me, the Scout that stands up and confidently says, I know the one and only true God - is demonstrating a STRONG faith. To be sure, your statement is insulting to those who truly posses such a faith, and demonstrates a weakness in your own. I can separate those things which I believe as a matter of faith and those things I know as a matter of experience or physical or scientific fact. As can I. But it is interesting how often the two intersect one another. My beliefs are based on my experiences, what I've been taught, how I was raised and the conclusions I have reached based on my own study and thought (and some would add prayer). People with different experiences and upbringing may and often do come to very different beliefs. But who am I to conclude that your beliefs are wrong? You are a man with a heart, mind, and soul, who according to your own words - has experiences and training in religious faith. You have studied, meditated, and prayed about your faith. Given these things, Id say you are at least qualified to determine whether or not you know God. If you do, then its only logical and reasonable to conclude that those who believe in a god or gods that contradict your understanding of Him are wrong. But even if you are not confident, how does that make you qualified to say others cannot be (i.e., that these folks are arrogant). Id like to remind you Being confident, even in matters of faith, is not evil or even necessarily arrogant. In fact, some would say, a man who is confident about his relationship with God has been blessed. There's an old saying which sums this up: If you don't believe, no proof is sufficient. If you do, none is necessary. Thats just another way of saying - Faith is a matter a personal inspiration. Sadly, that is the opinion of many. My faith was divinely inspired, and I thank God for it. A more practical answer to Hunt's original question is to ask how BSA would go about determining what a "True Religion" is. Who gets to decide? And how fine of a distinction do we make? The BSA has a simple premise for duty to God. Believe in GodYou decide who you think he is, and what your duties should be. Im probably over-simplifying it. But thats the gist. I dont know what criteria they use to determine acceptable religions. Whatever the criteria is, it seems to be working for the BSA and several million boys. As Bob White wrote early in the thread, all BSA requires is that a Scout do his duty to God and be Reverent. If a Scout sincerely believes in the "spirit of all humanity" as his supreme power and that he does his duty to that power by helping other people and being positive force in the world -- or whatever other non-traditional faith you want to describe -- who are we to judge? There are two problems with that idea: 1) The BSA requires a belief in God, not humanity. Theyre not even close to being the same. 2) Since we (adult volunteers) are not the ones empowered to direct the BSA organization and its policies, your question is irrelevant. On the other hand, those currently overseeing the BSA are free to judge "the spirit of humanity" as being completely unacceptable as a "belief in God". In this case, I would agree with that conclusion.

So now my question is, if we did our jobs right why would any parts of the program be neglected? That was my pretence, specifically in regard to advancement If we did our jobs properly, boys who do not meet the standards/requirements would not be advanced. I was not attempting to relate this fact to any other part of the program. I am just making an observation. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

My point is that upholding the standards and requirements is an extremely minor element of scouting and belongs to the chartering organization and to the committee members not the Scoutmaster or Assistant Scoutmasters who job it is to deliver a quality program. I disagree on two counts 1) The standards/requirements are not minor. 2) In many cases, the SM or an ASM or a merit badge counselor, is signing off the requirement (not the committee members), and thus they are in prime position to ensure the standards/requirements are being met properly. Furthermore, while the committee members support the troop in the background, Ive always considered them leaders by virtue of the fact that they are adults in uniform. Regardless, even we narrow this discussion down to the troop committee and no one else - I feel the issue still exists. In many cases, standards/requirements are being glossed over because the adults involved are fearful of hurt feelings and/or confrontation. Ive seen this and Im sure so have many others. While I understand it, I think its something troops need to address so that sub par standards/requirements do not become the norm (and demean the rank for those who worked hard to meet the standards/requirements). And that if the scouts got a quality program, that the quality of advancement would for the most part take care of itself. It is possible to deliver a quality program in every other respect. That is to say, it is not an all or nothing situation. Ive seen parts of the program done very well, and others somewhat neglected.

If you think that by doing your job better, less scouts would climb to Eagle, then you do not understand your job. The jist of what I was trying to communicate was - If the BSA standards/requirements for rank advancement were upheld faithfully, it would be more difficult to become an Eagle then some boys have discovered it to be. But to give you your due - Yes, if the program was run better (i.e., there were better leaders), I suppose more boys would join, more would stay, and more would advance. But that wasn't the issue that I was attempting to highlight. Nor do I suspect it was scoutldr's intent.

So I submit that good questioning, active listening, and a critical eye for detail will assist a BOR member(s) in achieving their goal effectively. While the above may be true, I tend to agree with scoutldr. If we (the collective leaders) did our jobs properly, there'd probably be a significant drop in Eagles. Too often, answers such as, I guess it means going to church and stuff" is deemed acceptable. No one wants to hold anyone accountable these days, especially kids...It's easier to "go with the flow" and accept sub par standards. Otherwise, you risk confrontation, or worse like indignation from adults who think "a happy kid" is the only qualification needed for Eagle. As I once tried to explain to a Scoutmaster who was pushing through some older boys - Subverting the process is not only unfair to those who have legitimately earned the rank, it demeans the achievement. In this particular case, the Scoutmaster had two sons who had truly earned the Eagle award. His sons gave up other activities, made sacrifices, and spent the necessary time to learn the material, and do the tasks required for Eagle. The other boys, whom the Scoutmaster was fond of, eventually received the rank of Eagle too but they did not put forth the same effort. Eagle, to these boys, was something they wanted for their resumes, but overall it was not worth the effort unless someone was going to make it easy. They found the right person in their friend the Scoutmaster. In fact, Im convinced that they did not meet the minimum requirements. So, the Scoutmaster, not only did these boys a disservice, he demeaned his own sons accomplishments by cheapening the effort and lowering the character required to meet the rank. To this day, I am baffled why a man would do that to his own sons. Ive come to the conclusion that 1) he was simply oblivious to his own sons circumstances, and 2) his concern to be viewed as the grand old Scoutmaster by all others, over-shadowed everything else. As to how the Scoutmaster made it easy for them, thats another story. He eventually took over as the CC and his influence was felt in all areas. This, of course, was not possible unless the other adults involved let it happen. Sadly, we did, because it would have been too much effort and drama to change it. So we did what most folks typically do, endure it and/or wait for a regime change. At least, from my lifes experiences, Ive seen this outcome more often than not when it comes to volunteer organizations where one or two people are swinging a political stick. But I digress thats another nightmare that some troops have to deal with, and another thread - somewhere Im sure.

NJ - Are you practicing your lawyering skills - or do I really need to clear up "the mystery"? Of course, this confusion could have been avoided if I had simply called my lawyer and requested him to review my last statement for legal clarity before posting it on a public forum. Still, despite your background in law, I thought there was a better than average chance that you'd be able to figure it out. Sorry - next time, I'll try to remember the audience.

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Sadly, there are undoubtedly some folks that think this is a wonderful idea. Personally, I find it to be one more example of the progressive thinking that is destroying our country.

Actually, one side of me is happy that they publish the name early. Why? Because not every organization (i.e., youth program, school, etc.) is smart enough to isolate that adult from having contact with children while charges are pending. At least this way, parents in the community, can take their own precautions.