Rooster7

I'm staying out of this one. I don't know the abilities or character of of the persons responsible for writing the handbooks in BSA or eslewhere. However, I have to comment on this supposition. ...but think about how the people who wrote the handbooks were selected. It was because of their ability to deliver a quality program. Unless you were there to witness it, I'd say this statement is a huge assumption at best. It's akin to saying - Consider why someone is promoted to the position of manager. He/She must have the ability to run a quality program. The reality is, many folks get into positions (even handbook writing) not because of their ability, but because of something else - politics, schmoozing, whatever - but it aint always ability - that's for sure.

OGE, I'm fairly confident that God loves us the same at age 45 as he did at age five. So - yes - I did not mean to imply otherwise. However, there is something to be said for the innocence and purity of love that a child possesses. And, in Matthew 18, I think God addresses that point and makes it clear that we should strive to be like a child. I don't love my sons any less today (they are all teenagers) then I did when they were in elementary school or pre-schoolers. Yet, when they were very young, our relationships were much less complicated. This world corrupts. Satan is alive and working hard to cause confusion, misunderstandings, and hardships. Until God takes us out of our natural bodies, I think our ability to love and to be loved will be somewhat hindered - If not by God, then by the rest of us in the world. By the way, the Godfather series was great. Surprisingly, my wife really liked those movies too. I never would of thought that my wife or any woman would like that series, but she proved me wrong - It appears to be one of her goals in life. So, here's an offer you can't refuse. I promise not to pull you back in. Because you know, I have to spend more time with the family...If you know what I mean.

OGE, Well, I can't see Jesus loving me more 45 years ago and his love getting less as I age. Did you really miss the point or are you yanking my chain? It doesn't matter how old you are. What matters is how you relate to others, and most particularly to Him, the Lord our God. Jesus is simply telling us we need to shed all of the garbage that we've acquired over the years (pride, anger, jealousy, self-righteousness, etc.) and approach Him as a child might approach his father. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3&4 Furthermore, while I dont believe Jesus love diminishes as we get older, I certainly had a lot less sins to my credit nor was my mind nearly as creative in finding new ways to bring dishonor to myself and the Lord. I yearn for the days when I trusted in my father and relied on me solely My life was a lot less complicated. Now that Im older I realize, while my fathers love and authority was imperfect, it was and is a model of Gods love and righteousness. I yearn for the day when my life will be less complicated again but next time, it will be ruled over by a father whos love and righteousness is unblemished. 4 Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man. 5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:4-6

In the bible it tells many times about how we must become like a child, and we are all children of God. When Jesus talks about Children, could he mean all of us who believe, or does he mean just the very young? In the verses that I quoted (Matthew 18:1-9), I think he meant - the very young, as in "little child" - as in a simple (uncomplicated), trusting, innocent young child that respects authority and loves unconditionally with an open heart. He tells us that we need to become like these "little ones" if we are to enter the kingdom of heaven. In other verses, references to a child or children may well be intended to denote a "believer" or "His children" - But I can't comment on that without a specific verse to look at. Context is important.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Packsaddle, I didn't mean to infer that you were a liar. I was recalling that phrase because statistics can be manipulated, even when they are accurate. Your first post appeared to have a couple of holes. OGE, I agree that all life is sacred in the sense that all life is a gift from God. AND, I agree only God can judge a man's heart. However, the death penalty is only a prompt introduction to the afterlife. Once there, I'm sure God will use his own judgement. In the end, looking at this issue through the eternal perspective, it really doesn't matter much what we do. Now, have you asked your wife yet? I'm still convinced that she'll take my side. Crimes against a child are more heinous. Have you not seen the innocence in a child's eyes? (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

What's that expression? Liars figure and figures lie...Something like that. Anyway, your statistics have a lot of blanks that need to be filled in. First, what are the overall populations and murder rates for both areas? What is the murder rate in the Northeast as compared to the South? Also, while I firmly believe the death penalty is a legitmate deterrent - Its potential to deter criminals will always be somewhat suppressed so long as there are large areas within the United States that do not embrace it. In other words, criminals as a group, aren't too bright. They don't follow the death penalty track record of different states. They just know that there's a good chance some liberal group is going to come to their aid - no matter what their crime may be. But when they commit murder in Virginia, as opposed to Maryland, most criminals don't realize that they're likely to be sentenced to death. If the death penalty was embraced universally in every state, there would be no confusion as to the likely outcome for a murderer.

OutdoorThinker, Try thinking a little harder...I never said every woman was sheltered. Also, sheltered doesn't mean helpless or stupid. You can grandstand and try to turn this into a feminist issue, but I'm not biting. Many young women (not all, but many) are sheltered by their families and do not know as much about the world as maybe they should. If that belief enrages you, so be it. OGE, You're starting to sound like a politician. I did not say that the torture, rape, and murder of an older woman should be something to celebrate. Nor did I say you should console yourself with the knowledge that if your wife was a young child it would have been much more tragic. However, I suggest that you ask your wife. If she was a victim of such a tragic crime, would she prefer to suffer through it as an adult or a very young child? In fact, I'd be willing to bet that many women would confront one of these animals and assume the risks, if they saw a child being attacked. I don't think that nearly as many women would take the risk if the victim was another woman. Why? Isn't it obvious. Do you honestly believe that the rape and torture of a child is not more tragic than a similiar crime with an adult as the victim. Seriously - you don't believe or understand how a child might suffer more? I challenge you to ask your wife about this...I'm betting she's on my side. gsmom, How do you address the fact (and it is a fact) that innocent people have been executed because our system is imperfect, and can never be made perfect. Give me some numbers and I might start to change my mind. However, I don't think the numbers support your claim. In the last ten years, how many "innocent" men have been executed? Does anyone know? Or, are you guys pulling this out of your hat to support your argument? Isn't it better to let a guilty man live (in prison of course) than to execute the innocent? It's relative. We're not perfect. There will always be some injustices. However, the system works for the betterment of society. If I'm right, and the death penalty is a deterrent - then consider this question: If statistics tell us that as a result of the death penalty, 1,000 less murders occur each year - How many of these folks do you sacrifice to ensure not a single innocent man is executed?

Before I answer, I would like to pose a rhetorical question, why is the murder of a child or a young woman always held up to be more heinous than the murder of some poor slob? You may have meant it to be rhetorical, but Id like to answer it. The answer is simple innocence, the ability to deal with reality, and to a lesser degree - unrealized potential. A child, in particular one as young as a five year-old, does not understand that there are things that are greater than life itself. He/She doesnt have the ability to fully understand that our lives on earth are but a blink of an eye as compared to eternity. A child amplifies every emotion, every pain, every fear, because he/she has a very limited ability to deal with the harsher realities of life. He/She is terrified at the sight of blood. A child is ill prepared for the thought that an older, grandfatherly figure, perhaps a friend of the family, has truly evil intentions. A child doesnt have any coping mechanisms to deal with the horror of a deranged pedophile or the pain that he might inflict. He/She assumes every unknown is something to be feared. He/She has no concept of true evil. Due to a childs state of mind and his/her innocence, every transgression that a rapist/sadist could inflict on an adult is amplified a thousand fold. If you dont understand, then perhaps youve forgotten what it is like to be five years-old. Similarly, many young women are sheltered and protected from these realities. An argument can be made that their parents did them no favors. Nevertheless, many young women even today, are unaware and/or ill prepared to deal with the harsher realities of this world. Consequently, when they are the victim of a heinous crime, their suffering their victimization, is greater than that of someone who is less naive and/or more prepared to deal with such a reality. Having said the above, when I think of a five year-old and his state of mind his emotions, pains, fears the terror that he (or she) must have endured while being victimized by one of these monsters, I boil with anger. Of course, vengeance is the Lords, and I realize that these animals will face God one day. However, the state has an obligation to protect the people. Locking up these guys up for life is a great idea if there was no parole system, if it was impossible for them to do harm to a guard or a fellow prisoner, but we dont have such a justice system. We have a system that allows pedophiles and other heinous criminals to go free. It happens all the time. Furthermore, I vehemently disagree that capital punishment is not a deterrent. Folks site these unnamed studies as if theyre common knowledge. What they are is common hogwash. Look at the rape and murder statistics in the Middle East. Why do you think their numbers are low? What do you think happens to a rapist or pedophile in their culture? Im not saying we should adopt their system BUT, dont tell me that capital punishment is not a deterrent. If for no other reason, capital punishment works because truly evil men (and women) are not in a rush to meet and answer to God. AND, as someone already mentioned, a murderer will not have the opportunity to take a second victim. She was 89 and he was 90. She had congestive heart failure, emphysema and arthritis. At the funeral, people were coming up to him telling him not to feel bad, they had been together for 60 years, lived a full life and well, it was to be expected. Emotionally and spiritually, it always hurts to lose someone, no matter the age or circumstance. Those people, who spoke to your fathers friend, should have been more sensitive to that reality. However, rationally, they made a valid point. I dont think its something you want to tell someone at a funeral. Nevertheless, at some point down the road after the pain of losing his wife has faded, I would think that your fathers friend would have to agree. If a devils island scenario doesnt work, how about an 8 foot by 8 foot by 8 foot cell for life. I never said dont punish, just dont kill. Heres another thought that I meant to comment on earlier. There are worst things to abhor than the taking of a human life. Using my hypothetical five year-old again (by the way, it doesn't take a lot of time to find real cases but Im not going to depress myself by digging up a factual case), I want to ask you a hypothetical question: If the father catches the pedophile in the act, and his anger causes him to react in such a way that he kills the pedophile perhaps even in a brutal manner, what crime do you think society will find to be more abhorrent - the fathers murder of the pedophile or the rape and torture of the five year-old? By the way, Jesus valued children more than men. So, theres another reason to view a crime against a child as being more horrific than a crime against an adult. 1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. Matthew 18:1-9 The punishment should be the same either all life is sacred or none is. Thats why I abhor abortion, murder is murder. I am truly disgusted when innocent life is taken. It should be noted though, there was and is only one human being who can stake claim to being truly innocent. We are not innocent, nor are our lives sacred (not without Christ). However, children come a lot closer than the rest of us in particular those who are not allowed to leave their mothers womb before suffering death.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Remember, we are as a society abhor the taking of another's life as the ultimate wrong, so to prove our point we take that person's life, is that condtridictory? Ignoring the Illinois situation (of which, I know nothing) and other similar side issues (at least for the moment)...shouldn't you make a distinction between killing and murder? If you do, then you should understand that there is no contradiction in the death penalty. When I think of an innocent 5 year-old who's been brutally raped, tortured, and beaten to death, somehow I don't see a contradiction when the state decides the perpetrator needs to be executed.

Yes, I imagine that you are correct. Via volunteer service, women are enabling a large number of men to choose "not to serve" (i.e., by virtual of the fact, it is not necessary to draft men). Of course, if that is our goal, let's open volunteer service to children and the elderly too. Then, if the demands of the military increase, even more men will be able to choose not to serve.

I am truly amazed at the number of folks who don't recognize the differences in the sexes. It's slowly dawning on me why so many don't find homosexuality offensive. By all appearances, these folks don't see ANY spiritual, emotional, or psychological differences between men and women. Thus, the resulting logic is - "If the only thing that separates us is our genitals - Why not engage in same sex unions? Why not have women go into combat? Why not have same sex couples adopt children? Why not have unisex bathrooms? Why not have men and woman play together in the NFL?" I don't mean to turn this conversation into another thread that debates homosexuality, but I'm wondering just how far off the mark am I? By the way, here's the reason to "why not" - Even if we ignore the physical differences, men and women are STILL different. Take all of the testosterone or estrogen you want, you can't turn a woman into a man or vice versa. I'm not going to attempt to list and describe our differences, because God has made them clear. If we send women into combat, I know in my heart of hearts we will have to answer to God. It's wrong. And frankly, I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise. Maybe my argument is more emotion than "intellect". But I would not want to stand before God and intellectualize a position that defends sending women into combat. He knows your heart as well as your mind. It would be a futile exercise.

scoutingagain, I took no offense to your question. Although, I'm not sure that my answer is relevant. I want our government to continue their current policy - to disallow women in combat roles. If my daughter ever wants to volunteer for service, I will discuss it with her. If women cannot be directly placed in harms way, I'd probably reluctantly give her my blessings. Packsaddle, I think I was pretty clear. In short, I think those who advocate women in combat roles, do so mostly in theory. When the rubber hits the road, most recognize the differences between men and womenthey come to their senses. Those that dont, should consider the ramifications of their position.

FOG, First, we were responding to countries that had declared war on us. Second, the intended targets were factories that were producing weapons and/or products critical to the infrastructure of our enemies. Third, if we had the ability to avoid civilian casualties, we would have done so. Terrorists don't try to avoid civilians...they target them. I know we normally agree, so I dont want have a knee-jerk reaction, but You probably know as well as I do, this is the kind of nonsense that liberal ideologues evoke to defend the indefensible. You wouldnt have to add much to your last post to draw an A from Berkley or HarvardIts the same garbage that some of their professors spout.

NJ, Rooster, as some others have suggested or hinted at, my personal preference would be that NONE of my children be placed in a situation where they have go into combat against their will. I didn't respond to those who "suggested or hinted" at this thought, because 1) it's a given, and 2) it's not the point of the discussion. If liberty is to be preserved, wars must be fought. The question is Are we willing to lower ourselves and send women into harms way? But if you want to make statements such as the one above, here's my version I'd prefer that NONE of my children be placed in a situation where they have to go into combat whether it's against their will or NOT. The people who thought they were just going to work in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01, or who were on a plane going wherever that someone decided should be redirected to crash into the Capitol, or who went to work one day in the Oklahoma City federal courthouse, did not know that they were on the front line of someone else's war until it was too late. We are fighting a war against terrorism. However, terrorism is NOT war. 9/11 was NOT a battle. It was a mass murder, executed by a bunch of cowards who masqueraded on earth as men. The men, women, and children who were killed that day, were NOT combatants. They were victims. Their Killers were inspired by the promise of sexual rewards in heaven. These men, who did the killing, were NOT soldiers. They were murders. Terminology is no small matter. Its crucial to a healthy and truthful conversation. Lets not confuse matters by labeling those who planned and carried out 9/11 as warriors. They were cowards. So what's my point? There's a difference between being the victim of terrorism (which we have no decision to make) and making a conscience decision to send women into combat against the same depraved animals. I always knew it would come to this. Gradually, those who embrace liberal mantras have to either 1) abandon their political views because they cant reconcile it with the truth, or 2) abandon the truth. Men and Women are not equal in every aspect. They have physical, spiritual, and psychological differences in which, depending on the circumstances, it is advantageous to be one over the other. Without consideration to other debatable points (i.e., the cause is just, etc), are you willing to send your daughter into a war zone to prove a point that you dont really believe?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

NJ, I realize my argument is not with you. Nor am I attributing the inspiration for my remarks to your comments. I am offended though by men who causally discuss the possibly of drafting women for combat roles. I have no respect for that discussion and most particularly I despise men who would put women in harms way. As to what our military has or has not been doing for the last twenty years, I believe those who are politically empowered drive them. If such a draft is ever created, it will not matter to me if liberals or conservatives are behind it. It will be a policy created for political gain and born out of political correctness. To those who would embrace it, I say shame on you. I wonder how many men who truly experienced the horrors of war, and who have daughters, would condone such a draft. I realize that there are exceptions. Even when all common sense, logic, and moral righteous, floods the land, there are many who would argue that we are in a drought. One day, I believe they will have to answer for what was in their hearts.

NJ, It's rare that we agree. Still, it seems we may have some common ground concerning this issue. You said: I realize that there are fairness issues there too, but I also realize that men and women are not identical, and by the way, the courts recognize that also. Those words echo a man who loves his daughter. There are indeed differences. Furthermore, as men, you and I know what men are capable of, especially in times of war. It doesn't take military experience to grasp this truth. What kind of country would we be...What kind of men would we be if we allowed our daughters to become combatants in a war? The question is rhetorical. The simple undeniable answer lies in every man's heart. I maintain my original position - If you're the kind of man that would allow your daughter to be forced into fighting a war, you're not someone I want to get to know. That's an argument for fools and cowards.

Adrianvs, I understand my duty as a man - to defend our country and/or to protect the interests of our countrymen. It's not a duty that I would gleefully fulfill, but I realize that every man - including my sons, has this obligation. But let me make this clear, if my country ever tried to force my daughter to fight a war - to subject her to the brutality that would certainly come if she was ever capture, to witness the horrors that men in such circumstances can inflict upon one another, and to surrender her innocence for life (if not life itself) - then I'd rather go to war with my own country. If you want to fight a war with your daughters, go ahead! But you'll find yourself in a fight to the death if you ever try to take my daughter.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

To those of you that would have women (your daughters, your granddaughters, your wives, your girlfriends, etc.) fighting along your side in a war and subject to all the risks associated with the same: I find it interesting that many of you seem to recognize and appreciate the differences between the sexes, at least to the extent that most of you endorse the Boy Scouts as a great organization for boys and want to keep it that way... YET, you have no issue with women in combat. I'd rather go to war at age 45, 55, 65, or 75 then send my 18 year-old daughter into a war. And I mean this in the nicest way, if you'd rather send your daughter, then I say shame on you and may God have mercy on your soul. If you consider that dramatic, then I figure 1) either you don't have a daughter, or 2) you're not much of man. Sorry, I can't see this issue any other way.

I think it's sad that we've become so civilized that we feel compeled to make our wives and daughters fight wars. NOT me! If that makes me a sexist pig, I'll wear that label proudly.

dsteele, Interesting story. I seriously doubt that I have the patience to sit through that kind of nonsense.

kasane, Somewhere between point 'A' and point 'B', you lost me. So what exactly are you trying to say? "If you're anti-abortion, you must be pro-stoning"??? Let's try to connect some dots here...shall we?

Just to fan this fire (shame on me)... There's actually two distinct arguments that surround the death penalty debate. Many folks don't separate them, which can be a real pain when it comes to discussing it in a logical manner. Supposition #1: The death penalty is wrong because a "civilized society" should never kill criminals. Supposition #2: The death penalty is wrong because the government could inadvertently kill an innocent man. I disagree with Supposition #1. I believe a "civilized society" has an obligation to protect its citizenry. The death penalty sends a message to those who would contemplate murder, and prevents convicted murders from repeating their crime. I understand the risk associated with Supposition #2. I believe we can trust our government to take this risk seriously. Furthermore, as long as we live in the world we live in, where men (and women) are so willing and able to rob, beat, rape, and murder for their amusement and gain, we need to take that risk. Which brings me back to abortion. Abortion is simply the murder of a innocent child - 99% of the time as a matter of convenience to the mother (and/or father). Do these two issues really have anything in common? I'm not convinced.

KoreaScouter, I agree with your post, but I'm not sure that this part is true "That young man's values are already formed...his troop did the best job they could with him..." Maybe I'm missing something in sst3rd's posts, but my image of this boy is not a bleak as yours. Nor do I recall the boy stating that he intends to pick and chose among outings, but not be an active member. My reading gave me this impression; he left because of being "burnt out on Scouting" but recently expressed a desire to go on an outing with the troop. Perhaps the said outing will reinvigorate his interest and he'll come back as a regular contributor. Prior to his leaving, it sounded as if he was a good Scout. How do we know that he will not start coming back to troop meetings? Sst3rd, am I missing something? Is there more to the story than I what I just summarized (ignoring his mother for the time being since its not really relevant to the boy)?

NJ, And I knew it would before I ever hit the submit button. There is a line to be drawn. Did I really need to state that disclaimer? In my original post, I gave folks credit for knowing the obvious. Here is the obvious "line to be drawn": Eventually - after you've made your complaint known, after you've gone through proper channels, after you discover the allegiance of most folks in an organization...If you find yourself standing in the nose bleed seats of the visitors' section, its time sit down and shut up...move on to another stadium or find another team. In other words, if I discover that I hold the opinion of a small minority (i.e., the paintball rule is dumb), or the organizational powers-to-be are adamant about maintaining their position (complain as much as you like, but we have the authority and the rule stands), I think the noble thing to do is to accept the rule or reject the organization and move on. If we were talking about the ruling government of a country, I might reconsider that position, but we are discussing one of thousands of private organizations you, myself, and others have choices. If you don't like the menu, find a different restaurant.

I agree with Mike F. And I might add, have at least one person - adult or boy, it doesn't really matter - who can not only speak to the Scout's qualities, strengths, and ability, but also find someone who can truly speak from the heart. Words blandly read from paper, no matter how well they're written, come off as contrived. If you really want to honor this boy and bless his parents, find at one person who can unapologetically and passionately recall his spirit and character.