Rooster7

What is your program about? I realize that title will receive the ire of Bob White, but I like to live dangerously. Of course, its not our program. But, how is it being implemented in your neck of woods? In another thread, someone opined, Why is it that something that builds so many different characters in our sons isn't that important? Another Scouter lamented, Why is Scouting the first activity to go? Im sure there are many possible reasons. However, I have a pet peeve that Id like to address that I believe is strongly related to the previous questions. Does your pack or troop implement a Scouting program that glosses over God, country, and family? I believe many Scouters (and subsequently many Scouts) do not put much emphasis on the character building aspect of Scouting. Consequently, many parents never see the potential value in Scouting. These are some of the things that I have observed over the years: Few Scoutmasters/Cubmasters encourage or make a big deal of the religious square knot. Few discussions among Scouters and Scouts about how they should be interacting with others and how that interaction may change as one acquires a leadership position. Very few activities designed to bring families together (i.e., a pack picnic and softball game something along those lines). Many packs and troops open/close with a flag ceremony, which is fine But few open or close with a prayer. When a prayer is offered, its very short and very generic, usually May the Great Scoutmaster be with you until we meet again variety. Leadership does not encourage Scouts to talk about their religious faith, much less share spiritual thoughts. When our countrys history is discussed (which is rare), the focus is always on the event itself. Few boys ever discuss the philosophical thought or moral conviction that inspired or served as a catalyst for the said event. Many troops place a high emphasis on teaching leadership and camping skills, but character building seems to be taken for granted. All skills and competitions center on camping or leadership. Scoutmaster minutes (which should be used to reinforce good character) come in spurts and are relatively rare (once every couple of months). 99% of skits are for fun a chance to be goofy. Rarely have I seen a skit written to provoke thought. Generally speaking, the leadership does not encourage a serious tone for anything but award ceremonies. Many disciplinary issues (i.e., boys using their leadership position to lord over others, PG-13 swearing, poor chain of command, no escalating consequences, etc.) are ignored or played down. My point is this If we claim to build strong character in boys, then the program needs to be more than just some group gatherings, an occasional JLT, and a monthly campout. As a parent, if my only concern was leadership and camping skills, I could recommend many troops. But if I want more, like a place where I know my son will gain valuable insight as to how a man should behave, there are very few troops that I could recommend. The above examples are not without their exceptions. And, I am only speaking from my experience in the state of Maryland within my district. Obviously, in the national scope, I see a very small part of the pie. However, I do believe that more parents would embrace Scouting, if more packs/troops embraced the idea of character building as their primary goal. We have a thousand opportunities to teach boys about characterabout what it means to be a member of a familyabout what it means to be a patriotabout what it means to be a child of God. However, apparently (by what Ive seen), there are many who approach these opportunities with a ten-foot pole.

kwc57, Evidently that is what some would prefer...after all, we do lead by example. We should set this example elsewhere too. Like at home... I'm going to make my children refer to me as "the male parent who I must serve", instead of "my dad". It's not quite as warm, relationally speaking, but they'll get use to it. My next stop is the public schools. Im going to scold all of those horrible teachers that like to refer to our boys and girls, as my students. From there, Im hitting the baseball fields and the basketball courts. There must be countless coaches that use the phrase my boys or my girls or my team. We must stomp out this disgusting attitude of which millions have fallen plague to. Why cant people just learn to speak awkwardly so the rest of us can sleep well at night, knowing that no one owns anybody else. Despite my best efforts here, Im afraid there will a be few who will still miss the point. For some reason, there will always be folks who dont take these kinds of issues seriously. Im so frustrated. If this keeps up, I'm going to call "the doctor who's boat I'm paying for", and get a prescription.

I don't have a problem with the rules. No alcohol makes sense. I'm happy the BSA took this stand. However, from what I've heard described above, these folks like to stir the pot. I think the response in both cases, could have been more diplomatic and discreet. There's no need to attack folks like theyre "drug pushers", unless you're ultimate goal is to cut a swathe through your adult leadership. In my view, these kinds of emotional responses by adults (accusatory, running to the committee and making ultimatums, etc.) are more often about troop politics or ones low self-esteem.

le Voyageur, I've made a few small modifications to your last post - Add some cream and sugar to that coffee and substitute the pecan pie with blueberry cobbler, but keep the ice cream. Pancakes and bacon are good, but I'll have to have two or three eggs over easy with that. For the campfire, since you've pulled out the black berry brandy, I might be tempted into a cigar (even though I quite smoking 15 years ago) - I love the smell of tobacco (but let's not start that debate). Just to keep you guys in line, I'll throw the cigar on the campfire with the book of poetry (no offense intended towards you le Voyageur). Actually, I'd prefer another cup of coffee (but if it had a shot of Irish in it, my evening wouldn't be ruined). If you want some true food memories, you should try some Hungarian cooking (I'm half Hungarian - mother's side). Try some Hungarian bean soup with fried potatoe bread (hot out of the pan, rubbed with garlic). This will keep the covers warm at night and keep visitors away from your tent - But you'll definitely enjoy the meal.

I know White Castle hamburgers, but what are sliders???

BW, So its okay for you to say my son because your wife has no "ownership" of your children...only you? That sounds a little sexist, doesn't it? It's a silly argument for me to make, but you know what...You're argument about "my troop" is just as silly. Thank you FOG but you seem to be missing the entire core of the point. You control what you refer to yourself as, and that has an affect on your attitude and behavior. At no time was this about how others refer to you. You're stubbornness is unbelievable. It's blatantly obvious that FOG does get the point. By using the current Scoutmaster Handbook, he basically proved that if your assertion about possessive pronouns is true, then the BSA is tacitly condoning the idea that Scoutmasters should take ownership of their troops (or as you prefer, the troops that they serve). Consequently, you have a choice. Either your assertion is wrong, or the current Scoutmaster Handbook is wrong. Knowing you from your past arguments, it's difficult to believe that you will accept either one of these outcomes. Which is why I suppose, you dodged FOG's point in his post.

I didn't until you mentioned it. But now that you have, the media being what it is, I won't be surprised if it happens. As others have said, I don't care if either one wins. I just don't want to see anyone's political agenda being promoted, especially if it means the BSA is exploited and/or abused in some way.

Jeez OGE - Up until that last post I thought the two of you were experiencing some kind of bonding moment...then you had to turn it into something really ugly. ;-) Did you ever thought the day would come, when saying "far out" was a sign of your old age? If not, I just want to advise you - That day is here!

BW, What is being overlooked is the ability of language to affect attitude and for attitude to influence actions. Im ardently convinced that no one is overlooking or denying your assertion. What you are apparently overlooking is most folks have not been persuaded that the use of the word my will corrupt the average persons attitude and trigger a negative action. I appreciate that this may be a new viewpoint for many, and that not all misuse the term "my" but here is a way do distance yourself from those who do misuse it and to set a more positive example for others as a reminder of the adult's role with the troop. Its a well-intended suggestion I suppose. But, if I continue to use the word my in front of troop, I hope you and others have the mental wherewithal to understand that it has nothing to do with my attitude as a leader. There are very few individuals that would try to make that connection and use it as evidence of something awry. Its nothing personal. Im just not sold on the idea that I have to conscientiously monitor and censor my use of the word my because Bob White is convinced that its the right thing to do. If others wish to do so, thats great. But for those of us who chose not to, I don't think any connotations should be made about our ability or our attitudes as Boy Scout leaders. It's just a bit too much for me to swallow.

I do not assume that "my troop" is anything but a simple reference. It's a lot simpler than "the troop that I am associated with" as FOG tried to point out earlier. The vast majority of folks that make such references are not self-centered. Theyre merely trying to tell a story that involves the troop that they are associated with. Inferring otherwise is a ploy to discredit that person and/or his point of view. That's how I see it...In fact, that's how I saw it months ago when this "debate tactic was first employed on this board. Its bad enough when folks accredit you with words that you never said, but now we have to contend with the thought police. I probably have said my wife ten thousand times, but those words were never meant to imply that I own her. Nor do I think that by saying those words, one day, I will come to believe that I do own her. As to OGEs point (which does not appear to be the same one being argued here), I believe the CO owns the troop and has a legal right to run it as they please so long as they do not contradict the charter that they signed with the BSA. I believe the boys own the troop in the sense that they should have more input than anyone else as to how the program is implemented. I believe that the SM corps owns the troop in the sense that they have an interest (and probably the most expertise) in ensuring that the Scouts experience the program as it ought to be. I believe the troop committee owns the troop in that they have an obligation to provide the troop with what it needs. I believe the parents own the troop in the sense that they have a moral and legal obligation to ensure that their children are treated properly. In short, I dont really like the question. Everyone involved should feel some sense of ownership (as Ed pointed out). We should presume that most folks have good intentions until they prove otherwise.

OGE, Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel! ;-)

Paddlesack, Ouch! But I should have seen that coming. After all, - The sting of the saddleback is the most severe of the slug caterpillars.

A simple question...eh? More like a loaded question. No matter. I have the same background as Ed Mori (raised Catholic, practicing Presbyterian). Although, recently, I have been attending a Methodist church. Bottom Line - I am a Christian, but I don't feel obligated to a particular denomination. I'm impressed that you answered all of Yak_Herder's questions. However, your ending comments seem to reveal a bias against the BSA and/or Scouters. For the record...if you're not sharing an opinion or an experience on these threads, what's the point? Do you go to bowling alleys and harass the patrons for wanting to bowl all the time? If you don't want to waste your time with people's "2 cents", don't participate in a forum.

Acco40, Good thing you weren't in the men's room when you were thinking up a handle - You could be Flushmaster6000, Urinal1, Commode2, or something worse! Rooster is the English translation for my last name. "7" is the day of the month I was born.

it is curious to me that some profess atheism and some profess Christianity, but each one seems to condemn the other for their opinion. Why do you find it to be curious that a Christian and an atheist would be diametrically opposed to one anothers position? One might argue, an atheist shouldnt even care enough to respond, but certainly one would expect a Christian to passionately defend and proclaim the existence of Christ as Lord and Savior. If a Christian is not willing to rebuff an atheist, then one should question his profession of faith. So - I find your curiosity to be somewhat curious. As to why an atheist would care so much about his non-belief that he should force his company on believers so he can argue his positionthat is an interesting question. Perhaps, he is attempting to convince himself more than anyone else. Perhaps, if he stopped arguing with those of us who he can see and hear (figuratively speaking), hes afraid he will have to confront that quiet but Holy voice that calls his name. Just a thought

MaineScouter, So...I'm guessing, you're not a democrat? Sorry - I could not resist! ;-) I'm with justme. I'm usually a substance over style kind of guy, but there's a lot to be said for presentation. That being said, I don't always make my thoughts palatable for everyone either - But, I like to think that I try (at least on occasion). This may be a bigger peeve for me than the previous It irritates me to no end when someone abuses a position of power, like a bureaucrat whos brings his problems from home to work. Everyone deserves to be heard. And democratic principles should be applied whenever possible. Case in point, I dont like committee chairs that consult parents and/or other members of the committee as if it were an after thought or a formality. Close behind this one - parents who lecture volunteers as if theyve earned the right to criticize by sitting on their b*tts while others do all the work. In light of my previous peeve, this one seems somewhat ironic. However, I believe you can be a non-volunteer and seek to have an input I just think it needs to be done tactfully. Conversely, I think one can hold a position of power (volunteer or not) without lording it over others.

What disturbs me is the opinion of some that homosexuals are, de facto, immoral, however nothing is said about fornicators, adulterers, etc...As I have said before in other posts, why does the BSA selectively enforce it's value system? Are some values more "morally straight" than others? Scoutldr, Please examine the issue a little more closely. Obviously, the things that you have listed are immoral. Furthermore, if a someone was to flaunt such behavior, I am confident that many, if not most chartering organizations, would take action against that individual. So, so why are homosexuals any different? The difference is - Heterosexual adulterers have not formed a special group to force their way into the BSA as accepted members!

You can't regulate life. I understand OGE's story and I appreciate his feelings. However, try as we may, it's not a perfect world. People, especially young boys, will always find ways to bend the rules. Furthermore, we cannot create rules every time someone discovers a new way to take advantage of someone else, or because it is revealed that a boy may get his feelings hurt under certain circumstances. My point - while I agree that OGE endured an unnecessary abuse, the response should not be - "Let's ban Bushy, Bushy, Grey Squirrel!" Ultimately, a boy won't be able to fart unless he stands in a designated area. Pranks can and should be fun. Im not willing to ban fun. Did you know, in little league, each year about four or five boys die because they are hit in the chest with a baseball? What can we do about this? One - we can ban little league baseball. Two, we can force all little league clubs to provide chest protectors (of course, this in effect, we would eliminate about 70% of the clubs due to financial hardship). Or three, we can allow millions of boys to play the game knowing that life contains a element of risk. Its a harsh reality, but we cannot protect our children from every physical danger, much less every possible cruelty. Thus, we should do the next best thing. Educate them and prepare them for life. Which by the way, is what I thought Scouting was supposed to do. Yes, they should feel safe in Scouting, but lets not smother them in bubble wrap. We wont be doing them any favors. Having said all of the above, I do feel strongly that adult leaders need to be much more watchful for these kinds of abuses. I find the "left-handed smoke shifter" prank to be somewhat counter-productive. I am not convinced that a boy is truly humiliated. Yet, I have to ask myself - "What kind of boy falls for this trick?" I think the answer is - It's the kind of boy who willing helps his leaders and peers without question. He respects authority and understands the chain of command concept. He's eager to let others know that he can be counted on. He wants to be accepted. So, consequently, he accepts the task and does not question his "orders". When the prank is done, what does he learn? His elders are not always going to protect his interests. His fellow Scouts cannot always be trusted. In some sense, perhaps this is good. The boy is given a dose of reality. Nevertheless, I think there are other ways to communicate this lesson. I am not suggesting as OGE has that all pranks need to be banned. BUT - I think the adults do have a responsibility to be watchful. They need to know their Scouts. They should take measures to ensure that pranks are done in a spirit that translates into camaraderie and fun, not humiliation and discord.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Thanks KoreaScouter for weighing in on this topic. Your reaction as a military man is typical from what I have encountered among my friends and associates. An army needs to be unified, just like any other team trying to accomplish a common goal - but the stakes are much higher. If they cannot support, trust, and relate to one another, the team quickly falls apart.

Oddly enough, if you don't tell kids that invisible superbeings exist, most don't believe invisible superbeings exist, just as if you don't tell kids that werewolves really exist, most don't believe werewolves really exist. You don't have to explicitly tell them that such things do NOT exist. If you dont tell your kids about love and evil, do you think theyll come to the conclusion that they dont really exist? After all, these things are also invisible.

Complex scorecard? I suppose, I could simplify my life by adopting the "if it feels good, do it" mantra. But, as simple as that sounds, it never rang true to me. We do have one thing in common though - I don't begrudge you. But we part ways shortly thereafter...I do begrudge your demons. In short, love the sinner - hate the sin. Sex as an expression of love - Yes, but as it was meant to be, between a man and a woman. Biologically, they are a perfect fit. Other combinations are just wrong. How anyone can unashamedly argue otherwise, is beyond me. While I still maintain that procreation is a natural byproduct of a natural relationship between a man and a woman, I never stated that sex between a man and a woman was strictly utilitarian. That was your twist to my words.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Do you really think that referring to gay people with words like "sexual perversity" doesn't really count as an insult? Homosexuality IS a sexual perversity. Whether or not one wishes to view it as such is another issue. The fact is - sex is how we and other animals procreate. While the sexes (as in male and female) most often derive pleasure from the experience, biologically we are completing a natural process, which enables us to subsist from one generation to the next. Certainly, there are many who simply want to enjoy the experience. Regardless, it IS a natural process. Homosexuals have perverted the natural process to meet their own selfish and twisted desires. They, in fact, cannot procreate without the help of heterosexuals. So, while it may offend you, the fact is homosexuality is a perversity. If that's your belief, fine. But not everyone shares your theology on the issue, and your strident denunciations implying that "morally grounded folks" have to agree with you on this point certainly cross the line into "insulting" by any objective criteria. In this case, the objective criterion has always been self-evident morally and physically. But if youre still having problems, try picking up a biology book. You've just branded ungrounded, and have turned this from a civil and philosophical debate into a theological one. If I were changing this to a theological debate, Id quote the Bible. While I believe the Bible is wholly the Word of God and infallible, one merely needs to look at a man and woman to realize how things ought to be. When I think of two men togetherwell, lets just say Id rather not think about it. People on this board vigorously complained when guys like Yaworski described homosexual relationships and their sexual activities so bluntly. And I understand, because the visuals are repulsive. Yet, why is one so repulsed by what is being purported by some as being natural? The answer is obvious. Its not just about modesty. They know. Just like the folks who support abortion, but scream bloody murder when a pro-life protestors display photographs of an aborted child. They know. If one truly believes an abortion is merely a medical procedure, then those photographs would have the impact of an infected gaud bladder. But no, that is not the reaction, is it? Likewise, if we seat in a movie theater and see a man and woman engaged in love making we may blush some might even be offended because it intrudes on their sense of modesty BUT, it is not the absolute repulsion that most of us feel when we see two men engaged in a similar act. Yes my friend, morality is self-evident. And someday soon we will meet a holy and righteous God, who will hold us accountable. But if it makes you feel better, cast aside these words as the ravings of just another idiot with an opinion. Youd be mostly right in that assumption. However, theres no amount of intellectualizing that you can produce that will convince me that you are blinded to the immorality and perversity of homosexuality. And were you one of the ones wondering why the court in San Diego decided that the BSA was, in fact, a religious organization? Frankly, it matters not to me what the SD court decided. Regardless of how others label the BSA, it is first and foremost a private organization. They are allowed to establish their own guidelines for membership. They are allowed to declare and promote their own values. They do not have to explain or justify the origins of those values, even if some feel that they are religious. NJ, Until society sorts this all out in 5 or 10 or 50 years, it seems to me that "local option" is the ONLY way the BSA can abide by its own Declaration of Religious Principles. This assumes that the BSAs position is based on the beliefs of a particular religion. Perhaps, its rooted in their own self-centered sense of morality just as one is repulsed by incest, pedophilia, murder, and rape perhaps the powers-to-be in the BSA are repulsed by homosexuality. Who are you to say that the BSA position is rooted in a particular religion or even multiple religions? Why cant they, as a group of leaders, embrace the values that they feel compelled to embrace outside of religion? By implication, you seem to believe that only people that cast aside and abandon values associated with past generations can have a sense of morality that is independent from religion. Why cant people embrace values claim them as their own not because a particular religion has the same value, but because they have an innate sense that the value is good and proper? The answer is they can! No matter, in 5 or 10 or 50, or 100 years, we will all know the answers.

NJ & Twocubdad, Perhaps you could understand my frustration if I approached the analogy from the opposite end - There is a huge difference between those hateful bigots of yesteryear who yearned for the day when a black man was just a piece of property, and the God fearing people of today who oppose the "normalization" of homosexuality. If it pleases you, make the comparison. But the truth is - you are insulting millions of morally grounded folks (by looks of the Fox News poll, at least half of this country). Of course, it is plain to see, from your prospective and that of others on this board, homosexuals are the ones who are being insulted. You know - the Bible foretells of a day when evil is called good. Perhaps I should just accept the possibility that such a day is very near and beyond my ability to delay.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Twocubdad, Rather than repeating myself...Suffice it to say, you've ignore the points of argument rather well. I take comfort in the knowledge that there many good men in this country that know the difference gender, race, and sexual perversity. Pound as you may, that square peg is not going to fit in that round hole.

OGE, Roster, good question, and I admit that if my straight son someday must risk his life for our country, I will want gay's taking the same risk. Personally, Im not anxious to see gay men put at risk, because my son who happens to be straight might be put at risk. Heres my concern - I dont want my son to be put at a greater risk, because political correctness forced him into a fighting unit that did not functional well. If gays cause disharmony in the military (whether its intentional or not is not relative), then they shouldnt be there. Blacks were in segregated in the military because the Armed Forces ability to conduct its business with intergrated troops was quesitoned, turns out there is no problem. The whole black/homosexual comparison is flawed. First, its a given that being black (or African-American, if thats preferred) is not an act of immorality. I hope everyone can accept that as a GIVEN. The same cannot be said of homosexuality. Secondly, when blacks were integrated into regular units, their behavior was not an issue. Ones race, is a physical characteristic that should not affect how one interacts with another being. By definition, being a homosexual affects how one may interact with one's own gender. Blacks were not allowed to be pilots, as they werent supposed to be "Capable" (read smart enough) the Tuskegee airmen proved that wrong No one is questioning whether or not a homosexual is capable. Again, the question is - how well will they interact with the rest of the military? Based on demographics (and depending on what polling organization you trust), that means they will be part of a military that is about 90 to 98 percent heterosexual. Females were banned from many non-combat branches of the service because it was felt their presence would interfere with the military carrying out their functions, turns out the ladies did just fine. The gender comparison is just as flawed as the race comparison. In regard to homosexuals, we are not talking about physical characteristics, but sexual behavior. However, since you brought up females, I don't agree with your assertions. As a group (let's talk about "the rule", not the exception), their physical capabiliies are not the same as males. Furthermore (call me a sexist - go ahead, I've been called worse), aside from our physical differences, it's apparent that women are not men. Nor would I want to live a society where they were treated like men. Females were banned from Combat operations because it was felt that their prescence would interfere with the military carrying out their functions, The ladies are now doing it. When was the last time you talked to the military personnel who actually live through these experiences? From my conversations with the same, the ladies are NOT doing it. Theyre there, but they are often not appreciated...as in, they're resented. For the most part They dont do the same tasks. And they dont do it as well. Lives are being risked so that some upper level officers and liberal politicians can be appeased. Females were once banned from Naval Ship duty because it was felt that their prescence would disrupt the ship form its duty, they now serve. . Again, youre not talking to the same folks that I have. They are disruptive to the ship. Nevertheless, this is a different argument. And as has been recently shown, the US has a pretty good military, even with all these groups that "people" thought would interfere with the military performing its function. Most career military men, who risk more than a paper cut, resent the social experiments that politicians try to impose on the military. They dont hate women or homosexuals. They simply want to be part of a unit in which they can depend and trust that all of its members will do their job. Furthermore, the fact that the military does well - does not mean it could not do better. Id rather seen a few more boys come home alive, safe, and whole, then be able to thump my chest about how open minded we are as a society. Is it possible openly gay people will be the next group assimilated to the Armed Forces and then we will wonder just what the fuss was all about anyway? The next group Aside from physical traits, what other groups have the Armed Forces assimilated? If homosexuals were assimilated, they would be the first group accepted based on their sexual appetite. Thats a pretty sad criterion for the Arm Forces to adopt. When that day arrives, many will wonder what kind of a society they are protecting? Mom, apple pie, and the American way, just wont have the same ring to it. OGE, Im sure you mean well and I appreciate your civility in debate. You are a true gentleman. Having said this, I vehemently oppose your conclusions about homosexuals and most in particularly their potential role in the military. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)