Rooster7

First, as far as I'm concerned, whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, all true values (morality) come from God. Second, with or without organized religion, I believe God makes those values clear to us. That being said, I think there are many "atheists" who understand that homosexuality is a perversity. Third, whether or not a homosexual have a right to die for their country has never been the reason for banning their presence in the military. The question is, can the U.S. military function well with an infusion of open homosexuals among its ranks?

acco40, That was my first reaction...I would be surprised if that applied to the entire Roman Catholic Church as opposed to a diocese or a local church. But then again, given their problems as of late, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Hypothetically, say the PLC decides no new elections. Yet, the other candidates (the "losers") are not convinced that the results would have been the same. Doesn't fairness dictate that they be given the opportunity to see for themselves...shouldn't they be able to demand a new election? At the very least, I think the other candidates should be consulted.

What is the purpose of an election? Did you take part in a process to elect the best-qualified candidate, who in turn, will attempt to make the troop better? Or, did you allow the process to be corrupted? It sounds as if these Scouts did not take part in a true and fair election that will benefit the troop. Rather, they participated in a corrupted version of the process, in which a few individuals profited. Certainly, even a 12 year-old can understand this. So, perhaps some explaining is in order, but it shouldn't take too much talking for these boys to connect the dots.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I was inspired to start this thread by two events - 1) Fat Old Guy's thread titled: Poll - Men's preferences for gifts, and 2) My sons' recent Eagle Court of Honor. This is what my sons gave their Scoutmaster at their Eagle CoH, who happens to be retired Coast Guard and a big wine drinker. They bought a crystal wine decanter - actually called a ship or captain's decanter. They had it engraved with his name (and their names on the other side) and this thank you Scoutmaster Xxxx Xxxx Thank you for being our mentor and friend It brought the guy to tears. I loved it. He's a great guy and deserved a special gift. So, my question for this thread is - "What gift ideas have you or your sons come up with to give to a special Scoutmaster?"

AND - If one did accept the premise that bribes were acceptable, where would it lead? The richest boy wins? As my son might say, "That's crazy talk!" It's clearly wrong. Of course, whether or not there should be an election for an assistant patrol leader is another issue. Personally, it makes more sense to me to have patrol leaders pick their own assistants.

Eagledad, Do key chains and bumper stickers buy your vote? My point is - you should compare apples with apples, not oranges. Consider the worth of a candy bar to a 12 year-old as compared to the worth of a key chain to an adult. Would an adult change his vote for a key chain? Of course, most rational adults would not. Thus, the items that you referenced are not bribes. They are simply a means of advertisingthey make the candidates name visible. Furthermore, when politicians give these items away, they do not make their receipt conditional. On the other hand, a candy bar has a certain degree of value to a 12 year-old. Furthermore, it appears that the gift of the candy bar was conditional i.e., it was a true bribe. To make matters worse, most 12 year-olds do not recognize the real value of their vote. Many would willingly accept the short-term gratification of a candy bar and suffer the long-term consequences of selecting the wrong candidate. In short, this bribe was morally wrong. No doubt in my mind. Certainly you would demand a new election if a politician bought the votes he needed by bribing the homeless and poor with cigarettes (by the way, this has been attempted).

I would be more concerned about what the entire troop should learn from this experience, rather than the one boy. In other words, if it can be confirmed that boys were bribed, I would nullify the results of the election. However, having said the above, I never realized that troops had assistant patrol leader elections. In my troop, the elected patrol leaders hand pick their assistant patrol leaders (pending approval of the SM).

NJ, Of this I am guilty: I dislike the homosexual lifestyle. (They live in a very dark world, which is consumed by their so-called sexuality. On average, the homosexual has dozens of partners. Few of them find happiness. Their suicide rate is high.) I dislike what they do. (They are driven by their sexual desires. They debase themselves and others in a futile effort to find companionship.) I dislike their politics. (They defend their practices knowing full well how sick they truly are. They try to force everyone to accept their lifestyle and viciously assail those who oppose their agenda.) However, contrary to your allegation, I do not thoughtlessly approve of anything "that constitutes an attack on a gay person." That is what I call a "liberal smear". Very typical your indignation was predictably pious. I simply support policies and laws that treat homosexuality for what it is - a sexual perversion. So, for example, while I support laws against thievery, I do not want to see the poor attacked. I have sympathy for the poor and their plight. Similarly, I pray that all homosexuals seek out and find compassionate, trained counselors. Unfortunately, it appears most will not. Even if theyre strong enough to fight off their own denials and come to grips with their ugly and sinful lifestyle, they still have huge, almost insurmountable hurdles such as homosexual activists who harass them as traitors and/or bait them back into the fold via their mutual yet depraved desires; Or worst of all, heterosexual liberals who flock to their side in a self-exalting attempt to convince them that they are not sick, just victims of Christian conservatives. Their struggle is truly horrific, the likes of which, few outside their world can appreciate. Meanwhile many banally contribute to their downfall. Its very sad. I would never condone attacks, but nor do I condone the behavior. They need help.

Monday (next day) The national office receives a call from "someone" who reports Scout as ineligible. Just out of curiosityif no one is taking ownership of this alleged phone call, and there is no written notice from the BSA explaining how all of this came about, how did you know about his phone call? Without notice or investigation, national contacts the Scoutmaster of troop where Eagle was awarded and requests return of Eagle award, but gives no reason, stating only, "The parents should know." The request is not made in writing. Again, how do you know there was no investigation? If all of the above is true, I have to say - it is disturbing because there seems to be no due process afforded the Scout and his parents. However, your story begs more questions. Besides the ones I listed above If the Scoutmaster got off on a technicality, is he still a BSA leader? I find it difficult to believe that the BSA would allow someone to stay in a leadership position if he assaulted a Scout and got off on a technicality.

"I'm not positive this guy killed someone, but he's a bad apple anyway so let's find him guilty and send him tho the chair"? First, what you describe is not the spirit of the law, but a Kangaroo Court. There's a big difference. We may not always like the results, but I'd prefer the courts to stick to the letter of the law and apply it evenly to everyone. Second, following the spirit of a law, does not preclude one from apply the law even handedly. Abuses will occur no matter how one interprets the law. However, I prefer jurists that understand and follow the intent of the law to protect the innocent over those that allow the law to be perverted to serve the guilty.

My recollection of the facts is that Mr. Dale earned his Eagle, turned 18, registered as an Assistant Scoutmaster with his troop, graduated high school, went to college, and there he "came out" -- in other words, became "openly gay -- all in that order. That being the case, he was not openly gay -- or in the words of the BSA, an "avowed homosexual" when he earned his Eagle. Even if he had been, it is not at all clear that that would be grounds to rescind an Eagle award. But since he was not, that isn't even an issue in his case. NJ, Obviously, by your interpretation of the BSA policy, you are of the opinion that the BSA has a problem with the openness that some homosexuals might display in regard to their sexuality. The implication being, the BSA believes homosexuality itself is okay or at least tolerable, but public displays or pronouncements of homosexuality is immoral and will not be tolerated. You go on to make the point - since Mr. Dale did not become avowed until after his Eagle award, the BSA should not have an issue with him. I think your logic is flawed. The BSA has stated We believe an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law. In my mind, they clearly emphasize - avowed, in an effort to underscore their unwillingness to pursue with-hunts and/or play the role of the thought police. Do you believe that there is a moral distinction between an avowed homosexual and a closet homosexual? Of course I dont talk to BSA professionals who are in the know, on a regular basis. I only have their public policies and my common sense to go by. So perhaps, I presume too much As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me how liberals (especially liberal lawyers) love to interpret laws by the letter and not by their spirit. It matters not whether a coherent conclusion is drawn or if justice is truly served, the letter of the law reins supreme. I know that there are many who think such interpretations of the law is our saving grace, but Im overwhelmed by the insanity that allows murders, rapists, and child molesters to go free on such technicalities.

Ed, Isn't it amazing how quickly ice can melt? Tell those guys in H*** to cancel the parka order. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

So if COs have the right to accept or deny membership for any reason, how does BSA enforce its policy against descrimination based on race or disability? They (the BSA) are careful about approving charters. They don't allow hate groups or immoral organizations to have charters (i.e., the Klan, NAMBLA, etc.).(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

This just in... Ice has formed in the utmost southern hemisphere known as H***. I hesitate to report that it appears that Bob and I not only agree but have posted very similar thoughts on this topic. Of course, having said this, I'm sure Bob will find something to disagree with in my previous post. ;-)

Rooster, I understand what you're saying, and I'm sure you are not a racist, but substitute "race" for "faith" in the above statement and see how it sounds. You cant substitute words. Words have meaning. Race is a physical trait which one inherits. Religion is ones personal belief about who God is, and how we should relate to Him and others. In terms of meaning, these two words have nothing to do with one another. What you are describing is a church school program, not Scouts. Of course, if a Baptist wants only Baptist children and Baptist teachers in their Sunday School program, that is their right. But how does that jive with a "strictly nonsectarian" Scout program? The BSA as a whole is nonsectarian, but the BSA does give organizations the option to make their troops sectarian. This enables the organization to emphasize parts of the program to fit their needs. And I'm still hoping for an explanation of how a unit can "shift the focus of the unit to focus on the teachings and obligations of their church," as Bob wrote. As it has been explained here many times, Scouting is a national program and the focus should be on delivering the program as promised in the handbooks. Delivering the program as promised - and focusing on ones religious teachings and obligations, do not have to be mutually exclusive goals. They can complement one another. NWScouter -- the passage you quote, Where a Scouting unit is connected with a distinctly religious organization, no members of other denominations or faiths shall be required, because of their membership in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly peculiar to that organization. is repeated in the current (2001)printing of the Cub Scout Leader Book as well. This BSA directive references a Scouting unit, chartered by a religious organization, whereas its members have different faiths. It does not address the Scouting unit, chartered by a religious organization, whereas all its members have the same faith. It also says: "The BSA recognizes the religious elements in the training of a member, it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that training." (emphasis on absolutely nonsectarian) "The BSA does not define what constitutes belief in God...." "The BSA does not require membership in a religious organization...." "The BSA respects the convictions of those ... without formal membership in religious organizations." Again, the above applies to the BSA as a whole. They, in fact, have members of all different faiths. They, in fact, do not introduce religious aspects into their training or force members to participate in religious ceremonies, etc. However, again, the BSA issues charters to religious organizations with the understanding that they (the religious organization) may use the Scouting program to serve their members only and that they may impose restrictions on their members that the BSA may not as a whole (for example, no camping trips on Sunday). But what you guys are saying is that the above is the policy of the Boy Scouts of America -- except for those units who choose not to follow it? No. Were saying that the BSA gives chartering organizations the right to serve the segment of the population that they represent (schools, churches, military bases, etc.). When an organization adopts Scouting as part of its youth and community outreach program, a committee is formed and leadership is selected to organize and operate the troop in conjunction with the organization's special needs and desires. In short, you have it backwards Scouting does not use the chartering organization to achieve its goals. Scouting is a means for the chartering organization to achieve its goals (so long as those needs, desires, and goals are consistent with the Scout Oath and Law). Consequently, the BSA needs to be sure that they issue charters to worthy organizations.

But again I remind you that if you take the element of religious faith out of the process, it is easy to make a comparison to a unit that is all-white and encourages other races to apply elsewhere. Thats like saying if you ignore the fact that a circle is a round, it could be compared to a square. No offense intended, but thats a silly statement. Most religious organizations chose to discriminate because they want their members to share the same ideas about God, not because they want to encourage hate. Are there exceptions? Of courseBut that can be said of just about any organization. I think that all boys need these opportunities and it is a shame if some are rejected simply because they are a minority faith. I understand your sentiment. Id like to clarify your last statement though. These boys are not being rejected because they are of a minority faith. They are being turned away because they are not of the same faith. In other words, its a matter of sharing the same ideas and values, not bigotry.

What are these religious organizations doing that is causing such a ruckus? They are simply (and wisely) using the Scouting program to complement their religious teachings and their youth outreach. Since it is their religion, it only makes sense that they would want someone of their own faith, to teach their children. Furthermore, since they want to ensure that their children are learning all of the right things (i.e., the same things that their faith teaches), it also makes sense that they would restrict youth membership to members of their own faith. The driving force for them - is their faith, not Scouting. Scouting is a means. In short, if they were a Christian organization, it would be silly (to put it politely) to install a Muslim for a Cubmaster. Do football teams hire hockey coaches?

Excellent point OGE! I'm just happy to see folks displaying the flag proudly again. I'll save my lectures for those clowns who like to burn flags.

NJ, What can I say? We just don't view it the same way. Sometimes ultimatums need to be presented if one wants to preserve the good. If you feel that I am setting a bad example, I will just have to live with that thought. Obviously, neither one of us is going to convince the other to see the light. In regard to hypocrisy, I think you may have crossed over that line with your last post. While I disagree with you on a number of issues, I have never impugned your character. Do me a favor next time, before you hit that [submit Your Message] button, take a look in the mirror.

Bob, Rooster how can you say that you think the BSA should dictate to others what their stance must be on homosexuality, yet you don't feel that others should be allowed to dictate to the BSA what their stance should be? As you yourself have demonstrated to others on this board, an organizations membership criteria does not mean other organizations are being dictated to or bullied. The chartering organizations, or potential chartering organizations, would merely be presented with a choice. Abide by our values or dont expect your charter to be approved. Furthermore, the BSA is not trying to join the UUA or the Episcopal Church. These organizations have no leverage to request the BSA to conform to a particular standard. On the other hand, these organizations do want something from the BSA a charter. Therefore, the BSA is in a position to request that they conform to their standardswhatever the BSA determines those values shall be. You can't have it just one way Rooster and the BSA understands that. The BSA wants the same right of self-determination that the other private groups want and deserve. Youre over stating this issue. Both the BSA and the chartering organizations would still have self-determination. Its a matter of association. Just as the BSA refuses to allow such organizations like NAMBLA from having a charter, they could establish higher standards and refuse to issue charters to others as well. Its merely a matter of how rigid do they want to make their standards. What beliefs and behaviors are they willing to tolerate of chartering organizations? I appreciate that you support the BSA on this issue, but the reasons you use to support your point do not reflect what the BSA has stated as their position. In fact in many ways it presents just the image and bias that the BSA does not support. If you really want to support the program on this issue you would do far more good if you did it for the right reasons. If the BSA wanted to remove the specter of bias, they would never have publicly stated that they felt a homosexual leader was an inappropriate role model. Not all biases and/or discrimination is wrongthus the phrase discriminating taste. Again, this is a matter of association. With whom, and what organizations, does the BSA want to have a close association? If they continue to operate as they have, Im still convinced and satisfied that they are struggling to preserve traditional values. However, I feel that they could dig their heels in further and make a stronger statement. Perhaps, as you believe, they will never go beyond their current policy. Regardless, I believe that there is hope that the BSA will establish and enforce stronger policies pertaining to the requirements of chartering organizations. No matter what happens, without a crystal ball, its impossible to state what the BSA might do 15, 10, or even five years from now. Things changesome times for the goodsome times for the bad. Time will tell. Well, whether you agree or not, I feel I am supporting the BSA for the right reasons. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Bob, With all due respect (and I do respect your extensive knowledge concerning the affairs of the BSA), your last post supported my "assumptions". To the point, the BSA does not impose any specific values on chartering organizations outside of the Scout Oath and Law. So, my point was (two posts ago) and still is - the BSA if it was so moved to do so, could draw up a specific set of values (beyond just the Scout Oath and Law). As I tried to explain earlier, they are free to define themselves as an organization, even create new policies if they felt it was appropriate to do so. I'm not convinced that they ever will. I am just saying it is an option. One that I hope the BSA might consider one day. As to how you can unequivocally state that they will never require organizations to denounce homosexuality is beyond me. And to be frank, while I understand and appreciate your efforts to be informed about the BSA, sometimes it appears to me that you are going out of your way to be pompous. If you want to debate, great - but please don't lecture me. I try to be polite and give you credit for what appears to be wisdom on occasion. I would respect you much more if I saw some of that reciprocated. At the very least, dispose of the condescension. If you manage to do so, you might even gain a few more believers.

Bob, Before I become the object of your scorn, tell me exactly what specific values does the BSA require chartering organizations to adhere to. Obviously, they don't currently require organizations to denounce homosexuality. I realize that the BSA does have some requirements that they require of the chartering organization, but what values do they impose on COs. If you would be willing to provide me with some specifics, I will be more than happy to verbally chastize myself.

NJ, And at the same time, society is on its own, opposite path. I think that as time goes on, more and more religions are going to stop teaching that being gay is immoral and that gays should be excluded. More and more states, and eventually the federal government, will outlaw discrimination against gays. Some sort of "union" of people of the same gender, having most or all of the characteristics of marriage, will become commonplace. The military ban on gay conduct, and with it the ban on gays in the military, will be repealed (if it is not already unconstitutional based on the recent Texas case, which it probably is.) I hate to throw my religious teaching back as a rebuttal (or rather, maybe I hate to think about how some will react), but Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:2 Rooster, you recently said in some thread that in 100 years, the issue will all be resolved, and I think you're right, though I don't think you will like the resolution. Its kind of ironic that you should reference that statement of mine. You see, the resolution - in your mind, is what values society might be embracing 100 years from now. In my mind, the resolution is what God will reveal to us because in a 100 years or less, well know his Will (because none of us will be alive to debate this issue). In the meantime, I am afraid that as the paths of the BSA and society diverge, the BSA will become more and more of a marginal organization. And that would be a real shame. To the contrary, the more the BSA distinguishes itself as a value-based organization, the more honorable it will be. Its quite possible that the BSA will not serve quite as many as boys as it does today. That would be a shame. Nevertheless, BSA is respectable and praiseworthy because of its values, not because of its numbers. We don't need to wait for an organization to have done anything "wrong." What are you, a liberal or something? We don't like them or what they stand for, just kick them out. That's "wrong" enough for us. Well NJ, to some degree, I have to admit that youre right. But youve made a couple of implications that Id like to clear up. 1) I am not a hate monger. 2) I believe in the concept of due process. However, I reserve the right to not like the behavior of certain individuals and organizations. If that makes me judgmental, so be it. If someone claims to support rapists, I dont wait for them to rape someone before I disassociate myself with that person. Likewise, if someone embraces homosexuality as acceptable behavior, I tend to distance myself from those folks. In particular, I dont want my children near them. Homosexuality is a nicely packaged word, isnt it? If the English language forced us to use more descriptive words that actually produced visual imagines in ones head, I wonder how readily some folks would jump up and I say, I support that behavior. And NJ, before you start your then they came for me lectures, the BSA is not your federal government. Theyre a group of folks in a private organization that have common interests and values. Its not horrible or unlawful for them to limit their membership to likeminded folks. I was actually thinking that I was paying you a compliment by saying that your focus was and is on the BSA and not on the "culture war." Without implying anything about Bob (because despite our disagreements, I tend to respect his posts), you seem to be implying that it is better to draconically support regulations created by an organization that one supports (such as the BSA) then it is to fight for moral principles that one believes were established by God. Wow! Did you really say that or did I put words in your mouth? Hey, turnabout is fair play. Bob, How exactly does the BSA decide to remove an CO before they do anything wrong? The BSA is free to define itself as a private organization, or redefine itself, as some on this board would prefer to see. It is within the purview of the BSA leadership to create policy even new policies. In fact, they have a right and responsibility to set policies which they feel are appropriate and consistent with the BSA mission. That being said, they could create a policy that establishes a baseline of acceptable values that chartering organizations must adhere to. While the BSA does not currently have such a policy, Im certain that they could develop one if they felt so inclined. Perhaps it will never happen. But, I for one, would be happy to see it. Acco40, Liberal always was a dirty word. Some folks just didnt discover that fact until recently. ;-)

OR - as the old saying goes - Be careful who you climb in bed with.