Rooster7

The same individual is being identified as a good role model and a bad role model within the same organization. The conflict (as described above) was caused by the chartering organization, which sought out a BSA charter, knowing that the BSAs values were different than their own. Furthermore, while this situation may have not yet become a reality, the BSA has not issued any decrees or promises that they would never reject a chartering organization given the above scenario. My guess is, based on the BSAs recent history dealing with these kinds of matters; they would continue the relationship with the chartering organization so long as they did not try to use the situation to gain political ground (i.e., circumvent the BSAs position on homosexual leaders). If the chartering organization went public and/or manipulated the situation to serve their agenda, I believe the BSA would revoke their charter. Unfortunately, I think the BSA is making a mistake by waiting for those kinds of situations to develop. The liberal media attacks these stories like a pit-bull. The BSA goes out of their way to keep these relationships intact (i.e., UUA Church, Episcopal Church, etc.) even when they dont necessarily agree with their values. Yet, the media loves to make the BSA look like the bad guy. I think the BSA would be wiser by being proactive and rejecting these chartering organizations before they have the opportunity to exploit the Scouting movement. While the Episcopal Church may have agreed to abid by the BSA's membership policies, it's only a matter of time before they turn and bite BSA's hand. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Packsaddle, You're missing the point. Even 12 year-old "innocent" boys understand principled-based positions. It is the UU that is attempting to make a political statement with its "supplemental" literature. You portray these boys as being caught in the middle. Even so, I give them credit for having a brain. This is a struggle from which they can learn. Do you honestly believe a Scout is going to suffer irreparable harm?

I agree with the previous posts. In my experience, it's the self-discovery issue that is the focus of most conflicts between adults. For example, the boys plan a bike outing. Announcements are made at the troop meeting. No one mentions to bring a bike helmet or a water bottle. When does the adult step in? I think I know the answer to this and other similar questions, but there doesn't appear to be universal agreement between Scouters. Some folks draw the line when it comes to issues of safety. I think there are other concerns that should be considered. For example, if the self-discovery process means that others (not just the boy doing the learning) will be significantly impacted. Do you allow a patrol of eight to go without a breakfast on a backpacking trip because the cook didnt plan the meals well? How much, to what extent, do we allow an outing to be ruined for others? Do we allow 5, 10, 15, or 20 boys (who may well know better than the person charge) to suffer for a mistake made by the one?

Anything that you need to know - can be learned. The real question is - Do you have the energy and the heart to do the job? If not, don't even try. If you do, be prepared for a lot of work and challenges - but you should do fine.

Packsaddle, They had nothing to gain, nothing to lose, and BSA did it to those boys anyway. As I already stated BSAs policies benefit the boys and their families who embrace traditional values and chose to remain in Scouting. The parents of those boys need to consider whether or not they embrace BSAs mission (as defined by the BSA). If they dont, then they need to find another program for their boys. Its that simple. If anyone did anything to those boys, it was their parents and/or guardians that chose to enroll their children in a program, which they knew contradicted their own teachings. I saw this process many times in my past, applied to persons of color; blacks, Hispanics, middle easterners, oriental...not to mention Jews - all vulnerable because of their minority status. So I react strongly when I sense a similar mode in BSA. Today's minorities should take notice. Why would anyone equate (or compare - if you prefer) national origin and race with sexual behavior? Do you equate these good peoples minority status with other sexual behaviors such as bestiality? Dont you realize that many minorities are insulted by such comparisons? Bob White, Silly is the word. Bob, your remarks are right on the mark! Twocubdad, On the one hand, BSA very strictly dictates the meaning of "morally straight" to include things not readily available in a common reading of the words. But the meaning of "be active in your Troop" is left to the interpretation of each individual Scout. First, I would argue (if one is not being stubborn) Most folks readily understand what traditional values mean. One does not have to be a history major to know and understand the moral values publicly embraced by this country prior to the 60s. And please, you folks who like to cart out the history of the Klan and other such groups, dont try to equate that garbage with the majority of Americans who lived prior to the 60s. Its an insult to them and to the intelligence of most folks posting on this board. The fact that some bad things occurred prior to the 60s does not mean it was a moral value embraced by the majority of Americans. So, my point is, the BSA has a maintained an excellent and worthy set of moral values. Values that have remained consistent since their inception. Second, there is a huge difference between ones mission and the means one utilizes to accomplish it. Moral values, the Scout Oath and Law, are crucial to the mission of the BSA. When necessary, the BSA is wise to make clarifications. Or, more accurately, they should remove loopholes and define their mission more clearly so that others cannot exploit the organization for their own political gain. The requirement to be active in your troop is important because if one is not participating, one cannot gain the benefits offered by the program. However, it is not nearly as important as the mission itself. The mission affects everyone in the organization. Ones activity level, in the long run, tends to affect the one individual. Furthermore, the BSA can reasonably expect that troops will monitor and encourage its members to be active. If not, why obtain a charter and offer the program. On the other hand, the BSA cannot trust that everyone will reasonably interpret its mission. Some folks have their own agenda and are not ashamed of employing the most devious of tactics to accomplish the same. Therefore, common sense demands that the BSA give its mission statement more attention and priority. They need to define it more rigidly so that people will remain true to its mission, to prevent others from corrupting and/or stealing the organization to serve their own agenda. Ironically, there are some maybe yourself included, who claim that the BSA was stolen by Christian conservatives in recent times. To me, this is nonsense. Im convinced, and I think most folks know this as well; the BSA has remained true to its mission, one that they established nearly a hundred years ago. Christian conservatives flock to the BSA because this statement is true. The BSA offers values that they (and many other faiths as well) want their children to learn and to embrace. They did not highjack the BSA. However, there is a movement by homosexuals, atheists, and others (with their own design for the BSA) who are trying to do just that! I, for one, believe that they will fail. God Bless those who stand in our stead and fight the good fight to keep the mission intact and the program strong.

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. The past and current leadership of the BSA is authorized and responsible for defining the words in the Scout Oath and Law. The phrase morally straight is in fact, just two words. When left by themselves, it can be argued that their meaning is very vague and extremely relative to each person. This is especially true for those who want to pursue loopholes. Unless a person or group expounds on the meaning of such a phrase, it is open for interpretation. This is where the BSA leadership comes into play. Of course, there are many who would prefer that no one gives them specific meaning. These folks are more concerned about inclusiveness or living as they please without condemnation than they are about being morally straight. Nevertheless, the BSA leadership is wiser than that, and they have given further details as to how they want the Scout Oath and Law to be interpreted. Until recently, traditional values were known and accepted. No one (or at least very few) tried to present the idea that homosexuality should be associated with wholesome living. No one (or at least very few) would dare credit their existence or good fortune to anyone but God. But as I said, there are those who wish to pretend that they do not understandthese folks burry their collective head in the sand and claim that they have no idea as to what the BSA is talking about. Sorry, it doesnt play. Decent folks know better. And the fact is, indecent folks know better too. In the end, a hundred years from now, well all be wiser. My bet is, many of us will be wiser and happier many others will be wiser and very sad. Its unfortunate that so many seem to have scales over their eyes. Packsaddle, I agree with you that intimidation is un-Scoutlike. In my view, defense of our freedom and our constitutional rights does not merely mean defending our personal rights - it means defending the rights for all citizens. Am I wrong? You are right. However, we are not talking about defending each others right to believe in something. We are talking about the right of association. And where we disagree on an issue does not mean that one party's rights are or should be subordinated to the other's rights. On the contrary, we should respect each other's rights even if we disagree. You are right again we can and should disagree without devaluing someone elses rights. BSA rejected the ability of Boy Scouts in good standing from being able to wear the religious award that they earned. BSA did this because the boys' church openly disagreed with BSA. Three for three, you are right again. And I venture to guess, at all times, the BSA respected the right of the UU church to have and express its opinion. What the BSA did not respect was the UU expressing its opinion in association with an award that was to be worn on a Scout uniform. The UU church is free to express that opinion, but not if they want to be associated the BSA. The BSA is simply exercising their right of association. And I still ask the question, 'and this benefits those boys how?' It benefits all of the boys and their families who embrace traditional values and remain in Scouting. The BSA mission statement is honorable and worthy of a strong defense. Those who understand that will benefit from the BSA. Those who dont embrace this mission will miss out. Just as those who dont embrace traditional values will miss out. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

And of course, every question was left unanswered...Was there ever any doubt? If it's not a liberal cause, then it isn't a worthy cause...just a distraction right Merlyn? If you want your side to have credibility, you better be able to apply the law consistently to everyone and fight for the other side just as hard. Otherwise, you're just another ideologue. But in your case Merlyn, I don't think anyone ever thought otherwise. You can't lose what you never had.

packsaddle, As long as the Episcopals are willing to let BSA intimidate them out of their 1st Amendment right, or if they merely choose to remain silent in print, they should be just fine. This accusation, or rather its implied resolution, is incredibly ironic. Since it is un-Scout-like to intimidate folks, I am presuming that you would prefer to see the BSA give up its Constitutional rights to take moral positions and/or to set their own standards for membership. Chartering is a separate issue, I think. Actually, ultimately, chartering is not a separate issue. Organizations that seek a charter from the BSA have a choice. They can recognize and agree with the BSA standards, or they can openly disagree. If they chose the former, there is no conflict. If they chose the latter, they should be prepared for whatever consequence the BSA chooses to invoke, including the possibility of the charter being revoked or denied. Look at the BSAs mission. If you agree with it, then support the BSA. If you disagree with it, then find or establish an organization that has a mission that you can support. I would never join a Synagogue to solicit Christian converts. Everyone has the right to believe as they chose and to seek like-minded individuals and groups. Likewise, the BSA does not need pressure from churches that do not agree with its time-honored values. They should do the honorable thing Either support the BSA or find a group that can rally behind.

If I had to name ONE - I still stand by Ground Hog Day But if we're making short lists, ADD French Kiss The Ghost & Mr. Chicken (I'm with you slontwovvy - but I think we may be reliving our childhood on that one) Planes, Trains and Automobiles The Great Outdoors Heaven Can Wait Mister Roberts White Christmas (This is my, "wish I was born in that generation movie - I love Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye) Christmas Story (A Classic!) Maverick (My kids love this one) What Women Want (My wife loves this one) Joe v. the Volcano (My buddy loves this one) Big Fat Greek Wedding Bob Hope in just about anything... This list can definitely grow depending on my mood -

OGE, The Venturing program IS COED and has its own set of YP principles and I assure you it does not involve placing 17 year old boys in tents with 14 year old girls, thats as imbecilic as any suggestion I have run across here. The Venturing program has been operating for more than a few years and if we were producing unwed mothers I am sure the media would have grabbed onto that as fast as any sandal they have ever come across. The comparison was not made to insinuate anything about the Venture program. I used the comparison (of boys and girls sharing tents) to get folks to think about the potential adverse affects if homosexual boys were allowed in the BSA. If homosexual boys are allowed in the BSA, do think these boys will be made to sleep alone in separate tents? Not likely. Do you think there would be no consequences if these boys shared tents with others? Again, not likely. And to even hint about an unwed mother merit badge shows sexism in its most ugly form, why recognize only the mother, I think the father had something to do with it, why not recognize him as well? Its as crude attempt at humor as I would expect from a 12 year old. Honestly, OGE - I think youre losing your sense of humor here. Of course, both the boy and girl share in the responsibility. I think Ed was simply using a little levity to show his agreement with my point. I, for one, do not see any ugliness or crudeness in his remark. Would it have made a tremendous difference if he called it an unmarried parent merit badge? NJCubScouter, Additionally, the BSA itself disclaims any link between homosexuality and child abuse. You are allowed to disagree with the BSA, of course, but I don't see anybody asking you to go form your own organization because you disagree with the BSA. Also, Rooster, it became clear to me awhile back that your support for what the BSA says is rather selective -- not only on the non-relationship between homosexualtiy and child abuse, but also in your non-acceptance of the statement in the Scout Handbook that being "reverent" means that you "respect" the beliefs of others. The fact that the BSA may have disclaimed a link to pedophilia (and Im not convinced that they have) does not mean anything in and of itself. I dont agree with my pastor 100% of the time, but I still think hes a great man. Likewise, I may or may not agree with a BSA statement or position, but I still think its a great organization that puts values first (until they prove otherwise). And, as Ive noted in previous threads, I respect the right of others to believe as they chose I do not necessarily respect the actual belief. NJ, since you seem to be implying that Scouts and Scouters should respect ALL beliefs, let me ask you a question If I claimed George Bush was God, would you respect that beliefNot my right to say it and believe it, but the actual belief itself? --- I didn't think so. So, allow me to disrespect beliefs that worship the creation and not the creator (among other false beliefs) - And, I allow you to disrespect beliefs that view George W. as more than a man.

Ground Hog Day If it's on, I have to watch.

In regard to "the dad not being reeled in", I stand guilty, for I was the stand in Scoutmaster. His catering always teetered in a gray area and I wasn't quite sure how to approach him. As for the boy going home, it was really his choice. He wasn't sent home. He basically begged to be brought home and his mother accommodated his request.

Deeds or Works are a natural extension of true faith. The two are a marriage. However, works is not faith. If given the choice between the two, I'd rather have true faith. You cannot earn your way into God's heart.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Lythops, My example, which talked about 17 year-old heterosexual boys sharing a tent with 14/15 year-old girls, was used as a comparison to demonstrate what might happen if 17 year-old homosexual boys were sharing a tent with 14/15 year-old boys. In short, yes I meant boys/Scouts, not Scouters/men. HOWEVER While we seem to agree for the most part, I have to take issue with the following statements: I assume you are talking about homosexual, adult leaders. In that case, we should all recognize that pedophilia and homosexuality are two different issues. There is no higher incidence of pedophilia among gays than heterosexuals. This is simply not true. I have read the studies and pedophilia is much higher within the homosexual community than the heterosexual community. Believe me, you are falling victim to deliberate misinformation. My morality opposes either, but I understand that linking the two both promotes a bad stereotype and obscures the solution. I oppose their membership based on a desire to promote a different ideal to the boys, not because I am afraid they will improperly approach a young man in the troop. Dont think for a moment that they wouldnt approach your child. I know many heterosexual men who have turned their head to look at girls as young as their daughters. There is nothing special about homosexual men other than their perversion. Do you think these men are too moralistic and/or embarrassed to cross another line? Do they really care if society condones their behavior? Or, do they want to be accepted with impunity regardless of their behavior? If American society is dumb enough to accept homosexuality, the age barrier will be the next great frontier.

But bottom line, I wouldn't want the same standards applied to youth members as adults. Sooooooo, let's open another can of worms. Yes, at first glance, I agree with this statement for the same reasons you stated (they need Scouting the most). However, when I think about the other boys and the risks involved, I have to disagree. The kid in Kansas comes to mind rather quickly...the one that was raped by an older boy sharing a tent with him at summer camp. I know...homosexuals are not rapists. Let me present a question to all of the men on this board - Think back to when you were 16 or 17 (raging hormones, etc.)...Think of all of your male friends at that age, now ask yourself this question - If the BSA was coed and 17 year-old boys shared tents with 14/15 year-old girls, do you think seduction and/or rape would be a rare event or a common event? I'm not sure how many rapes would occur, but I guarantee you that those girls would experience many unwanted advances. If homosexuals are brought in the BSA, do you really believe that young boys are not going to be exposed to their advances? Please, let's blow all of this smoke out of the way and do a reality check.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

packsaddle, I think you're reading too much into it. I appreciated acco40's quip for what it was meant to be - a funny play on words. It never occurred to me that he was trying to tie it to Swordse's previous post. I assumed that he was using the pretence of the entire thread as a catalyst for some humor. My guess is, Swordse was not meant to be a target as you are presuming. So, if you don't mind, please remove me from the "toadies" list. Now, at the risk of being put back on the list, I want to comment on some of your comments. You deem many faiths as being unmeritorious based on your personal interactions with others. Primarily, you imply that many of these religions encourage racism. In response, Id like to say - Dont judge faith, history, or ideas by those who stake claim to them. Thats unfair by anyones standards. But if you insist on doing so, to remain consistent, you should condemn all faiths. Every faithevery idea has had it share of hypocrites. Belief is more than just words; it must be heart felt and internalized to the point that ones actions reflect ones words. Later, you go on further to sing the praises of many eastern religions such as BahaI, and contemporary faiths such as Universalism, because they exhort intellectualism and inclusiveness. And in the case of Judaism, you laud that faith because it offers a rich heritage. If your purpose is to find God and His Will for you, I think your search is being skewed by your personal preferences. Whoever God is, Hes cannot be customized to our liking. He is who He is. Im merely suggesting, ones search for God should be a search for the truth. Truth is not necessarily what we want to hear. To illustrate (and I am not suggesting you must believe as I do), if I could change what I believe (to something more palatable) - there would be no such place as Hell. However, I understand that I am not God. I understand that my ways are flawed by my limited intellect and selfish human desires. While I dont like the concept of Hell, my heart tells me the God of the Bible is the one and only true God. My heart and mind tells me that His Word, the Bible, is true. Thus, I accept some teachings even though they go against my personal desires. So, you are of course - free to reject my faith and/or any ideas presented by me. Im not judging anyone for rejecting what I claim to be the truth. However, if one is truly searching for God (i.e., the truth), it should not be based on the behavior of others or ones personal desires It should be based on the light of truth It should be based on what God is calling you to believe. One merely has to knock on the door and pray with a sincere heart.

Heres why I dont like Peter Applebomes words (as quoted by acco40): I think most of Scoutings values are wonderful, OR, as its probably interpreted by the more liberal segment of society "Not every BSA value is worth embracing. We need to work to change the BSA." Of course, this mantra will be sung forever and a day by folks on the fringes. If we give in to them, the BSA will slowly become unrecognizable as the organization that we love today. and the fact that Scouting can be a little square and behind the times is part of its charm. Behind the times for whom and why does that make the BSA charming? I think the BSA is standing firm on traditional values. I dont see their stance as behind the times or charming. I see their leadership in this area as inspiring and courageous. This quote belittles the fight that we are facing as an organization and as a society. Of course, if its detractors can convince the majority that the fight is not worth fighting (i.e., "it's a charming cause, but not worth seriously defending"), they will gain much ground to the BSAs detriment. Scouting really is built upon wonderful values of fairness, inclusion, honesty and decency. This is a subtle way of saying "And if they want to remain true to their values, they should include homosexuals and atheists." Sorry, Im not buying it. You cant teach a kid anything more valuable than the Scout Law. I love the Scout Law, but it's not the End all - Be all to morality. Applebome and others want to convince the BSA and its members that the Scout Law is a religion on to itself. They want to create wiggle room for all of their causes. Dont think they dont have ulterior motives when they make quotes such as this one. The Scout Law is great. However, the Scout Law is a guideline, which assumes that one already has a common moral basis from which to interpret these laws. This should be obvious. Otherwise, the Scout Law becomes relative and meaningless. A lot of the privileged, sophisticated urban and suburban kids who are least likely to be Scouts are the ones who could use it the most. That said, I think the underpinnings of Scouting and the teachings of Scoutings founders are often more worthy and creative than the way they are interpreted by Scoutings leadership today. Scouting was created by three fascinating eccentrics, all of them writers, artists and iconoclasts -- the English war hero Lord Robert Baden-Powell, and the American naturalists and youth leaders Ernest Thompson Seton and Daniel Carter Beard. Their view of Scouting is more interesting and inclusive than the one being retailed by Scoutings current leadership at the national headquarters in Irving, Texas. Finally, this guy comes out of the closet (figuratively Im not making any inferences regarding Applebomes sexually). Put these last four sentences at the beginning of the larger quote, and Applebomes observations about Scouting dont seem quite as sincere. Only time will tell, but I am convinced that his words do NOT represent the majority. I am convinced that the founders of the BSA would be pleased with the current leadership and their stances regarding homosexuality and atheism. I am convinced that more and more parents are tired of people portraying their values as charming and antiquated. If Im right, Scouting will remain safe for at least a couple more decades. If Im wrong, Applebome and others will have their way. If that day arrives, it will sadden me greatly. The BSA is not a religion, but they are fighting the good fight for morality. I pray that the current leadership endures and triumphs over this latest assault by those who want to change the BSA into their personal political sanctuary no matter the cause.

Just returned from summer camp Saturday, August 9. I spent a week at Rodney Scout Reservation in North East, MD (on the bay), with 43 boys and 10 adults, as the stand in Scoutmaster. It went pretty well. Heres a quick accounting of my trials and tribulations: 1) Three boys skipped the opening campfire. They had a plausible excuse, but I have reason to doubt their story. For two of these boys, there were no further incidents. 2) 1 of 10 first-year Scouts failed his swimming test. He was bawling after his older brother (one of the three aforementioned boys) gave him a hard time about failing the test. 3) One boy got upset when he decided to join a bunch of boys fighting with sticks (like they were swords) and got poked. No real damaged, but we banned the stick play. Coincidentally, of the five or six boys playing with the sticks, one happened to be the old brother in the previous story. 4) Some boys thought they would surprise two fellow Scouts (all from my troop) by hiding in their tentwaiting to give them a scare. They didnt come fast enough, so a third boy (second year, very young, very nave) tells the two unsuspecting boys that someone has ransacked their tent. The boys in the tent decide they made a mistake and run off. The two other boys run their tents and find their misquoting netting knocked down. They advise me that some boys ransacked their tent and stole some things. After the smoke is settled nothing is stolen, but the tent was a little disheveled. It was a very badly staged prank, which had all the appearances of something more sinister. Especially when you consider the fact that the two victims are two of only four African-Americans attending camp with us. Fortunately, they saw the crime for what it was and accepted apologies from the three boys involved. Coincidentally, one of which was the older brother in the previous story. None of the above stories were horrific, but the fact that one boy was always in the middle of things really bothered me. I had a brief conversation with the older brother and the remainder of the week was quiet (at least in terms of his involvement). My two biggest trials were these 1) A first year Scout couldnt sleep (at least not until late) and yearned daily to be home with mom. Dad was on the trip and catered to him to the Nth degree (allowed him to take naps on his cot in the leaders cabin in the evening, back rubs, phone calls to home, etc.). Eventually the kid breaks and has to go home to mom. Mom decides that his homesickness is a legitimate handicap and wants to treat Boy Scout summer camp as if it was Webelos day camp. She advises dad (her husband) that she intends to drive their son back forth each day and night to camp. Fortunately, Dad sees the lunacy of that tact and convinces mom to keep Johnny at home. That one could of turned real ugly. 2) One boy, who has a serious me first attitude, doesnt get along with a large number of boys (probably more than half of the troop). He claims someone urinated on his cot. There was urine on the cot. No one can be identified as the culprit. Volunteers clean the cot. A new cot is brought in for the boy to sleep on. Still waiting to see what happens when this boy goes home to complain to mom and dad Despite these problems, everyone seemed to have fun except for the boy who yearned for home. I think mom and dad has been creating this problem for some time now. Their older son almost went home as wellbut as soon as his younger brother left camp, he became a happy camper. Anyone else has some stories to share?

I've heard all of the arguments against Scouts imitating the military, and I realize that the BSA does not necessary endorse the same vision of Scouting as Baden Powell once had. However, for those folks that think the military and Scouting should be mutually exclusive, please do a little research. You might be surprised. Did you know that British Scouts actively supported the military during WWII? On St. George's Day 1943 the Scouts of Malta were awarded the Bronze Cross, the highest decoration for gallantry of the Boy Scouts Association of the British Commonwealth and Empire "in recognition of their courage, heroic endurance and devotion to duty in the war for freedom". The Official History of the Boy Scouts Movement 1939-1945 records "The Scouts of Malta endured a heavier ordeal than any others. They were employed as coast-watchers, messengers, telephone operators; they manned Air Raid Precaution centres, worked in the censor's office, in the hospitals, and those who were old enough in the Volunteer Defence Force. One of their more important duties was that of acting as Telephone orderlies when convoys were unloaded... The bravery of the Scouts during the frequent air-raids became a by-word among the population. Their headquarters was destroyed together with all the records... All of them must be a shining example to Scouts everywhere as long as the Movement endures". The unique award was presented to the Scouts by the Chief Scout (and Governor) of Malta, Lord Govt V.C. at the Palace Square in Valletta. Baden-Powell not only encouraged their participation, he was d*** proud of those Scouts. While I wouldn't encourage my 16 or 17 year old son to serve in the military during a time of war, I certainly wouldn't mind if my son was associated with the US Military. In my eyes, there are very few compliments that can match that connection. Lest we forget, we do have the finest, bravest, and most dedicated fighting force on the planet. We should be proud of these young men and women. If our younger children are associated with the same, I'm embracing it, not running from it. As to the foreign country concern, these days just to be associated with America is dangerous. I suppose my stance is not politically correct. Still, I think the danger with the association is minimal. And frankly, I'm disheartened by the fact that so many folks in and out of Scouting think its wrong for Scouts to imitate the honorable men and women who serve our country. I wasnt a big fan of early 70's or the politics that prompted this change in philosophy by the BSA. Im still not.

To my knowledge and understanding, "the don't do anything like the military" policy (as one person put it) is intended to ban military-like disciplinary actions. That is to say, it's okay to wear uniforms (good thing because we got em); It's okay to march in a parade (and even carry mock guns to my understanding); And it's okay to do flag ceremonies, etc. - BUT - It's NOT okay to make a kid do 50 push-ups for not wearing his uniform properly; It's NOT okay to make kids run 2 miles for being disorderly; And it's NOT okay to yell and scream at a boy because he didn't show you respect. So, military things are okay, but we need to be careful that we don't imitate their disciplinary methods.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

blade1158, As a Protestant, and a former Catholic (born and baptized into the faith like you), I'd just like to say - "AMEN BROTHER!" My heart aches to hear more people speak the plain truth as you just did. If more "Christians" (I put Christians in quotes, because it's so difficult to recognize these folks when so many seem to be oblivious, or worse, apathetic to what's going on around them) would just open their eyes, we'd be better off as a society.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Furthermore, if due process is not being afforded, and consequently innocent people are being expelled from the organization, I'm certain that scenario would open us (the BSA) to lawsuits.

What can one say? If the facts are as you have presented them, it sounds like a terrible injustice has been done. Regardless, is this an indictment of the BSA or the individuals involved? I would need more information to make a call on that one.

acco40, That's priceless.

Yes I do believe we are all God, from God, sons and daughters of God, part of the Whole. Im sorry to hear that. Only one man was God. He was capable of saving himself from the cross, but remained obedient only to suffer and die - but He rose again to save those willing to come to Him. If youre God, then you dont need a savior. If you truly think you dont need a savior, then spend some time looking in a mirror. As a member of a Christian sect, Im surprised that you would infer anything different. Do you really want to stand before God the Father and stake claim to being part God? By the way, one can step in and out of a light, or one can see what a light might expose, but one cannot listen to a light a light doesnt make a sound. That is why I said you were mixing your metaphors. I guess we have highjacked this thread so I will end my debate with you. If I have the time and energy, I will start a new thread.