Rooster7

...I believe we are all sons and daughters of God and thus have the Light within if we choose to listen to it. You're mixing your metaphors. I know what you meant - although I don't agree. I believe we need to ask God to come into our lives with a very humble heart - and then listen. To some, that may sound like a small distinction, but I believe it is a very important distinction and one that cannot be overlooked. No one should assume that God is eternally waiting - at ones beckon call should one even casually decide that they need a savior. I think that 'true religion is a personal encounter with God, rather than ritual and ceremony.' (quotes from RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS(QUAKERS)). NO argument with that statement. Maybe the agnostic boy is looking for something external when he could be looking inward. On the surface, I vehemently disagree - because it sounds as if you are saying we are all God. Hopefully, that is not what you meant. On the other hand, if you mean to say - the boy is looking for something physical when he should be looking for something that is spiritual, I agree. Although, I believe God has a physical presence as well.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Swordse, Thanks for the clarification. Without preaching, I would like to suggest, while your statements are accurate (many religions do claim to be the one and only way...and, many wars have been fought in the name of religion), those facts do not preclude the possibility that one of those faiths is true. It might be easier to simply dismiss them all. Yet, is that the wisest course to take? I can appreciate your position, but Im not sure creating and worshiping a generic god is the solution. Nor do I think God will view that decision as noble. Still, it is your path not mine. Im not judgingI just wanted to offer you some thoughts. Believe me, I do so out of love. Your stance, or at least your attitude towards God and His expectations for us, is not unlike mine some 15 years ago. Then I considered the possibility that the foundation for my faith was based on a false paradigm (i.e., God knows my heart. He loves me. He will forgive me). Theres no doubt that God knows my heart. That fact I never doubted or debated. The real question is Do I know my own heart? And, just because I think Im worth saving is that enough to satisfy God? And, if I dont truly recognize and love God, as I know Him to be, does God promise salvation? I came to the conclusion that I didnt know my own heart, and the only forecast that I could make concerning God and myself is that he would remain true to Himself and act as a Righteous and Loving God. I considered the possibility that I had no idea what God was really like. I considered the possibility that Gods unlimited love did not mean unconditional salvation. It was a scary proposition, but one I believe God instilled in my heart, which ultimately led me to Him.

So many religions believe that they are the one and only path to God; my God is bigger than that. For someone who has such "enlightened and inclusive views" on God, you don't seem the least bit concerned about whether or not your statements offend. As a member of the Christian faith I find your insinuation that "my God" is small, or at least smaller than what you'd expect Him to be, to be very crass. Nevertheless, I can handle it. But then again, Im not the one that should concern you. God isn't who you want Him to be. He is who He is. Or as He once described Himself, "I am".

Acco40, If the boys parents "are not believers" as stated by Sager and want their son to make up his own mind, I would tread lightly on the line of questioning that you have proposed. I don't think you have to tread lightly when one of the criteria for membership is that you profess a belief in God. I am not necessarily advocating that you direct him to a specific faith. However, as Scout leaders, it's completely within our realm of responsibility to tell these boys that God exist and He is good. If a parent has heartburn over that, I would recommend that they read some BSA literature. Likewise, asking questions that make a boy or boys think about God and their relationship with Him is perfectly reasonable. God, Country, Family...These are central themes to Scouting. Parents shouldn't expect anything less. eisely, Scouting does not demand much in "duty to god." That may be the way your troop wishes to perceive "duty to god", but other troops place a higher priority on this aspect of Scouting. While I'll admit that I prefer the character building aspects of the program, I try not to neglect the leadership part of the program. Conversely, just because some people think religion or "faith" should be private, I would hope that they don't neglect "duty to God" in their program. I've never seen any BSA literature that stated duty to country or family took priority of duty to god. SagerScout, and he not only did not make his rank but was summarily booted out of the organization?) My heart breaks for them I understand. But, at some point in time, a Scout has to recognize God in a real way. If he doesnt, then hes not really embracing the BSA program. Camping, leadership skills, etc. are all great and part of the program. However, just as important, is recognizing and fulfilling ones responsibilities to God. If this is ignored, then as Bob likes to say youre doing something other than Scouting.

Acco40, I understand your sentiment, but you're using the Bible verse out of context. Jesus never doubted the existence of God. That's not very likely since He himself is God. Nevertheless I agree, until the boy starts making public declarations that he doesn't believe in God, encourage the boy to stay in the BSA. In the meantime, take advantage of his time there and steer him toward God. Try some questions. If God doesn't exist, then what is love? If God doesn't exist, then is good and evil subjective? If not, why not? If God doesn't exist, then why do spiritual bonds exist between people? If God doesn't exist, then who is it that you struggle with when you're tempted to do wrong? If God doesn't exist, then why are we here? I think these probing questions are fair to ask a boy who has doubts, especially if he's in an organization that requires a belief in God as a membership criterion. I realize that the boy could offhandedly improvise answers to these philosophical and weighty questions. However, I would encourage him to ponder each question carefully before he answers. He may discover that he believes in God more than he ever realized.

Further evidence that NJ cannot be a real lawyer... He didn't ask for a retainer prior to giving his explanation.

According to the Holiday Inn Express commercials, if you stay there, you don't need a real lawyer. With a good night's sleep, you can just show up in court and fake it. Which, judging by some lawyers, is what many do anyways.

I'm not sure, but I do know that the DA has final word as to whether or not charges go forward. But to answer your question - I have two theories (but perhaps a real lawyer could help us out here): Theory #1 - They do on TV and in the movies, but not in real life. Theory #2 - Perhaps the intent behind that question is, if charges are pressed, "Are you willing to cooperate with the prosecution?" It's probably a waste of time and money (for the state), if the purported victim gets on the stand and states something to the affect, "No he wasn't assaulting me. We always goof around like that."

OGE, I agree with your sentiment. I would not say those words to my neighbor, even if he were being a pain in the...neck! Or at least, I would try not to say those words. However, I think FOG was trying to make a point, not encourage that kind of language or behavior. I have to agree with him. There is some momentum in various parts of the country to politicize crimes. From my reading of the original post, if true, while the offending Scout was certainly offensive, un-Scout-like, and probably should have been reprimanded for hazing (as evidentiary by his alleged verbal assaults) and warned that future offenses would be reason for termination, I do NOT think he was guilty of a sex crime (or sexual abuse as was asserted). At best, this was sexual harassment. It was not sexual abuse, which requires some kind of physical contact. These distinctions need to be made. These differences in labels indicate the severity of the crime. I dont support sexual harassment or take the charge lightly. Yet, I think most folks realize that crimes of sexual abuse warrant a swift and measured response. In fact, this is further evidence that the aforementioned charges may be bogus. If there was any evidence of true sexual abuse, the parents could pursue this through the criminal courts as opposed to the civil courts. Anyone can make a civil case happen. It matters not how strong the evidence may be. However, criminal charges will not happen unless there is good evidence to support the charge. DAs have reputations and bosses. Most civil lawyers seem to respond to the bottom line (i.e., dollars). And since theres a propensity in this country to allow frivolous lawsuits to go unpunished, theres no incentive by lawyers to back away from bogus claims. In regard to political inclinationThe same folks that would label crude insults as a sex crime, are the folks that would feel compelled to expel a five year-old from kindergarten because he pointed his finger at another kid and said bang! (as was done in the great state of NJ). It appears that some folks have no perspective or conscience for true justice. Theyre more interested in propping up their cause or making some sort of a political statement. They dont care whos child gets in the way, whos reputation is ruined, or even if someone goes to jail, so long as their cause is re-enforced and/or highlighted. The above is just an observation. It may or may not apply to this specific case. However, the story does have all the ear-markings of a case born out of greed and not a need for justice.

OkayI agree. This could be one huge horrible scandal involving sexual abuse, which should not be glossed over. On the other hand, this could also be one huge horrible scandal of parental exploitation, whereas someone decides theyve found a quick but nasty way of collecting millions of dollars. I tend to think its the latter (although I have no way of really knowing from where Im standing). There is no allegation of any physical contactno documentation of mental or emotional damage yet the family is seeking 10 million dollars not $100,000 or 1 million dollars mind you but 10 million dollars. Considering the fact that the article barely mentions anything that remotely looks like damages ("I felt almost frozen because I couldn't seem to do what I used to do. Everything just stopped"), thats a lot of cash for an incident that is based solely on a verbal attack. Using the original post as a sole resource, it does sound as if the camp did not follow established BSA policy for reporting alleged incidents of sexual abuse. That may be an issue worth exploring, but it does not make the allegations true. Secondly, if there was no physical contact, then perhaps were not talking sexual abuse, but hazing or harassment. If that is the case, then perhaps this camp did what it was suppose to do. They investigated an allegation of hazing or harassment and determined them to be unfounded As for blaming the liberalsif words (callous and crude as they may have been) are transformed into sexual abuse, then yes, you probably can blame it on a liberal somewhere probably some guy whos trying to save the world and rewrite the law from the bench. Are all liberals guilty? Only if they support that kind of non-sense.

It has been our experience as a troop that games such as Magic and other card games can dominate the day over all other activities if constraints are not in place. I don't think football or chess has ever been a problem. The problem with Magic and other card games is that they become addictive to everyones determent. Has anyone out there, as an adult or child, found themselves playing cards to 3 AM? If you have, you're not alone. This is pretty typical for a lot folks who like to play cards and board games. The problem at camp is...a lot of kids, if not most, tend to get caught up into the game playing and decide to skip MB sessions and other activities. As a result of our experience in this area, we've decided to put the breaks on these types of games until after the last MB session of the day.

I agree with most of the advice offered with a few minor exceptions. Even at camp, there needs to be some boundaries. I would highly recommend that a lights out time be established, followed, and enforced by your PLC (and his PLs). Otherwise, the lack of sleep will encourage home sickness and bad attitudes, especially with the younger boys. Second, I would not allow the game playing (Magic, cards, etc.) until after the last merit badge session. While camp is not about getting merit badges, one way to kill participation in MB classes is to stack it up against something the boys already love (such as Magic). Ideas 1) Have a meeting before you go to camp. Ask the adult leaders (SM, ASMs), SPL, and all ASPLs to attend. Discuss (as equals) and decide what boundaries will be set, what incentives will be provided, what strategies will be employed, etc. 2) After this meeting, ask your SPL to conduct a PLC. Have them discuss these ideas. At our meetings, we jointly agreed to the following: No sodas after 9 PM Lights out at 11 PM NO magic cards or other games until your last merit badge session is completed At camp wide games, we will split our teams evenly (so that each team might be competitive and have fun) We will provide an incentive to the best patrol (cleanliness of site, attending merit badge sessions, getting to bed on time, good behavior, etc.). Specifically, this patrol will be treated to pizza and/or ice cream on Thursday night. The SPL, ASPLs, and the adult leaders will have a nightly meeting to discuss the days activities (lessons learned, problems, etc.) The SPL will conduct a brief PLC after our meeting. We will not be wearing our full uniform to every morning and evening flag ceremony. We will wear our full uniform to the opening/closing ceremonies and campfires. However, at our local site, for morning and evening flag ceremonies, we will wear a Class B T-Shirt (I knowno such thing. Thats another thread). SPL will talk to the PLs about monitoring the behavior of the younger Scouts. Specifically, they were asked to watch for, and report any signs of home sickness or harassment. 3) If you have plenty of adults, give each a responsibility Medicine Man (keeper of kids meds, distributes meds per parents instructions) Bank Man (keeper of kids money, distributes funds per parents instructions) Brown Sea (First Year Scout Program) Leaders If theres multiple meetings going on, send an adult to take minutes at the meeting you cannot attend.

I have friends who changed their plans & left "the Six Foot Mouse's Magic Kingdom" when they realized that they had booked a vacation with their two young children for the "unofficial" gay week Disney. Yes, they were already in Florida, yes they CHOSE not to repeatedly discuss "life choices" with their children and yes, they left. Lets ask for the same consideration and accommodation that the vocal gay community clamors for, something like "Don't question our motives or values, gives us basic human respect. What does this mean? What are you trying to say about your friends and/or gays? I have a comment concerning your friends who visited Disney. GOOD for them! I dont discuss sexual depravity with my young children either. As long as I feel it is wise to do so, Im not going to flush my childrens innocence down the toilet. I dont know the magical age, but each child is different. Furthermore, while the village (as in it takes a village) may prefer that my child knows all about sex, this is one parent who thinks the village is filled with idiots (not inferring anyone on this board). My children will do just fine. They will know what they need to know when the time comes, and it wont be a twisted version of the truth. So, I applaud your friends for not rushing into something. I further applaud them for sacrificing a great deal of money - instead of sacrificing their integrity or their childrens innocence. Thats putting your money where your mouth is. They obviously dont just speak about morality and principles - they live it. Thats very Scout-like in my mind. I like your friends. As for the vocal gay community that wants basic human respect, I think that needs a little more clarification. Heres my idea of basic human respect you have the right to be ignored and left alone. If youre not interacting with my family or me through normal events, then I dont need to know you or your cause. If gays want me to accept their behavior as normal its not going to happen. If gays want me to celebrate their diversity, its not going to happen. I reserve the right to not like what they do. I reserve the right to view their practices as morally unacceptable. "Don't question our motives or values, gives us basic human respect." If you think basic human respect means not questioning someones motives or values, then you have a different definition of respect than I do. To me, the essences of respect is knowing and appreciating someones motives and values. If those motives and values conflict with mine, then I Just assume we dont become close friends. If youre talking about courtesy Yes, I can be polite to just about anyone, but respect I dont think so. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

To answer your questions more directly - HOW do you train the parents to allow the SM to handle the situation when it arises at a troop function/event? I dont think training is needed heresimply an explanation. Just treat the parents with respect, not as if theyre disinterested outsiders or a group of untrained parents that cant be trusted. Calmly explain to them your role as the SM and why things are done a certain way, but also reassure them that you respect them as parents and will keep them informed of any serious issues. HOW do you teach the boys the Golden Rule when the parents of said boys have no conscience? Good luck on that one. If I knew the answer, Id be able solve a lot more problems than just the ones we have in Scouting. Do your best. If after a concerted effort a boy fails to respond, consider what if anything is being sacrificed in order to make this boy see the light. If youre sacrificing other boys (their ability to enjoy and learn from the program) then you may want to ask the troop (committee, COR, etc.) to consider revoking his membership in the troop. HOW do I teach the boys hazing is wrong--and not a joke? Again, I dont think its a matter of teaching and training, as much as it is keeping the boys sensitive to the idea that they will be held accountable. Making boys think before they act. As acco40 and Ed Mori pointed out, each situation should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. But, once it is apparent that a boy is being maliciously harassed, I dont think the perpetrator can claim, I didnt know it was wrong. With a few rare exceptions, Id bet every boy in this country over the age of eight knows what its like to be bullied (physically and mentally). They may not know that the BSA calls it harassment, but Id bet my house - they already know that its wrong. In short, Id simply advise the boys that its not going to be tolerated and if there is conclusive evidence that a boy is guilty of this bad behavior, the boy should be prepared for serious consequences, including the possibility of being kicked out of the troop.

In regard to the parents being present - 1) If the parents are unaware of the problem, I feel there is no need (if not counterproductive) to get them involved immediately (unless there is an immediate concern). My advice is to investigate and take appropriate measures as the SM. 2) If upon investigating the matter, it becomes apparent that the situation is of a serious nature (i.e., real physical threats being made), I would make the parents aware immediately (or as soon as practical). 3) If the parents are already aware of the situation and you (as the SM) have not had an opportunity to investigate, I would respectfully ask the parents to stand and wait to the side (not necessarily out of earshot) as you perform your function/responsibility as the SM. Here's the rub, it infuriates me when a third party (someone outside of my family) decides they know what is best for my child without consideration to me as a parent. That is to say, I expect leaders to be forthright with me and to treat me as a reasonable adult (until I prove otherwise). I don't think leaders should assume that parents will overreact or act inappropriately simply because their child is involved. I realize the potential always exist. Nevertheless, leaders should not treat parents as hair-trigger "time bombs" that need to be defused. If a parent does overreact, then deal with it through the troop committee. Otherwise, treat the parent, as you would want to be treated - pretend it was your child that was threatened or accused of making a threat. If I'm the parent, I would respect the SM and allow him to do his job (let him investigate and address the issue within the confines of the Scouting venue) - BUT, due to the serious nature of the accusation, I'd also want to hear the stories from the boys directly, not third hand or filtered by someone else. The SM has the right to treat the matter as seriously or as lightly as he feels the situation warrants. However, as a parent, I should be privy to these conversations so I that I may pursue the matter elsewhere if I feel the situation warrants such action. The Golden Rule should be taught to the boys, but the rule should apply to parents and leaders as well.

We are Bob. Resistance is futile. Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-)

I have two sons on staff this summer at Rodney. I will ask them about it. By the way, Rodney has a website. Its as follows: http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/1299/rsr.html

I will be in Lancaster County on the 19th for a bike ride with my troop in Bird-In-Hand.

This Rooster would like to crow because hes proud as a peacock that his third duckling has obtained EagleIn bowling, they call that a turkey (three in a row). :-) Ed, expect to see an invite soon.

Ed, I have heard great things about Heritage. I hope everything works out well. If your troop ever considers going to Rodney Scout Reservation in North East, MD (on the Cheasepeake), let me know. My troop attends that camp regularly (every August). It would be neat to hook up with you guys at camp one year.

I am not that interested in hearing his defense, but just to make it understood that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. I think it would only be fair to at least hear what he has to say. If someone passed along a rumor about me and then proceeded to read me the riot act concerning the alleged bad behavior, I would expect an opportunity to deny, confirm, and/or explain. Otherwise, you're not affording this man due process. You may feel because you (or rather BSA) are not evoking a penalty as a result of these accusations that your lecture is fair play. Partially, I agree I think a lecture is appropriate, but without a formal process, you shouldnt presume guilt. It is possible that the girls are not willing to make a formal accusation (verbal or written) because they may have exaggerated their stories Is it not? I remember 15, 16, and 17 A lot of kids, boys and girls, like to be the center of attention and/or dont like to be on the outside. If one girl says, I was hit on by that guy, theres a good chance that one or two or more girls will say the same, just to share the spotlight and/or to be included. I think if the girls are not willing to tell their stories to the SE, to some degree you have to weigh that fact and devalue the accusation. All I am saying is Give the lecture, but if there isnt going to be any formal process to obtain the truth, dont act as if the accusations have been confirmed and/or presume guilt. He deserves to be heard. Otherwise, penalty or not, youd be acting like a judge in a kangaroo court. Private organization or not, everyone deserves a fair process.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

It's strange...when Bob debates an issue of which we both agree (such as this one), Hes always so much more articulate and logical. :-) Good job Bob. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Glenn, I hate to put myself in a box, or perhaps in regard to this conversation, an oven would be a more appropriate figure of speech. But, I do believe that the Catholic Church is the Church started by Jesus Christ. However, and this is not meant to upset you or anyone else in the faith (you, Mark, and OGE are some of my favorite guys on this forum), I left because Im became convinced that Martin Luther was right. I dont reject the basic teachings of Catholicism. Nevertheless, the Church embraces teachings and practices that I feel contradict Gods Word. Mark, As far as the respect / reject of other's religions, I have to say Rooster7, that I vehemently disagree with you. If everyone in the world had the same attitude I think you have, that the followers of your faith must do no more than tolerate the right of others to believe as they wish, our society is in real trouble. This conversation is a great example. For the most part, it has been very civil. Yet it has been passionate, and usually very cerebral and spiritual. Yet my faith has not been changed, and maybe it has been strengthened. I am certain your faith has not wavered. If we continue to try to convince each other we are right, where does that get us? I don't think it's closer to God. Im not trying to convince you to change your faith. Im just exploring what your thoughts are on your faith as well as mine. In regard to our different views on respecting someone of a different religion - why is it important that I respect what that person believes, as opposed to simply respecting their right to believe something? If I told you that I believe George W. Bush was God and Bill Clinton was the anti-Christ, would you respect that belief? Of course not, thats insaneGeorge is a great guy, but even I know hes not God. The jury is still out on Bill. ;-) As respectful as I can be, what I perceive as one of the tenets of many Protestant faiths, the requirement that followers be missionaries and bring to the unbelievers that which is your faith, I think is misguided. As a Catholic, I hope and pray that others find the same happiness in our faith as I do, or, in your case, come back to find it. I will do whatever it is to help that, because I think it is part of my duty. But I think it is not what God intends of us to try to force our faith on others. And that is what my perception of many Protestant faiths do. Not every believer is required to be a missionary (someone who travels to other lands to spread the Word). However, most Protestants faiths do enthusiastically embrace the Great Commission. Isnt this what God calls us to do? For the most part we read the same Bible. What do you think about Matthew 28:19&20? Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." I commend the strength of your belief. I truly mean no offense. I hope that comes through in what I write. Mark, I have not been offended by any of your postings. Furthermore, I respect your strength of faith as well. However, apparently, either due to something I said or failed to say, or perhaps due to a grammatical error, you seem to think I am hostile toward the Catholic faith. Im not. I just dont believe some of their teachings. And I stand shoulder to shoulder with you as fellow Scouters, and I am proud that we are in this great program together. But I think as far as this topic goes, I will now sign off. Fair enough.

Glen, Rooter7? It's Rooster7...What happen to the "s"? Don't tell me, the "s" stands for sin and Christ has blotted it out... ;-). Sorry, I was having a flashback to a MASH's Hams commercial. Just out of curiosity... So where does that teaching put me? I was raised Catholic. I know the doctrines (unless they've all changed since I was 18). I believe the Protestant faiths are more in line with Biblical teachings. I don't reject the Catholic Church as a body of believers, but I'm not convinced that the Church is properly imparting all of God's Word. So, how would you interpret that website quote in reference to someone like me? Im not concerned, just curious As a point of interest, prior to 1972, the 12th point of the Scout Law read as follows: A SCOUT is REVERENT. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties, and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion. I prefer this as opposed to the updated version, which is: A Scout is reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others. While I remain a Scouter, I must admit I dont entirely follow the 12th point of the Scout Law as it reads today. I do not respect all of the beliefs that others may embrace. Just as I cannot respect the conclusion that 2+2=5, I cannot unconditionally respect what others believe...Only their right to believe as they wish. Religious tolerance is not religious indifference. It is valuing the right of another person to hold beliefs that you know to be wrong.

First Rooster my comments regarding commenting on others beliefs were not directed at you. It appeared that way to me, but thats not important. Secondly,"To intelligent people who listen to logic and reason" and by whose standards are we judging this? Ive always felt logic and reason were universal standards. You know it when you hear it. Third, if a black teenage girl from Alabama wants to discuss Washington politics with a 44-year-old white male from Maryland, I would hope he would have the good sense to only explain himself and not tell her what it is like to be a black girl in Alabama. Actually, youve flip-flopped my example. You see, Im willing to listen to her. If she wanted to describe what she thought it was like to be a 44-year-old white male in Maryland, it wouldnt bother me. I might not agree with her assessment, but shes certainly free to tell me what she thinks. Conversely, if people are talking and not shouting, I see no reason why she couldnt listen to me describe what I thought her life must be like. I realize in the politically correct world of race relations, a white man couldnt possibly offer any wisdom to a black teenaged girl, but in my religion - PC isnt worth squat. Oops, there I go again. If you want to discuss religion fine. But I wouldn't recommend doing it by telling someone what they believe. Tell them what you believe, and ask if they believe the same or differently. If they feel that it is any of your business they will answer. One I never tell anyone what they believe personally. I cant tell anyone that unless they tell me first. On the other hand, if someone claims to be a follower of a particular religion, then I should be able to determine what that person believes by studying his religion. If thats not the case, then perhaps that person isnt really the follower he describes himself to be. Two If I want to have a discussion about religion, I dont need to put a gun to anyones head. In fact, I dont even have to ask. There are plenty of folks that participate in these discussions without self-imploding. Sensitivity and emotions are matter of self-discipline.