Rooster7

No, I don't think it depends on MY OPINION. To repeat myself - We have an obligation to be the adultto be vigilant and protective of those under our care. In other words, if the boy's appearance intimidates and/or conveys the wrong message (i.e., one that is inconsistent with BSA and/or the troop and/or the chartering organization), I believe the adult leadership can and should take a stand. While I am all for "going the extra mile" to help the kid that cries out for attention, the troop should consider the entire troop in it's decisions, not just the one, especially when it comes to issues of health, safety, and character development. If parents have a problem with the troop's stance in regard to these things, they should explore other troops. Perhaps, they'll find that special troop with the SM who promotes tattoos and safety pins through the nose. Regardless, to my knowledge, BSA does not have an official stance on tattoos or body piercing, so each troop should have some leeway as to how much they will tolerate.

Rooster, let me ask you this, what if the Scoutmaster has tatoos and or an earring (and is a man), and thinks it's a fine idea for kids to do the same? Is it is ok for him to express his opinions too, even though it may go against what the parents believe? I suppose if that is how the troop (i.e., troop committee and chartering organization) wanted it to be, there's not much one can say. However, I submit that few troop committees and/or chartering organizations would tolerate such a Scoutmaster. Furthermore, for those that did, I doubt that the troop would attract very many families. I don't object to the Scoutmaster having a tattoo, or even an earring (although I find them to be vain, and in most cases, they make the adult appear to be pretty adolescent). I do object to the Scoutmaster who would promote these things to the boys. Even if their worthiness was not a subject of debate, a Scoutmaster should not be using his influence to promote fads or fashion. His duty is to help build character. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

If I thought it would benefit the rest of the troop, I would support a ban on such things. That being said, I think it really depends on what the boy is physically doing to himself. For example, if a boy came to a meeting with safety pins through his cheeks and/or rings through his lips, I think the adult leadership would be remiss if they did not put a stop to it. I say this, because I feel that it is not only a grotesque display of self-mutilation, but also it sends a very perverse and rebellious message. I have no doubt that those who embrace these things have disdain for themselves and society. On the other hand, I also support the thought that many of these things, such as earrings (even tongue rings, although I find them to be ridiculous) are just fads as others have noted. To address my concern, a policy would not work well because there are so many variations of these things. That is, we should not try to regulate poor taste. Nevertheless, I feel the troop leadership does have a responsibility to address those boys who are presenting a hostile and rebellious message. I am confident that there will be some on this forum who will decry that I am being unfair or "judgmental". Yet, I can't help but believe that most folks know exactly what I am saying. As in most things, one can go too far. We are the adultswe should be watchful that our tolerance for the individual is not to the determent of the groupand in some cases, to the individual himself. I think there comes a point where we should speak up and/or stop the behavior. I dont believe in being the fashion police, but I also think we have an obligation to be the adultto be vigilant and protective of those under our care.

Just as a point of interest... Prior to WWII...before Adoph Hilter's NAZI Germany, the swastika was a symbol of brotherhood and was even employed in Scouting. There's an old photograph hanging in the lodge of Camp Rodney (Northeast, Maryland). It's a picture of the camp from the 1920's. If you look closely at the photo, you'll discover a swastika hanging over a door of one of the cabins. I believe, in one of his books, Baden-Powell speaks fondly of the swastaka as a symbol of brotherhood. Not that I'm endorsing the same today, I just thought it was pretty ironic.

Agreed.

Thanks ASM7 and NJ. To my friends and "foes" on this forum, May God bless your home with grace, peace, joy, and love. Glory and Honor be to His Name.

At what point is the Scoutmaster entitled to express his opinion? Is there an implied or expressed agreement between parents and BSA that Scout leaders will always withhold their opinions in deference to the parents? What if the tattoo is a swastika or an upside down cross? What if the latest fad is to tattoo ones face with intricate patterns? What if the latest fad is body scaring? My point - Although the Scoutmaster does not have parental authority, he does represent BSA and the chartering organization. Unless the chartering organization determines otherwise, he is free to express his opinions. In particular, if a boy is making choices contrary to the values of the chartering organization and/or BSA, the Scoutmaster SHOULD make mention of it. As a leader and a mentor, the Scoutmaster needs to challenge the boy to think and to perform self-examinations. In short, while the Scoutmaster cannot prevent a boy from getting a tattoo, hes certainly free to communicate his displeasure or disappointment. If parents dont like that opinion being expressed, I dont think they can do much about it - unless the chartering organization doesnt share that opinion.

I'm looking to plan a 4/5-day trip in April, which will include 50+ miles of backpacking. We will have no brand new Scouts but some 12-year-old (with year exp. in Scouting). I am looking for suggested areas and trails for the following states surrounding D.C. - MD, VA, WVA, DEL, PA, and NJ. If possible, please be specific in regards to trail names, places to camp, historic sites, etc. I don't want a lot steep climbs, but a few here and there would be fine. Most importantly, we want the trail to be scenic, practical to hike for 12-year-olds, and at least 50 miles. Thanks in advance for your ideas.

Somewhere in this forum, a very long downhill bike ride in Virginia was mentioned. My troop is very much interested in this outing. If you are familiar with such a road in Virginia (its supposed to be very popular), please provide me with its location and any details you know about it. Thanks.

Somewhere in this forum, a very long downhill bike ride in Virginia was mentioned. My troop is very much interested in this outing. If you are familiar with such a road in Virginia (its supposed to be very popular), please provide me with its location and any details you know about it. Thanks.

I'm looking to plan a 4/5-day trip in April, which will include 50+ miles of backpacking. We will have no brand new Scouts but some 12 year olds (with year exp. in Scouting). I am looking for suggested areas and trails for the following states surrounding D.C. - MD, VA, West VA, DEL, PA, and NJ. If possible, please be specific in regards to trail names, places to camp, historic sites, etc. I don't want a lot steep climbs, but a few here and there would be fine. Most importantly, we want the trail to be scenic, practical to hike for 12-year-olds, and at least 50 miles. Thanks in advance for your ideas.

P.S. If the COR refuses to "get involved" (God knows why he volunteered for the job), then find out who is the IH (Institutional Head) of your Chartering Organization and try to set up an appointment with him. Note, the IH has authority over the COR. If they are one in the same person, you may be S.O.L. If they are not, then hopefully the IH will take more of an interest than your COR.

Before I give my advice, this is what I understand you to be saying: 1) You have a young, inexperienced troop that is very active and has a good amount of adult help. 2) The boys are making some mistakes, but they are improving. 3) Your CC, for whatever reason (none given as far as I can tell), has decided to spread the word that your troop is inexperienced and makes lots of mistakes. And, apparently, is neglecting to mention to others that the troop is very active and slowly maturing. Now for my advice - 1) Call the CC and confirm that he is spreading "the bad word" about your troop. Perhaps this is just a rumor. Don't confront him until he confirms that he is indeed publicly criticizing the troop. 2) If he is guilty of this behavior, confront him in committee. Don't go it alone. Ask him, "Why hasn't he expressed his opinion in committee? What advice does he have to offer, if any? How does it benefit the troop to air its dirty laundry publicly?" 3) If he concedes that "perhaps" he has been approaching "the problem" wrong, then I would try to work things out with him (even though, it doesn't really sound like there is a problem). 4) If he digs in, and adamantly refuses to change his ways, I would gather the adult leadership (hopefully it's a majority - not that it has to be) and ask the COR to take your concern to the powers-to-be within the Charter Organization. That is to say, I would go through the proper channels and seek this person's removal from the position of CC. Ask your CO to find someone who truly has the boys interests at heart. Obviously, if feeder packs believe your troop is dying, the troop will not grow in numbers. I cannot imagine any family wanting to send their boy to a troop, knowing that the headman-in-charge disapproves of the program and publicly states so. The CC either has to change his ways, or you should seek his removal.

NJ, As I said, the speculation was and is unfair. But alas, you missed the point. It's just as unfair to speculate about Baden-Powell.

NJ, Anyone can speculate. Validation is important. Otherwise, speculation is merely a veiled accusation. And in this case, I think most of us are smart enough to understand that by introducing this speculation, one can propose that perhaps we (BSA and it's membership) have misunderstood Baden-Powell's intent for the program. But I say this is hogwash, and should not even be discussed. If we are permitted to speculate, then what's to prevent someone to speculate that NJ might be gay? If that speculation is accepted as food for thought, then we can propose that perhaps your posts are biased and constructed merely to defend your own selfish interest. However, this would be horribly unfair since there's no way you can prove the speculation to be false. It would give us an unfair advantage to attack your stance on the issue. This, I agree. But, I also submit, it's just as horribly unfair for you or Tim Jeal to speculate that Baden-Powell was a homosexual. He is not even alive to refute this "speculation". Furthermore, it gives you an unfair advantage to attack the viewpoints of those folks who agree with BSA's current policy. In short, fight fair. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I agree that scouts today are probably in greater danger from incompetent outdoor leaders than from pedophiles. While I recognize that untrained and/or reckless leaders can pose a serious threat, I would not elevate them as a threat greater than that of the pedophile. Even if they are more common, I'd rather deal with boys lost in the woods for a day or two, or even broken bones, then the broken lives that pedophiles create. As to the effectualness of background checks, I suggest that while the effort may only snag a few, many predators would not submit their names knowing that they could be revealed (as the monsters they truly are). Furthermore, it seems to me that most pedophiles do have records. These sick puppies persist to prey on our children, even after being exposed via our justice system. From the studies I've read and heard about, very few of these men turn from their perversity. To the contrary, they slide further and further down a hill toward absolute evil. I say every little bit helps, and background checks would be a big step toward protecting these boys. How many lives do you know about that were ruined because of an incompetent outdoor leader? Do they outnumber those of the pedophile? I seriously doubt it.

ASM1, So it's worth the trouble to undergo a background check to obtain a job, but not to ensure the safety of children? I see. If this idea is going to be credited to the "vast right wing conspiracy" group, then count me among them. When kids are involved - a background check equals common sense.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Denver, While I do not think your rebuttal is thought out or supportable, unlike you - I have not cast dispersions such as "bigoted" or "narrow minded". I provided a line of reason based on Biblical references that refuted your supposition (that I was being judgmental). If you find that to be a personal attack, then why bother to join this debate - or any debate for that matter. After all, if one cannot defend himself or point out flaws in logic without being criticized for it, then there's no use having a discussion to resolve controversy. I realize some folks would prefer to leave things alone...but I for one am not afraid to see how logic and reason concludes an argument. Your response to me indicates that you are incapable of defending your position without reverting to the same kind of bumper sticker defense/attack you provided in your original post. I have tried in the forums to be fair, non-judgmental, and to remember that this is supposed to be about Scouting, which is itself governed by the Oath & Law. I don't believe that I've ever attacked anyone else's beliefs, but instead have tried to point out that we're all entitled to our beliefs and that as Americans, we have sworn (remember the pledge of allegiance?) to defend each other's right to say what we please. R7 apparently is not a person who believes in any of those things. Based on a few short paragraphs he makes personal attacks on the depth or sincerity of my religion, and not only insults me personally, but does so based only upon his own narrow minded and biggotted views of the world. You laud yourself as being behaving so saintly, yet in this post and others, you portray me if not by direct accusation then by inference, as being judgmental, unkind, unforgiving, un-scout-like, un-American, unsaved, narrow minded, and bigoted. Therefore, let me ask - "Who's being judgmental?" My "attack" - if it must be labeled as such, belittled your portrayal of me as being judgmental. To make my point, I noted that you took a portion of a Bible verse to bolster your claim against me, but ignored the rest of God's Word. So, with all due respect, my conscience is clear. I suggest you examine your own.

Denver, Hey Rooster7, you're an inspiration for many verses, like "judge not, lest....". If I honestly thought you understood God's Word, your little rebuttal would really concern me. However, my friend, you are what I like to call, a bumper stick theologianlots of rhetoric, but no substance. God's word when read in its entirety is very consistent. Unfortunately, many folks like to cut up into pieces and present as if His wisdom was a bunch of catchy slogans. This gives people the ability to make His Word say what they want it to say. Yes, I believe no one should judge the heart of any man. I understand that only God knows one's heart. "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Luke 6:37&38 However, this does not mean we should not have standards. Since you want to use Christian teachings to make your point, lets examine the instructions given to the early Christians by the apostle Paul: I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 I do not believe BSA is a metaphor for the Christian church or vice versa. However, even you wish to hold them to the very same standards, it seems to me that they have a right if not a duty, to exclude the company of folks who refuse to submit themselves to their moral code. It seems to me, you're asking us to do a lot more than forgive these folks (atheists and homosexuals). You're asking us to accept them as if they shared our values, which they obviously do not. You inferred that I am being judgmental. Let me speak more plainly than you - You need to pick your company better. Fear the LORD and the king, my son, and do not join with the rebellious, for those two will send sudden destruction upon them, and who knows what calamities they can bring? Proverbs 24:21&22 As for "your challenge" - I doubt if there's an official procedure for revoking someone's Eagle award. However, private organizations don't have to following the same protocol as your government. Not everything has to be put down in writing. If BSA wanted to do it, I'm sure they could.

From scoutldr - My point was that the Scout Oath and Law are not a "cafeteria plan", picking and choosing what you like and ignoring the rest because they are inconvenient or more "socially acceptable". So why are we choosing to enforce duty to God, but not the other duties with equal vigor? In my opinion, Darell Lambert was no more a hypocrite than the rest of us...just on different subjects. The irony in this statement is incredible. It is Mr. Lambert who is picking and choosing from BSA's values as if he was entitled to the "cafeteria plan". We want the menu to remain intact and as advertised. As for those other folks (i.e., adulterers, alcoholics, income tax cheaters, liars, etc.), if they came forward and pronounced their actions and beliefs as acceptable, they too should be expelled. Yes, we all stumblewe all seem to have sins that consume our time and energy. However, unlike most atheists and homosexuals, most folks do not claim their sins to be acceptable, or worse - something to be celebrated. Now, you may not choose to recognize atheism or homosexuality as some kind of shortcoming. That's your choice. Regardless, BSA and I dare say, most of its members, do not feel that these beliefs/actions are morally acceptable. So, until the membership requirements change, I submit that the hypocrites are not those folks who embrace the current criteria (and support its enforcement), but those who chose to ignore it. From denver4und@aol.com - Finally, I have got to agree with the poster who said "if you wanna throw stones, go ahead, but......" There's a reason that lesson is in the Bible. A Scout is "kind" When Jesus confronted the angry crowd, he did not declare prostitution to be an acceptable practice. He told the prostitute to "go and sin no more." If an atheist or a homosexual sincerely declared that he no longer embraced atheism and/or homosexuality, then I'm sure BSA would welcome that person into the foldJust as Jesus welcomes the repentant prostitute into His kingdom. However, this is not a matter of casting stones. It's a matter of recognizing a standard. In this particular case, those who refuse to recognize God will not be accepted into BSA's ranks. Likewise, if you believe in the Bible, then you know that those folks who continue to embrace sin (as if it were not sin) will not be welcomed into the God's kingdom. God expects us to recognize Him and to change our actions to reflect new hearts and minds. As for whether or not Mr. Lambert should keep his Eagle award, I vote no. The Eagle award is more than a simple recognition that a boy has acquired certain skills and abilities. It's supposed to be a sign to all that the boy has the character and values supported and uplifted by BSA. If you cannot claim the twelve points of the Scout Law as a code that you strive to live by, or the Scout Oath as something you intend to affirm, then you should not be able to claim yourself to be an Eagle Scout.

I suspect...if you had one or two PLC meetings without an SPL, a number of boys would suddenly become interested again. As SPL, a boy is in a unique position to present his ideas and sell them.... a special privilege that is highly sought by those truly interested in the troop's activities. Perhaps, you could have the ASPL be an interim SPL for a meeting or two (i.e., postpone a second election for a month or two). In fact, I suggest advertising this as your intended plan - with the disclaimer, "unless one or two candidates present themselves within the next week, this will be our plan." This may be all that is needed to get the fire going again. In other words, once the boys realize that they may be losing out on a golden opportunity to gain this position of leadership and authority, they may reconsider (probably sooner than later).

TJ, So how about this... I'll not portray all Christians (remember, I consider myself one) based on the extreme examples of Phelps and Falwell and Robertson, and you stop portraying all gays based on the group trolling the neighborhood park you often refer to? If you honestly believe that Robertson and Phelps believe in the exact same things, then do as your conscience leads you. I think the comparison is wrong. From what I've seen and heard, Robertson prays for the homosexual. Phelps appears to have nothing but hatred for them (given the signs that this group was holding). Yes, both claim to be Christian. And yes, both condemn the sin of homosexuality. However, Phelps appears to be attacking people and not the behavior. I don't think you can fairly say Robertson has acted in the same mannerlikewise for Falwell. As to how I portray homosexuals, no - I did not claim that every homosexual has demonstrated the same outlandish behavior as the men in that Virginia state park. I used the news story as an example to show how depraved many homosexuals can become. Bare in mind, this is not an isolated case. Homosexuals are notorious for this kind of behavior. And while I agree that many (maybe even most) may not endorse that public behavior, by definition, they engage in the same sexual perversities. This being a forum for Scouters, I will refrain from graphic descriptions. However, I feel it is fair to say that the sexual acts that these men (or women) engage in are purely for their own twisted gratification and do not represent a natural physical and spiritual manifestation of love, which God has designed for a man and a woman (within the context of a marriage).

OGE, No I don't believe God has blessed the United States. To say so means he has to have turned his back on others. No. I never claimed that America had exclusive rights to his blessings and protections. I think he has blessed humanity with a world that has ample resources for everyone if we all get along. To believe that the U.S. has God's protection totally flies in the face of the concept of free will. Free will is a concept, which should be applied to individuals. God can reward a nation and still judge us as individuals. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. I sing "God Bless America" with all the fervor I can muster, just as I am sure English Scouters sing "God Save the Queen". I pray for God's blessing just as a father of a family in Italy does. Do I think God favors the US over other countries? No I don't. We're in agreement. Again, God can bless more than one nation. I think God has placed us here on Earth as our test, to see if we merit eternal life with him. As a Catholic, I am surprised you'd say such a thing. There is no test that man can pass that will gain him salvation. Accepting and embracing Christ's gift (his atoning sacrificing on the cross) is the only path to salvation. If you call that a test, then I agree. It is up to us and the rest of the world to get along during our sojourn here. Yes. Unfortunately, mankind's hearts and minds are corrupted. If you think we'll see peace on Earth without Christ, you place too much faith in men. To say that God has protected our country since 1812 is beyond my comprehension. How was that date arrived at? No foreign power has invaded us since then? What was the Mexican-American War? Again, what was Pearl Harbor, or doesn't that count as only the lower 48 states are protected. The Aleutian islands of Alaska saw action during WWII as well. Well, first, I never mentioned 1812, 1776, or any other date. I just agree with the notion that God has blessed America. And to some degree, has provided protection for us. No matter how you portray those conflicts, in the end, America came out on top. Now, this may be what you are talking about, I thank God quite often that I was born in the United States, a country whose evolution (and I use that word very loosely) is quite unique in terms of history. But to say that God blessed the US and not Bolivia or any of the other countries that were settled by Europeans at that time I don't believe is reasonable. I guess we're repeating ourselves. But again, why do you presume God only blesses one country at a time. You know, the North American Continent was not exactly uninhabited when it was "discovered". Are we to believe God allowed the United States to wipe out multiple existing civilizations because he wanted to bless us? To be perfectly honest, I don't know what to believe in regard to our country's history involving the Indian nations. I'd like to believe there's a creditable source on this matter. Unfortunately, these stories seem to change every year - most portraying the settlers as the worst kind of human beings. I find these new versions of history difficult to believe - because over the last 30 to 40 years, it's become extremely popular to portray every minority in America as a victim of white Europeans. While there is truth in this claim, I question the degree and accuracy of many of these stories, as well as the motivation behind them. Regardless, when God blesses a nation, it is not a blanket endorsement of every person and/or act of that nation. From my reading of the Old Testament, God blesses a nation when they do something that pleases Him. It does not mean everything they have done in the past, or will do in the future, will be just as pleasing to Him. Don't get me wrong, I love our country, I love God. I love the ideals our country stands for while realizing where we have come from and when we have come up short to them. I say this is the greatest country on earth, but I also remember that we are still refining the whole freedom thing, we haven't gotten it down yet, we are further along than anyone else but we have a long way to go. I agree with the sentiment that we live in a great country. I'm not sure why you believe that we have "a long way to go" in regards to freedom. If anything, I would say we have a long way to go in regards to how we use that freedom. Do we use it for good or for evil? Why would God protect the US and Israel?, If I remember right, The God of Abraham is the same God Christians, Jews, and Muslims revere. Will God protect one faction who prays to him from another? Does this mean he loves one group more than the other? I can't reconcile this at all. The Bible clearly teaches that the Hebrews are God's chosen people. He wants them to recognize Christ Jesus as the Messiah. The Book of Revelation tells of a day when this will happen. I'm not sure how Muslims claim the God of Abraham. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. Regardless, God will protect and bless those people who seek Him. The short sum of it is, God has blessed us all, its up to us to do the rest. Sometimes we do it well, sometimes we don't. I believe God continually calls us to Him, and to some degree, blesses us. I also believe that God can and will remove His blessings and protections from individuals and nations if we profane His Spirit. As for doing well or not, that's a complicated assessment to make in a fallen world. I think we "do it well" if we respond according to God's promptings - regardless of the outcome.

acco40, I for one, don't believe God is a nationalist. Well that's a very interesting and provocative comment, but I don't it reflects the reality of this conversation. The point was and is - A nation that is governed by laws and men who honor God is blessed and protected. Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD , the people he chose for his inheritance. From heaven the LORD looks down and sees all mankind; from his dwelling place he watches all who live on earth- he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do. No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength. A horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save. But the eyes of the LORD are on those who fear him, on those whose hope is in his unfailing love, to deliver them from death and keep them alive in famine. PSALM 33:12-19 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. PROVERBS 14:34 Does this mean no hardship will befall a nation that embraces God? No, there are still plenty of evildoers in the world who seek to persecute God's people. Yet, God does see all and His righteousness and love will prevail for those who seek Him. When calamity comes, the wicked are brought down, but even in death the righteous have a refuge. PROVERBS 14:32 Nationalist? Using the world's definition of this word, I'd have to agree. However, if a nation is on their face before God, I believe God does indeed favor that nation.

I distanced myself because I don't recall what verbiage Farwell and Robertson used to express their opinions. While I agree with the basic premise that God protects nations that conform to His will (in ways that we may or may not see), I don't necessarily agree with every twist that someone might put on that truism. The few times I have heard Farwell and Robertson speak, they seemed fairly rational. But I will not hang all of Christianity on the thoughts of one person (aside from Christ). By the way, Israel is a perfect example of a nation that is being protected by God. If you don't believe it, just take a look at a map and read a history book or two and look at today's headlines. TJ, I have a difficult time staying angry at a man who uses logic and honestly appears to be seeking common ground. However, I also feel that you don't portray Christianity fairly. Farwell and Robertson may have overstated their beliefs, but I think they seek God and His will. OGE, you don't believe our nation has been blessed and protected by God?