Rooster7

First, I agree that the boy should get the rank if he completes the requirements. I am not suggesting that his troop should make it more difficult for him than others. I am suggesting that they should not overlook shortfalls. What I meant by the "minimum", is an attitude of "I'm not here to help anyone else, but me". If he's truly earning the rank, he should be active in his troop. He should not be some kid who shows up and works with the adults on the side to achieve Eagle. He should be a member of the troop. In my sons' troop, we have seen about 12 to 15 boys become Eagle over the last three years. At least three of these boys, left the troop for extended periods of time to enjoy other pursuits (sports, friends, girls, cars, etc.) - i.e. the usual kind of things boys in high school pursue. I do not fault them for that. However, when they returned to "earn" their Eagle rank, their efforts seemed dishonorable and deficit. That is to say - how the other boys related to them, whether or not they helped anyone else, whether or not the troop was successful, how well they completed their assignments (badge requirements, taught skills, etc.), whether or not they completed service work, etc. - NONE of that seemed to matter to them. They wanted to do the absolute minimal effort, whatever a leader or merit badge counselor would accept (not the minimum requirement, but even less if that's what they could get away with). Unfortunately, some leaders and counselors, knowing that a boy is under a time constraint, tolerate this kind of thing and will still sign a boy off on a requirement (even if it was less then satisfactory). I have seen this numerous times. Most boys in my troop earn their rank. However, I'd venture to say that about 10 to 20 percent get by with doing less than they should. Very often its because they waited until the last six months to earn Eagle and the said people cut them "slack". I realize that the root of this problem is with the adults - the leaders and counselors that "take pity" on these boys. However, these boys take full advantage of the situation. They are not nave. So, as I previously stated - Be friendly and receptive, but don't bend any requirements for latecomers. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

kwc57, I agree entirely with your last post. SagerScout, What would you have done if the pallet on the floor was ignored and he continued to jump in your bed? What if he continued to cry if you refused to allow him into your bed. You're the one with wisdom. You know there are no monsters in his bedroom. Occasionally, one has to endure some crying if they want their children to grow up. It seems to me that one of your last comments bears this out - He's 18 now and still can't sleep through the night

Comparing these Christian preachers (whether I agree with them or not is beside the point) to OSAMA BIN LADEN is ridiculous and shameful. You may not like what "fundamentalist" Christians have to say - you may even think of them as judgmental (although, most just warn others about God's judgment i.e. they dont judge othersthey recite Gods judgment in the Bible), but to put them in the same group as terrorists is inane. You are exposing your bias against these folks. You accuse them of demonizing others (a false accusation in my mind), when in fact, thats precisely what you are doing to them. (And lest this debate be dismissed as irrelevant, keep in mind one of my most consistent observations on this board is a fear that the BSA is evolving under the control of far right-wing Christianity, and increasingly self-identifying as a "faith-based organization"... my point in this thread stays true to form and is just intended as a case for all of us to question whether this is who we want our organization to become.) Despite your implication, I think this concern is more yours and perhaps a few others (like NJ and Merlyn) and not that of most posters on this board. Christian fundamentalists have not forced their will on BSA and/or its members. BSA's value system was established generations ago. It's always identified itself as "faith-based".

Disclaimer - By the way, I don't recall the exact words that Robertson or Farwell used. I just know the basic premise.

TJ, "...only rarely do they slip up and allow their true opinions to be 'known' as they did after Sept 11 (only later to quickly back away from the remarks)." How do you know what is their "true opinions" verses a real "slip up"? Why do you want to portray Christian "fundamentalists" as hateful? I think you make some awful assumptions about people's motives. Furthermore, even if they didn't back away from their original comments - What is hateful about them? They believe God to be righteous. They believe homosexuality is an affront to God. So they (Robertson and Farwell) postulated out loud that perhaps God removed his hand of protection from a nation that had been previously blessed. Anything concluded beyond their own words is the twisting thinking of others.

Welcome him back with open arms. However, if he wants to earn Eagle, make sure he does all of the requirements faithfully. That is to say, he should be active, fullfill his leadership role (if still needed), complete the two badges as prescribed, and finish a project that meets the necessary critera (for Eagle). In short, my concern with any 17-year that comes back after a prolonged absence, is this - Is he coming back to do the minimum (or less than the minimum, which unfortunately I have seen) so he can put "Eagle" on his resume? - OR - Is he coming back to be a real member of the troop and truly earn his Eagle rank? Bottom Line: I say be friendly and receptive, but don't bend any requirements.

If I over-reacted (and I probably did)...I apologize. I sincerely believe that President Bush has this country's best interest at heart. Futhermore, unlike some other politicians, I'm convinced that his faith in God and his concern for others is sincere...not a ploy. So, I take attacks aganist his character personally. Having said that...I'll try to keep my knee-jerk reactions in check. Peace.

I never claimed that Bush had a mandate based on the 2000 election or even based on the election results of 2002. I said, most people (especially since 9/11) appreciate and support George W. Bush as our President. Furthermore, while Bush may not have a mandate per the election results, certainly the Democrats have no claim to a mandate either. A lot has occurred since the 2000 election, whether or not folks want to believe the current polls is their choice, but I'm convinced that most Americans support the President and the direction the country is heading.

denver4und@aol.com, If you're convinced that the rest of the country believes as you do, then how do suppose President Bush was elected...Oh yeah, there's that right wing conspiracy again. Sorry. You know, its funny how much influence Rush Limbaugh and Fox News wields. As for President Clinton, I let his record speak for himself. Of course, that assume he hasnt found a way to rewrite it.

denver4und@aol.com, If I recall, Bob White said BSA can and has striped former Scouts of their Eagle rank. I don't believe you're supposition (once an Eagle, always an Eagle) is necessarily correct.

denver4und@aol.com, I do read the papers...and the polls show that President Bush has the support of MOST Americans. In regards to the election results, although I detest this saying - it really is appropriate in this case - "Get over it!".

OGE, I must say - it does sound as if your dad went too far and/or used his anger to moderate the discipline. I can't defend that. Perhaps he realized that was the case, but never found a way to apologize to you. I don't know your dad...I'm just trying to give him some credit as a loving father. As for your neighbor, his case sounds extreme (i.e., a case of abuse). But just as extreme to me, would be to not spank a child that clearly warranted a spanking (i.e., a child having an uncontrollable fit in a supermarket). I've seen examples of both. I've seen children go out of their way to rebel against mom and dad because they were "paying them back" (as teenagers or adults that left the home). I've also seen children go out of there way to make mom and dad miserable, just because they could get away with it. To me, the answer lies in between the two. Discipline, but do so with a loving heart. For example - I can envision a loving mom or dad, heavy-hearted but resolute, giving a son or daughter a spanking for being insolent or disobedient. On the other hand, I cannot envision a slap in the face as being an act of discipline motivated by love (anger, yes - love, no). Regardless, unless confronted with solid evidence of obvious abuse, the government should keep their hands off families.

"owning pornography doesn't make you commit sex crimes." Owning "anything" is NOT the cause of anything else. But let's be intellectually honest and examine what's really going on here. Grown men are viewing pictures of attractive, naked women posing seductively and/or performing sex acts on themselves and others. For what purpose does a man do this, one must ask oneself. Obviously, these men are being aroused by these images. Clearly, they derive sexual pleasure by viewing these materials. You're a fool if you don't think these images are powerful. Any man who willing subjects himself to these materials is playing with fire. With very few exceptions, men who regularly view pornography become consumed by it. I don't have scientific data. Here's what I do have - common sense and 43 years of experience as a male. I know how pornography affects me. I know how it affects every man I have ever met. And every man reading these words knows exactly what I'm talking about. A man who can habitually view pornography and not sink further into depravity, is about as common as the two-cigarette per day smoker. It might be possible, but it's very unlikely. If you're not a man, then I submit that you cannot fully comprehend or appreciate my words. As is the case for all addictions, one's urges are never completely and fully satisfied. One's appetite increases. With each passing episode, the addict requires a stronger drug, drink, fix, etc. The frequency between binges becomes shorter and shorter. Inevitably, the addict will become so consumed and depraved that there is no line that he isn't willing to cross to fulfill his craving. No doubt, a consumer of pornography might ask me - "Then why haven't I become a rapists?" My answer is this - One, just because you're not a rapist doesn't mean you haven't debased yourself and others. And two, by God's grace (age, circumstances, length of one's life, etc.), not every would-be rapist has the opportunity. Bottom line - Pornography feeds a very ugly and dark part of a man's nature. Show me a man who says it's not so, and I'll show you a liar. I am not the best administrator of spankings, but I believe they are appropriate - and in many cases, necessary. In the past, my children provoked me to spank them when they were blatantly disobedient. Unfortunately, this behavior also made me the most upset (i.e., angry) with them. So, I had two rules - I used my hand (so I knew exactly how much force was being applied), and two, I only struck them three times (so I did not inadvertently abuse the punishment). Once a child reaches a certain age (for my boys, it was around 13), spankings become counterproductive. I want my children to be disciplined, but I don't want to degrade them in the process. Spankings are good as long as they are used to discipline a child who is young enough to appreciate a stinging butt and the consternation of one's parent. However, as the child grows older, spankings tend to produce fewer stings and a great deal of exasperation. Spankings do not deliver a message of discipline to young boys (13 and older). They will resent you for treating them as a child. They will focus on a message of humiliation and rebel even more. JMHO. If you only have one or two children, you may never have had to spank your children. Consider yourself blessed, but don't assume that it was because of some great parenting technique that you employed. That is to say, every child is different. Read Dr. James Dobson's book (can't remember the name) about the strong-will child verses the compliant child. He knows what's he talking about. OGE, I understand and agree that some adults cross the line when disciplining their children (or worse, other peoples' children). However, despite your misgivings, have you considered the possibility that you might not have the character you possess today if it were not for those disciplinarians in your past? No doubt, it sounds as if you will be able to give quite a few examples of some unnecessary punishments. Nevertheless, I submit this possibility (tell me if I'm wrong) - Your father, as imperfect as he may have been, instilled many good character traits in you. Furthermore, you can probably point to a number of boys/men that you knew that did not have a father who disciplined them properly or at all and are now paying a price for it. Spankings (and I hope that's what most folks are talking about) can be used effectively if they are delivered out of love.

Perhaps this is an over simplification, but... BSA doesn't encourage the murder of babies. Planned Parenthood not only encourages it, but they do it for profit.

I submit this... Any man who's subjected himself to pornography knows the answer to OGE's question (or rather his implied implication). The answer is YES - pornography further encourages our depravity. Anyone who denies this truism is a liar and every man knows it.

For what purpose one might ask? The obvious answer is to protect the children. That being the case, whether or not some qualified leaders are barred because of their youthful indiscretions, becomes a small side issue to me. First and foremost, let's take measures to ensure that the truly sick are denied access to our children. As a matter of practicality, some well-meaning potential leaders may inescapably become victims of these background checks. While regrettable, ultimately it's worth the price. What would be worse? A molester is inadvertently allowed to have membership in a troop - Or - An otherwise qualified leader is denied membership because he had sex with his girlfriend at the age of 17? I realize that these background checks may not present this kind of either or scenario. However, depending how these databases are built and searched, BSA may be confronted with just such a situation. If so, I vote to continue the course. We should be more concerned about the boys' safety vice the perceived "rights" of some adult leaders. By the way, "that guy" who wrote on the stone tablets, was God. While Jimmy may be a great guy - if given the choice, I'd rather have a SM who can resist lust as opposed to someone who embraces it. Of course, since only God can see one's heart, I don't imagine that BSA will be creating a "lust" policy any time soon.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I respect and have empathy for the posters of this thread. I certainly can relate to the fact that there are good people who I love that do not recognize Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Furthermore, if I were God, Id grant them salvation. However, I am not God. I cannot even fathom what it means to be God. His ways are not mine. He is the Father and I am merely a child. Even if we were given the capacity to see everything that occurs within the spiritual world, I doubt that our hearts and minds could withstand the realization of this kind of knowledge. I strongly urge anyone who believes that there are other paths to God the Father, which does not require the Grace of Christ Jesus, to read their Bible. I will concede that God works in many wonderful ways. It may be possible that some folks have come to Christ in a manner not visible to us. However, I would not assume that to be true. Jesus instructs us to preach the Gospel. He warns us that the path is narrow that the path to Hell is wide. These other paths may allow us to sleep well at night. But they do not reflect Biblical teaching. Contrary to this idea, the Bible warns us that there will be many false teachers and teachings. It encourages us to know our doctrine well because there will be plenty of deceivers of the Word.

Sctmom, Youre confusing being a good person with being saved. There are plenty of folks who are not Christians, but are by all appearances, good people. However, being good is not the way to salvation. Jesus Christ, using the law from the Old Testament clearly demonstrated that none of us is good enough. In fact, he compared the best works we could possibly offer to filthy rags. If you claim Christ as Lord and Savior, but feel there are other paths to the Father, then you are not reading and/or following His Word. Jesus did not mince words. While He wants all to be saved, He unmistakably stated that there was no other way to the Father but through Him. No matter how successful we are at imitating Christ, we are just that imitators. God the Father knows our hearts. So, while we may have a great act to present to the world, God sees and knows whats going on behind the curtain. Once we acknowledge our own sinfulness, then it becomes self-evident that we need much more than a role model we need a Savior. This is not about tolerance, but about a faith we both claim as our own. As a brother in Christ, I feel obligated to share the Gospel, as I know it to be (as it is clearly presented in the Bible). If you believe that I am wrong, then I challenge you to read Gods Word for yourself and confirm or deny your suspicions. Dont dismiss my words and those of others merely because youre afraid of their ramifications. I implore you to open your eyes and examine His Word

"Explain to me how my faith is leading to the same god as the Wiccans, when my Bible tells me that I cannot worship the One and Only true God and the god of idols?" If you worship the One and Only true God then there is no "god of idols". Why do you refer to gods that do not exist? I don't think your wording is really what you meant. Perhaps it was worded funny. My point is - Bible teaching tells us that we (Christians) cannot worship pagan gods (and/or the god of idols). Furthermore, if we do, we are in affect denying the One and Only true God (the God of Abraham) by doing so. In my first quote, I was trying to convey that the two (the God of the Bible - and - the god of idols) were mutually exclusive by Christian teaching. Thus, per the Christian faith, "the all paths lead to the same God" theology is heresy.

Diversity is our world, who is to say that one voice is to fit all people? That is the question and the answer. I hope you are not implying that atheism is a part of that diversity. If so, BSA does not share or support this thinking. I pray they never do. As for, "Regardless of the name one calls on to invoke the Supreme Being, it is all one." This is called Universalism. Explain to me how my faith is leading to the same god as the Wiccans, when my Bible tells me that I cannot worship the One and Only true God and the god of idols? Your post will score a thousand points with folks who want to feel warm and fuzzy, while singing to the tune, "We are the World". However, there is only one reality. I firmly believe that Christ Jesus is the Son of God. If I'm wrong, then my future is very uncertain. Yet, I am not unnerved because I know that the God of the people is real. Many people embrace Universalism. It allows them to do as they please (and/or recognize God as they please) without worrying about the consequences because "all paths lead to God". This belief allows many folks to sleep soundly at night. However - Does it reflect reality? In short, if the religions of which you speak contradict one another - if they in fact not only lead in different directions but in opposite directions, how can they possibly lead to the same place? My God given common sense tells me that what you propose is not possible. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Non-Christian is just one definition of pagan. Most people recognize this definition - one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion - or - an irreligious or hedonistic person. Per the Christian faith, regardless whether or not the intent is to worship demons, pagans' accomplish this end when they offer sacrifices to idols. Not that I want to see Wiccans in BSA, but I thought they were allowed. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to make this discovery.

All of the negative commentary from people outside the "chain of command" in this case, including most of the people who have posted in this forum, is not fine with me. It is un-Scoutlike and unnecessary. I am a bit ashamed that I agree with some of you about the ultimate result. NJ, you're free to feel that way. I am a little disappointed that you have more affinity and respect for a young man who is seeking to fundamentally change (i.e., destroy) BSA - an organization that you supposedly love - than the folks who share that bond with you. Perhaps you don't view BSA as being under attack. Nevertheless, you may have a point. Or at least, there's a chance that we are in a minority (those that vehemently disagree with Mr. Lambert). After all, I honestly believe duty to God means to love and worship Him. Perhaps I (and some others) should have been born 30 to 40 years earlier and we both would be happier people. You could champion the cause of homosexuals and atheists unopposed. Meanwhile, I could live amongst a generation that at least recognized God properly and called sin - sin. As a bonus, you wouldn't have to be embarrassed about being associated with us. In fact, you could spray paint "Bigot" on our tombstones for all I care. Unfortunately, I was born in 1959 not 1929 - and thus we will continue to be thorns in each other's side.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

One thing I have noticed... Lambert and some of his supporters seem to think BSA is all about character building (i.e., they argue belief in God is not necessary to become a good citizen, etc.). While character building is an essential element, I think BSA's values encompass much more. The Scout Oath and Law should not be viewed as merely guidelines for good citizenship. For example, this is how I see the three duties: Duty family is about having loyalty for those that love you the most. Duty to country is about helping others, in particular those that share your heritage. Duty to God is about loving and worshiping God. So, as much as Lambert might be able to claim he loves family and country, and even be a good citizen, he cannot claim he loves and worships God. He fails to see the value in doing so. He doesn't even recognize God's existence. Obviously, BSA and its members, not only recognize God, but they see value in loving and worshiping Him. As a citizen in this nation, you don't have to share that value...you can even criticize others that do, but you do have to respect the rights of others - including their right to form a private organization that is exclusive to those folks with the same beliefs. There is no honor in their words. They ring hollow and bitter.

I'm thankful for my family, my job, my home, my health, my church, my God and my friends. I'm thankful for all the blessings the Lord has given me. Ditto...Or rather, Amen. I'm not sure I can claim that I worked hard for all of them...But I am very happy and thankful.

At last...a story that doesn't ruffle my feathers. Three cheers for the Eagle Scout with good aim. Does anyone know if the bear was an atheist? As for the Eagle Scout, if he was one, I bet he isn't anymore.