Rooster7

OGE, First, thanks for viewing these postings objectively and with emotional restraint. I believe we are in agreement. I think you have summed up my feelings on the issue. The posting that drew my knee-jerk reaction was firstpusk's: There are some that will not be saved, but none that can not be saved. I'm not saying adults should not try to "save" children. I am saying that some children cannot be saved. That is, try as we may, they will not respond. I am also agreeing with Zorn on this point - at some point in time, child or not, it can become a head banging exercise to the determent of others (including other children). You've noted that sometimes, adult leaders give up too soon on a child. I agree. However, the inverse is true as well. Sometimes adult leaders do not give up soon enough. They do all sorts of gymnastics to appeal to and to turn around the troubled child. While the said child definitely refuses to change, other children suffer. They suffer because this same child may be a bully. They suffer because this child may make every effort to sabotage the program. They suffer because adults spend hundreds of unresponsive hours on a troubled youth who has made it painfully clear he's not going to change when they could have spent a few hours on a responsive child and made a world of difference. In reference to a Boy Scout troop, while it may be rare, I believe even a child of 11-12 may fall into this category. I am not suggesting that his parents should give up. However, a Boy Scout troop should not try to be his parents. I am not cold hearted. Personally, while I have defended Zorn's statements (in philosophy), I am very much repelled by his word choice. They invoke imagines and an attitude that do not reflect the way I feel. For example: "The world would be better off if certain children were drowned at birth" Or "The world would be better off if this girl had been deposited on a dung heap at birth." I understand his point (I think). I hesitate, because quite frankly, I'm not sure what he's going to say next. However, I am not advocating (and I hope he is not either) infanticide. This image of throwing a child on a heap of garbage or worse sickens me because in some parts of the world this is a reality. It may be just a metaphor, but it's not one I would ever use. Also, I agree that we should try earnestly to save every child. I am simply saying - not every child can be saved, and, there is a time when one should give up. I know, by appearances, refusing to give up is the noble thing to do. Yet, at what price does one make this effort? Other threads on this forum have recognized the point I am trying to make. You stay with child so long as he does not ruin the program for others. Furthermore, despite the suggestion of some, all of the proper efforts by all of the proper adults is NOT a guarantee that the child will be "saved". If a child refuses to change, we should not be pointing our finger at all of the adults in his life. Who qualifies for the dunghill? As I noted before, I'd never use this metaphor. Regardless, without the two of us being there together and witnessing firsthand someone's behavior, this is not a question I'd like to answer. Any scenario I create, either through the lack of my communication skills, or due to your own experiences and/or inability to relate to my story, is apt to be misunderstood. Let's just say, I am certain that you have seen the behavior of some 12- or 13- or 14- year-old boys, whereas you've thought to yourself - "This kid is horrible. He's going out of his way to be disruptive. He gives every indication that he has no respect for anyone and is giving no signs that he will ever change." If a child such as this ignores your continual efforts, you should consider channeling your efforts toward other children. Is it worth getting through to the one child, if as a result of your efforts, 10 other children do not receive the benefits of your mentorship? Plus, there is no guarantee that you'll be sucessful. One has to weigh these things. Mister Spock had it right the first time - The welfare of the many should out weigh the welfare of the few or the one. Firstpusk, Obviously, I don't agree with everything Zorn has to say. The fact that I may have defended a point made by Zorn, doesn't mean I think he is the model Scoutmaster. If you want to keep your integrity, please try to keep things in perspective. Zorn, Why is it all of you Bible thumpers like to play psychoanalyst? I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from, but with statements such as these, you are losing more and more allies. LASTLY, where was all this noble talk (none that can not be saved No scout is not worthy of our efforts as scout leadersetc) when we were discussing the kid who supposedly "humped" another kid. Many of the same folks who are attacking Zorn, have recommended immediate expulsion for this kid. Many did not hesitate to label this kid as a sexual offender (which I thought was extreme). It seems to me, while I did not view the humping incident in the same manner as others, the general consensus was to dump this kid. Does that reflect the attitude that every kid is worth the effort? If he's not in your troop, how can you be extending this effort?

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

but I am getting seriously creeped out here I don't know Zorn well enough to defend him. I've only seen his postings. I do know how I feel, and I suspect he is of similar thought. Maybe not. Who really knows? Any way, I think your reading too much in his statements (perhaps mine as well). The point is (at least for me), some children get on the wrong road and never leave it. The inclination to do wrong is not taught. It's inborn. We all have to learn to control our thoughts and actions. Some of us do it just to conform. Some of us do it because we've learned that it is right. Some of us don't. Are we saying only adults are able to use reason and make moral decisions? Are we saying, no matter how a child acts, a "caring" adult will never give up on him? Are we saying the Columbine murderers (if not for their own suicide) were owed second chances? That's an extreme example, but it makes a point. While we'd all like to "save" every child, some children will not respond. This does not necessarily mean the adult or adults failed. It means the child did not respond. Life is about choices. Even children make them.

For a troop to set a policy that prohibits female (moms) involvement in a trip is teaching separation and discrimination. Okay, first, I dont think its fair to describe this policy as a lesson in discrimination. At least, its not the kind of discrimination that most people think of when that word is invoked. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, lets say it is exactly the kind of discrimination that most folks think of That being the case, how do you explain your troops justification for discriminating against girls? Unless your troop is the exception, girls are not allowed on campouts. Youre using all the right words politically correct, no doubt! But, youre not being consistent in your stance. Its interesting to me how some folks can label certain actions as discrimination, but overlook similar actions when its contrary to their own interest. Yes, such a policy is a form of discrimination against women. I wont argue that fact, but I think theres a rational and acceptable reason behind it. However, BSAs policy is also a form of discrimination against girls. Theres no difference between these two policies. If the reasons are proper (as I noted in previous posts), then Im willing to defend both of these policies. Im consistent in my stance. If logic prevails, at the very least, persons who argue that such a troop policy is discriminatory should label BSAs policy against girls in the same manner and show the same contempt for it. Personally, I find no fault in either of these policies.

There are some that will not be saved, but none that can not be saved. I have to disagree with this statement. While I would be extremely happy to see all children "saved" (i.e., saved from a bad family situation, saved from gangs or peers that would do them harm or corrupt their morals, saved from poverty, saved from their own troubled minds, saved from all the things that can make life difficult, etc.), the above statement is nave and the babble of Camelot liberals. Of course, when there is any sign of hope, we should strive to save every child. However, this statement infers that no child can be lost if the adults in his/her life to do the proper things. Hogwash. Children are capable of evil. Children often do choose the wrong road. Many, for reasons only known to them, refuse to leave that road. These choices are theirs. They are not the result of uncaring adults or organizations that failed to reach out. Its the result of their free will.

acc040, Not that I want to revive a debate, but DeMann has as much a right to ask these questions on this forum as others have. The moderator has allowed us the freedom to discuss almost any topic under the Issues & Politics heading. I think your comment does not relay the right message, espeically for those folks who are venturing out and posting for the first time. As for my thoughts on these questions, I have already provided my input under a different thread.

Why wouldn't you (a parent and/or member of the troop committee) want the COR to attend troop committee meetings? The COR should attend and he/she should have strong opinions. That is to say, the CO sponsors the troop. The troop is suppose to reflect the values of the CO (and BSA of course). So, its only natural that the COR would attend troop committee meetings and have an opinion. I find the complaint about the active COR to be kind of ironic. From everything I've read and experienced, the more typical problem is the COR who has no interest at all. This creates a situation where parents and leaders can be at odds.

As you no doubt are aware, a sniper has been picking off folks at random in the DC, VA, and MD area. He has committed nine murders in less than two weeks. It is a very unnerving experience to be living around DC these days. I ask you to pray for the millions of people who do live here. In addition to the normal pressures of life, we now must contend with a sniper who kills for fun. His youngest victim was a 13-year-old boy (who is still fighting for his life in Children's Hospital). People are afraid to go to the gas station or to go grocery shopping. Pray for a full recovery for this young boy; pray for peace of mind for those who have to live in this area; and pray they catch this guy soon. Thanks.

And yet another thread in which I agree with Bob White...This is getting too scarey. And more frightening, Yaworski appears to be agreeing with Bob too.

sctmom, The heterosexual population in the south is mainly conservatives who agree with the BSA policy. You aren't going to get the number of protesters you get in California or the Northeast. Speaking as someone from the nation's capital (or rather Prince George's County Maryland), I would love to trade places with you. Give me those "narrow minded" conservatives in Savannah and their unsophisticated ways. I'll go down there and sip lemonade with them on the porch. If you prefer (and I have no idea of you really do), you can come up here and discuss the plight of homosexuals in America at the local Star Bucks in Georgetown.

Furthermore, is there something evil about these so-called "undercurrents"? I think not. It is just a matter of boys wanting to be boys. It's there natural inclination. Boys like to be around other boys and they don't want adults, especially women, hovering over them. I don't have to ask any former boys scouts, to figure this out. As a man, I know exactly how most boys think...I use to be one. Does every troop want to exclude women? Probably not. Should every troop exclude women? Definitely not...Most don't have enough adult leaders. However, as Jerry pointed out, this idea (no women on campouts) is not the desires of "angry white men" trying to preserve the ways of old. It's the desires of the boys. I dare say, for a particular age group, it's the desire of most healthy boys. Thatll be misconstrued, but I'll live with it.

First, I don't believe the "3 million" figure for one second. This is the same garbage that homosexuals and their supporters have been spewing for years. Second, I'm 100% with eisely. The policy is NOT directed against the children of homosexuals, it's against homosexuals. (eisely - By the way, I was sorry to hear about your childhood experience. I pray God heals you of that horrible memory). Lastly, for all the "fighting" and arguing I do with Bob White, I am in complete agreement with his last post in this thread. TJ has provided an ample supply of hogwash for all of us.

Do you have a link? Would like to know more... Thanks

Mike, You make excellent points. Life is tough. While I'm all for protecting kids from cruel circumstances, we shouldn't try to create a plastic bubble. They need to have an understanding of how and why things happen. They need to be able to deal with disappointment, even, and perhaps most importantly, when life is not being fair. It's an ugly reality, but it's a lesson they need to learn. In the long run, they'll be better off and more prepared for life as we all know it.

Okay, I did this job for a couple of years and I definitely have some opinions. However, it appears that you are not in the same position I was in (well established pack with lots of parent support). Any way, here's my advice: 1) GET A VOLUNTEER to be Committee Chair. I know no one stepped forward and you're stepping forward, but you can't do everything. Get someone to step up to be CC. Otherwise, I think you'll either burn out or run a program that's not really what it should be. 2) After you find a volunteer for CC, look for more volunteers. The point is, don't give upalways keep looking. The more help the better. Okay, now for the Cubmaster stuff: 1) Keep control of your monthly pack meeting. Don't let the boys (or their families) go berserk. Get the leaders and parents to help you keep control. Emphasize that there are proper time to laugh and proper times to be serious. 2) Set up tables so that everyone can get a good view of what is going on up front. 3) Have the parents and leaders sit behind the boys. This serves two purposes - boys view is not blocked, and - the adults can monitor and keep control better. 4) Make sure that the meeting is started properly with a serious flag ceremony. Rotate this job between the dens - month to month. 5) Don't be the only person standing up front. Get other adults to help you do the announcements, ceremonies, etc. 6) Buy a cheap sound system if you canYou can get an amplifier, microphone, and some cheap speakers for under $200. It will allow you to speak and be heard. It will aid the boys who like to speak into their shirts. Also, if you have the funds, find one with a tape player. This allows you to liven up some skits and ceremonies with music or something else. 7) When the boys do a skit, insist that they speak loudly (especially if you don't have a sound system). If they start off soft, then stop the skit (without a big fuss) and ask them to speak louder. Otherwise, most will not understand what is going on. 8) If your pack has some money, invest it in some Indian regalia. It will make those ceremonies more special 9) Script out the ceremonies in advance and know them well. Don't fly by the seat of your pants. Everyone will be able to tell and the ceremony will not come off as being special. 10) Try to keep all skits, songs, ceremonies, etc. short. Remember kids have short attention spans. 11) I'm not a song guyBut if you do them, make sure you have handouts with the words and try to use popular songs. Find someone who will get up front and lead loudly and without shame 12) Get the boys to do their den cheers at the beginning the meeting. Find a gimmick to get them into it. I used a Spirit Stick. It was a walking stick, which was given to the loudest den. That den got to decorate it with their mark (I drilled holes in the stick)They would attach a piece of string with something on it (i.e., beads, pictures, wooden numbers, etc.) which represented their den. I awarded the stick at the end of the meeting. I got it back prior to the next pack meeting. Stick looked pretty cool by the end of the year. 13) Try to show enthusiasm throughout the entire meeting. 14) I did at least two leader skits each year. It gave the boys the opportunity to see a skit done right. Also, it enabled the boys the chance to laugh at their leaders. 15) If there are a lot of awards (arrows, belt loops, etc.), don't let every boy talk about every award. For example, Den #5 has six boys. Each has earned the baseball loop, four have earned soccer loop, two have earned biking loop, and one has earned an academic loop. Pick one boy for each loop to speak one or two sentences about what they did. In other words, just four speakers - NOT 13. Better yet, tell the den leader to find four boys and ask her/him to make sure they have something to say. 16) Try to keep the meeting to 90 minutes or less (i.e., start at 7:00 and end by 8:30). 17) We awarded the best looking uniform each month. Each den was asked to send one representative forward. They lined up front and all the boys were congratulated for being such a great example to the pack. However, and all of the boys and parents were warned about this, we would only be recognizing one boy as being the best. We asked a neutral party (i.e., a guest from our sister troop) to be the judge and kept the judging down to one minute (no quizzing of the boys was allowed). In other words, a quick and painless decision. The guest would tell me and I would make the announcement. This boy was given a special neckerchief slide to wear for one month. It worked well as long as you (the Cubmaster) gave disclaimers and ensured the process went quickly and without unnecessary angst (i.e., don't let the judge drag his feet or "interrogate" the boys). I like it, but you need to be careful or it could become a sore point for some boys and parents. 18) Rotate assignments for the dens - skit, song, opening, closing, cake raffle, clean up, etc. 19) Some packs like to end with the flags being retired. I liked to close the meeting with a prayer. This was an assignment that got rotated between the dens. 20) Keep special events in mind. If there is something unusual planned for a pack meeting (guest speaker, boy & buddy bake off, etc.), remember to arrange your meeting so that you are not there all night. You may have to cut out some of the normal stuff. For your reference, the following is an agenda for a meeting we did a few years back. If you like, I can send you a year's worth of agendas, some Indian regalia ceremonies, and some leader skits. October Pack Meeting Setup - Den #4 Cakes - Den #8 (den brought them for raffling) Don (Assistant CM) asks the audience to sit and be quiet. Leader of the Pack Skit - Mike (CM), Tim H., & Boy Scouts (Leader of the Pack/Born to be Wild - music for skit) After skit - Mike, Tim H., and Scouts leave on bikes. Mike prompts Den #5 to get into position for the opening. Ask the audience to be quiet for the opening flag ceremony. Opening Flags - Den #5 Introduce New Leaders (Dee, etc.) - Mike Den Cheers (point stick)/Hand Ribbons To Denners - Mike (Mike, Tim H., and Don leave to change into Indian costumes for Bobcat ceremony) Stunt - Den #10 (Dee Introduces) Song - Den #2 (Dee Introduces) Note to Dee, please leave microphone stand and microphone up front by the stage for the Bobcat ceremony. Bobcat Ceremony (Indian costumes [3]; script; drums [2]; 2 den chiefs to beat the drums; paint [2 of each] - blue, yellow, white, red, green; badges; safety pins; brushes?). - Mike, Tim H., Don Pin Bobcat Badges on Upside-down - Mike, Tim H., Don, Tim (Mike & Don change back into uniforms) Sports & Academic Loops & Pins (SEE AWARDS LIST) - Dee Cheer - Dee Webelos Pins (SEE AWARDS LIST) - Mike Raffle Cakes - Dee Other Awards (SEE AWARDS LIST) - Mike Skit - Den #3 (Mike). Uniform Inspection - Mike (Karl, SM from sister troop, will do the judging - 1 minute or less please). Any Cakes Leftover? Raffle more cakes - Dee Award Spirit Stick - Mike Closing/Prayer - Den #5 Clean Up - Den #9

Just a point for clarification - Actually, "excluding someone" by definition, is and always will be discrimination. However, to be accurate (and I'm sure this was YoungBlood's point) - discrimination does not have be hateful or without logic. Christian churches don't allow Jews or Muslims to become members unless they convert. When a women's bathing suit model is needed, most hire a woman (thank God!). Men's bathroom attendants are usually men (women can be thankful for that). These examples don't correlate to our discussion well, but they make the point that discrimination is not always hateful or without logic. In short, just because something can be labeled as discrimination, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. We need to examine the justification. Is the intention to hurt women? Per the viewpoint of the boys, do they gain anything by excluding women? Does the boys' explanation demonstrate malice for women? I think before any charter organization accepted such a policy; they would have to examine these answers closely.

Ed, Homosexuality - behavior Pedophilia & alcoholism - disease We may actually disagree on something. I see all of the above as being behavior. Also, I see all three as being potentially influenced by genetics. I am particularly surprised that you listed pedophilia as a disease. Seems to me, homosexuality and pedophilia are both deviant sexual behavior. Many like to argue that homosexuality is normal. To "prove" their point, they point to studies, which suggest that genetics influenced their behavior. Interestingly, the same has been said of alcoholism, but no one argues that we should accept the behavior of an alcoholic. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that pedophilia is a disease. At least, no more than homosexuality possibly could be. Bottom line - regardless, whether or not there are physical attributes, which make one prone to these behaviors, god has given us the power to overcome our urges. We have the ability to make choices, and we should hold folks accountable for their actions. Firstpusk, The compliment (Firstpuck) was accidentally. Nor was any malice intended. Yet, I may have contempt for some of your ideas. As for your statement to ScoutParent - "You have been unable to provide an alternative." What makes you think evolution is so viable? Popularity and truth are not one in the same. The arguments being made by the scientific community (as ScoutParent has pointed out) are logical conclusions based on the theory of evolution. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you believe the theory to be correct, then you must accept the logical conclusions, which it supports, no matter how obscene and/or distasteful they may be. If you refuse to accept their conclusions, then you should reexamine your support for such a theory.

A church, that couldn't care less, once chartered our troop. They allowed us to use their building once a week, but after a while even that was frowned upon. We left. I doubt if we were missed. We certainly didn't miss them...they seemed to like the idea of being a sponsor so long as they didn't have to provide any real support. About four years ago, the American Legion agreed to charter us (pack and troop). Each year, they donate a $1,000 to us (general funds). We are allowed to use their facilities (for the most part, anytime we need them). They send representatives to the Eagle Courts of Honor. They have a plaque with all the Eagles names on it in their meeting hall. Some of their sons are in the pack and the troop. We retire flags together. They actually care about us as an organization. What a difference! Great concept, as long as you find an organization that appreciates what it truly means to be a sponsor. If I had belonged to the aforementioned church, I would have been ashamed to admit it. The pastor had a real opportunity for outreach and basically blew us off as a burden.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

My suggestion is to find an organization willing to charter your troop that cares. In your current situation, if/when any controversy arises, your group will be stuck with their decisions. If they (the CO) couldn't "care less", then your troop is likely to pay a price. Your troop deserves better.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

acco40, Politics over blood - Is that your mantra? I don't have to defend Bush's stance concerning the war on terrorism. 80 to 90 percent of Americans already agree will him. As for people's mindsets already be set...that's at least true for two of us. I'm happily on the opposite side of your fence buddy.

rlculver415, My wife stays home with the kids. She does the majority of the housework, cooks most of the meals, and home schools my four children. One of which has now gone on to college. Having said this, I have nothing but respect for the "old fashioned" stay at home moms. They work plenty hard and we all know it (or should know it). "Agreement that female adults, adolescent boys and camping equal potential trouble" I may have missed it, but I never saw this argument presented.

Perhaps we're just too bitter about having to endure a President who cared more about his own interests than anyone else's. Or, maybe, we're just overjoyed about having a new President who understands that morality is not subjective. George W. isn't perfect, but he's no Bill Clinton either. If my ranting proves something to you about me, so be it. I sleep well at nightand you did ask me to continue.

acco40, Do you know what it takes to fly a fighter jet? How safe do you think it is to fly one, over Texas or elsewhere? Of the millions who served during the sixties, how many do you think were sent to Vietnam? Do you think the military gave George W. Bush special accommodations? You honestly believe that they have special barracks or divisions reserved for businessmen and politicians? Your accusations, bluntly stated or simply inferred, are very weak. By the way, how many black helicopters are there in your neighborhood? If you want to pick on a President who didn't do his share, look at Clinton. He lied to get out of the service and the media pretends that it didn't happen. Or worse, because it was a controversial war, they play it off as no big deal.

For a pedophile to get into the OA as an adult is not as easy as you think. I actually think it would be easier for a pedophile to become an adult leader in a Troop! I hear what you're saying, but... Pedophiles can have scouting careers. That is to say, not all of these guys plan out in advance where, when, and how. They're opportunistic. These men could enjoy scouting for years and have every appearance of respectability. They may well be satisfying their sickness in some other manner or in some other area of their life. However, if you give them an opportunity such as this, and they happen to be in the OA, then I think many would exploit the situation. Do you think OA has a better screening process for their candidates then the Catholic Church has for their priests? That wasn't a shot a Catholics...I'm just making a point. These guys exist and there are more of them than we like to believe.

Excellent point slontwovvy. Or one might say, he cares so much about the safety of our Arm Forces that he's actually willing to listen to them (or in this case, observe whatever they wanted to show the President). Clinton's biggest concern was how he appeared to the public. His heart was dedicated to creating some sort of legacy for himself. If you had a son stationed in Korea, who would you want to be President? Bush takes our liberties seriously. He cares about the men and women in the military. Clinton just wants to take liberties with our daughters. I'd rather have a son stationed in Korea today, then a daughter in the White House four years ago.