Rooster7

Firstpusk, Merlyn, and LV, Either you guys don't get it, or you're playing dumb just to get a rise out of ScoutParent. She's not defending racists' theories. She's suggesting, and quite frankly I think she's very astute in her observation, that if you accept evolution, then you have to apply it to all creatures including human beings. Consequently, evolutionists must recognize that the theory supports such racists thoughts that one group of human beings is superior to others. Since she obviously does not support the theory of evolution, she can discard these ideas without compromising herself intellectually. On the other hand, I don't think you guys have defended your position very wellunless you think calling ScoutParent a racist is an intelligent rebuttal. And Firstpuck, you last statement - we are all brothers and we must work together regardless of our differences to make the world a better place. - not only qualifies as preaching to the choir, but appears to be quite condescending. If you haven't figured out where ScoutParent is coming from yet, then you haven't been reading her posts. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I understand the plight, concern, aggravation, frustration, etc., but... It is possible to like Scouting and not like singing. The two are not mutually exclusive.

It's not the ceremonies that bother me...Or at least not the ceremonies that OA folks intend to conduct. Here's where the danger is - if he asks, that I can tell him about it but he will have more fun if I don't. Okay, so say a boy, for the sake of excitement and fun, tells the OA Scouts and the adults involved that he doesn't want to know. Now, along comes a pedophile. In the middle of the night, he wakes up "Jimmy" and tells me "Yeah, as part of the Ordeal, you have to come with me and (you fill in the blank). This is exactly how these perverts acquire their victims, by deception. Then they rely on intimidation and embarrassment to keep the kid from talking about it. By encouraging this attitude (let's keep it secret for the sake of fun and excitement), OA is creating the perfect environment for your friendly neighborhood sicko. I think it's best (safer) if the boys know up front exactly what the ceremony entails. We shouldn't give the boys the option of not knowing. There's too much to risk. And BSA, of all organizations, should know better.

The OA has a rite of passage which the organization encourages Scouts to be keep secret (the Ordeal). They do this in the interest of keeping the ceremony exciting. While the purpose may be noble, it is contrary to BSA policy. No matter how harmless the ceremony, once we condone secrecy within Scouting (regardless of the purpose), it opens the door for predators to use it for their own purposes. Is this a national problem, or is it something that the individual chapters may be guilty of doing? BSA should put a stop to it before OA chapters find themselves in the headlines for reasons that make us all cringe.

Another reason I'm happy George W. is in charge...See the link below: http://www.ku.edu/~ibetext/korean-war-l/2002/03/msg00090.html

Christians who understand their faith would never claim Judaism to be a false religion. They would argue that the Jews failed to recognize the Messiah. This fact does not nullify the stories and teachings of the Old Testament or the New Testament. There is no paradox. Both testaments are true. In fact, Jews who come to realize that Christ is the Messiah do not call themselves Christians. They call themselves Messianic Jews.

Agreed. Hope no one took it too personally (including myself)...

The foundation of this drive is the Great Commission found in the NT. Needless to say, the Great Commission is both folly and arrogance, and is the theological hammer of narrow minded power mongers.....being able to leave others alone to follow their own path is beyound the comprehension of the majority of Christians. And so these tyrants meddle, burning the world around theirselves, and wondering why everything is going to hell.... You know, before I read this drivel, I thought you expressed yourself rather intelligently. However, this kind of non-sense portrays you as rather ignorant and hateful. The Great Commission is not an edict to force religion down anyone's throat. It's a command to Christians to spread the Word. No one is required to listen, much less believe it. If you prefer a nation that forces people to keep their opinions to themselves, there are plenty of alternatives all over the world. Follow your own path. By the way - Does hearing about someone else's path affect your ability to walk your own?

ASM7 Actually it was I who did not make himself clear. The first part of my post, the majority of it, was addressed to NJ. Only the last sentence was intended to be addressed to you. We obviously share the same viewpoint...

NO, I'm saying its okay if boys to want to spend time with other boys. It's okay for them to say how the troop should conduct campouts, because it's their program. As for women being excluded, let's understand that we are talking about a BOYS program for BOYS. And guess what, MEN use to be BOYS. Portraying this idea as some kind of prelude to instruct sexual discrimination is asinine.

Rooster, what does that comment mean? Are you suggesting some generalization about gay people as a group, based upon the bad behavior of these particular gay people? Since we are posting on a Scouting forum, it should come as no surprise to you and other posters, that I do find the behavior to be immoral. It's a little ironic that you would use the same forum as a soapbox to defend the behavior. Nevertheless, here goes - If so, let me ask you this: There are quite often newspaper stories about men raping women, or adult males being arrested for molesting under-age girls, or statistics about "heterosexual" rape generally. These unfortunate stories are much more plentiful than stories about gays taking over some park. Yes, these stories do exist. Alas, they happen quite often. However, if you're going to make comparisons, compare apples with apples. Rape and molestation is not a crime unique to heterosexuals. Per capita, homosexuals commit more than their share of these crimes. Having said this, read on for a better comparison. What would be your reaction if someone posted one of these stories, or all of these stories, and then said: "Is anyone that surprised?" Lets try the apples with apples comparison - I would be surprised if an entire park was taken over by adult heterosexual men and women having sex out in the open. I would be even more surprised, if upon refusing an invitation, bystanders were attacked. More likely, these men and women would flee in embarrassment. Also, I don't envision a large segment of the heterosexual community ignoring the protests of the community, and the threats of police, to return to the same park over and over again. So, YES, I would be very surprised if the facts were different and we were discussing heterosexual adults instead. But since we are discussing homosexuals, I'm not surprised. This Virginia state park story is reminiscent of many other similar stories that I have read in the past involving homosexuals. They worship their "orientation" and the rest of society be damned. In other words, do you as a heterosexual wish to be judged by the behavior of the worst-behaving members of our "orientation?" Because I sure don't. I want to be judged, if at all, by my own conduct, and I think the same thing should apply to gay people. Conduct? You mean like anal and oral intercourse. A very distasteful conduct, so much so, I hesitated to put them in print. But it's extremely problematic to defend my position and not do so, especially when someone is trying to ignore the fact that homosexuality is about conduct - offensive conduct. By definition, homosexuals practice conduct that is offensive. As for me judging folks, personally I don't know a single person who was arrested in that park. I only know about their conduct. It is the conduct that I am judging. I find it to be abhorrent. The fact that a large group of homosexuals have taken over a state park so they may do "as they please", does not surprise me. If I have leaped to the wrong conclusion about what your comment means, I am sure you will point that out. But please don't be shy about telling us what it really does mean. No, you're right on target. ASM7, I believe, we are in agreement. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

1) There is no BSA policy that says men have to be allowed on camp outs. No, but it would be counterintuitive for a program that wants to mentor boys so that they may become men of character. 2) (For Yaworski) - Leave no trace policy does not want you to pee on a tree either. The salts from your urine are very attractive to animals who will lick/chew the bark and damage the tree. Pee on a rock instead. Yaworski's point was a minor one. Regardless, just to the stir the pot and to let off a little steam (hey, those metaphors mix rather well), I think "leave no trace" is very over rated. Also, while it may be something BSA encourages, it isn't a bold type policy. I've seen just as many men as women "baby" their sons on a camp out. My personal policy (I'm a male Scouter) is that I do not attend my son's first few camp outs (including their first summer camp) because they need to get that experience without mom or dad. It is very difficult to be seen in the eyes of your son as SM/SA instead of mom or dad. I agree with the intent of this message, but I took a very different approach. I went on all the early trips as an ASM. I rarely approached my son on these trips unless there was good reason. In other words, he knew I was around, but rarely saw me. Consequently, he had a sense of security for those trips, but soon learned that my presences was not required. There are specific rules and policies that need to be adhered to if females are present. Parents who attend can be an asset or a problem regardless of their gender. We agree again. An interesting problem is when the youth do not want females (mothers) on camping trips. I think a good question to ask is why. I have noticed that the youth of today have taken modesty to the nth degree compared to when I was a youth (30 - 35 years ago). Is this because of our society's fascination with sex, sex crimes, etc. although it is less pervasive now than 30 years ago? Who knows? I am not aware of any reason that I would consider legitimate that the boys may have with respect to adult females on the trips. That said, I think the adult females need to adapt to the BSA environment, not have the boys adapt to the female presence. I don't see this adaptation so much as behavior modification as the use of latrines, cooking techniques, personal hygiene, etc. Okay, if the issue is a matter of modesty, then we agree again. However, if the issue is - the boys want it to be a males only cluband again, I emphasize if it's the BOYS IDEA, then I think its acceptable. This assumes, as I've stated previously, the CO is willing and has the resources (enough adult males). It's their troop, and as long as it's a matter of building bonds between males and not bashing women, I see it as being legitimate. I would be very wary of any organization for youth that did not allow observation by either or both parents. How can you exclude a single mother from observing what goes on with her 12 year old son on a camp out? You are asking her to put a lot of trust in adults she may not know very well at all. I hate to argue exceptions because they rarely become a reality. There are two single mothers in our entire troop (of 54) and neither one wants to camp. However, if it was different (they wanted to camp), I agree that the troop should make an exception. Make EXCEPTIONS for EXCEPTIONS, but don't create troop policy for exceptions. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20020930-83508349.htm Is anyone that surprised?

sctmom, Your point is valid. So, I may have misinterpreted Laura's intentions. My point was: Proponents of this policy are not necessarily Neanderthals who feel threatened by women. If Laura is in agreement, then I apologize. Otherwise, I guess I will have to accept it as her opinion and respond accordingly.

First, reference Bob Whites posts. Hes pretty good at quoting BSA references and probably has some examples better than I. Nevertheless, BSA allows charter organizations to use the program to promote their own values. So long as the CO does not violate BSA policy or the Scout Law, they are permitted to create policies that reflect their goals and objectives (which may or may not be a stated goal of BSA). For example, Mormons and other church sponsored groups sometimes will not permit camping on Sundays. Thats their policy, which reflects their values. Likewise, if a CO wants to establish a policy, which edicts only men can go camping with the boys, then thats their prerogative. This policy would not violate any BSA national policy. From the BSA FACT sheet on Chartering Organizations: Schools, community and religious organizations, with the help of the BSA, organize Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops, Varsity Scout teams, Venturer crews, and Learning for Life groups for children and youth. They manage these units and control the program of activities to support the goals and objectives of the chartered organizations. As for my diatribe, I am surprised you viewed it as such. I was merely defending my stance. Youre the one that characterized my position and others as this garbage being pumped into this debate. Likewise, in regard to LauraT7, I was just responding to her attacks. She was the one that characterized folks, as being macho acting Neanderthals who are threatened by women. Its pretty ironic that you would accuse me as being the one on the offensive. I hate to askBut Bob help me out here. What other BSA references support the view that the charter organization may write policies reflecting their values so long as they do not violate stated BSA policies and values?

ASM1, I want to publish our charter contract to dispell this garbage being pumped into this debate about a CO having a choice of who attends campouts. No offense, but I've seen your earlier statements and I don't think you have a leg to stand on. LauraT7, Part of the reason I got Jon into scouting was because of the opportunity for him to know good, strong male role models. (not neanderthals who talk only in sports lingo, act "macho" & are threatend by women on their turf - he gets enough of that crap from Dad) I really resent this line of reasoning. Especially when most folks are contending that this is an issue of the boys not wanting their moms hanging around on campouts. You're misrepresenting our position. As for men being "threatened by women on their turf", that's a cheap ploy. While you're at it, why don't you call me - homophobicthat's another nice label. It too avoids the crux of the argument and falsely portrays the other side.

ooops.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Yes, I attend BSA training without my son(s). However, I don't make a career out of it. Aside from the ocassional training session and some committee meetings, most events that I attend include my son(s) participation.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

"If that is what the boys want" - Actually, I was the one who posted that thought. And, I stand by it. No one is suggesting that we allow the boys to run-a-muck or to cater their every whim. Obviously, boys can make some pretty outlandish requests. However, I don't see anything immoral, unethical, or unlawful about this request. And, as I have heard many times over, this is a boy-run organization. If we're consistent, they should have a say in this. Perhaps the CO will disagreethat is their prerogative. Nevertheless, if the boys feel strongly about such an issue, they should have some input. As to this "how can a unit prohibit them from attending?" - It's simple. The Charter Organization, if it so chooses, can impose these restrictions. The troop is "owned" jointly by BSA and the CO. BSA gives the CO this freedom. Okay, I know we're into "dead horse beating" territory, so I'll try to back away. I'm just suggesting, while I personally enjoy the company of women on these trips, I see no harm in allowing the boys to impose their will in this matter. My only reservations would be - Does the troop have enough qualified adult male leaders? And of course, does the CO agree to such a restriction?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Acco40, The sooner my children learn that my life DOES NOT revolve around them, the better. To say that I will not commit to an event if my son is not in it is ludicrous. Rooster, you obviously do not have more than one child. As a volunteer leader, I volunteered to LEAD, not cater to my child's whims. Actually, I have four children. I don't think you read my post carefully. I think we are in agreement. What I said was - If I commit to a particular event, it's because my child wants to commit to that event as well. I did NOT say that I commit to every event that my child does. No one has that much energy. However, I do not commit to youth organization events that do not involve at least one of my children. As for being a volunteer leader - yes, I'm there for all of the children, but my primary reason for being there is the fact that my child is involved. If my child were not there, I wouldn't be there. As for not allowing a son to go unless dad goes, I say it depends. I have three boys. Each is different from the other. As a result, I don't believe one size fits all. Each child needs to be treated in accordance to the behavior he demonstrates.

However, for whatever reason of personal history or intellectual baggage, they cannot simply take it on faith (it, the given word) and given ample evidence of human suffering in modern times, and of evil and abuses even among members of the clergy, it is easier for them to believe otherwise. I'm always amazed when someone cites examples of evil as evidence that God cannot exist. It's these very examples of evil that makes a compelling argument for God's existence. For if we recognize evil, we must recognize good. If good does not exist, then evil cannot exist. They are opposite ends of the same spectrum. What is good and evil? These are not concepts of the physical world. These are spiritual concepts. What is in us that makes us think in these terms? Why do we care about what is good or evil? We care because God is speaking to us.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Since there are mini-marshmallows, I would say someone must have created a Stay Puff Marshmallow Woman. Simple logic.

Imagine a "science" that explained rainbows as the acts of leprechauns, and its proponents said you can't examine their theory "objectively" until you recognize the existence of leprechauns. Well, yes - there is some truth to that statement. If scientists disregard the possibly of leprechauns without any analysis, then any theory involving leprechauns will be discarded without thought as well. My point was and is - I'm confident that most proponents of evolution in the scientific community do not give much thought to the existence of God. And many that do, summarily dismiss the possibility of His existence. You're just assuming your conclusions again. You're assuming emotions that aren't the result of a magical spiritual world are meaningless, but you give no indication why, nor do you explain how the existence of a spiritual world makes emotions meaningful. It's just a list of assertions based on what you want reality to be like. As I noted in my first post, emotions are derived from spiritual inspiration (good and bad). Can I prove it? Yes, but not by scientific method. Science deals with the physical world. It's impossible to use its methods to prove truths about the spiritual world. The proof I offer is what God has put in every human heart. Perhaps you have denied it for so long, you no longer recognize simple truths. Now, I realize that you feel no sense of obligation to respond to my assertions, but please try to indulge me. How does an atheist explain emotions? If it is as I have already explained (simple chemical reactions), why not just say so? Perhaps you recognize how silly it is to demean emotions as such, and to reduce the human race to the status of biological machines. Maybe you don't. I don't know. So how does an atheist explain emotions in a godless and spiritually void world? And the very line of your argument indicates that you are making an emotional argument, not a logical argument; you're trying to argue for the existence of a god because you don't like the implications if you're wrong. If an astronomer calculated that an asteroid was about to hit the earth, you can't argue against his conclusions based on the fact that you don't like the consequences. My argument is not emotional. It's spiritual. You say you feel no need to make counterarguments to the "assertions" that I have made. It seems to me that is the mantra of someone who recognizes that his arguments are weak. You assert - that my "philosophy" is without logic and is based on my distaste for a godless universe. Well, I will admit that I have distaste for a godless universe. However, I submit that it is you that won't examine the evidence. Furthermore, it appears to me that - you're trying to argue for the non-existence of a god because you don't like the implications if you're wrong.

I reiterate: If Scouting is supposed to be for the boys, and this is what the boys' want (no moms on campouts), why would it be wrong for a CO to create such a policy? I'm just curious to see if folks are going to remain consistent. Personally, I don't have a problem with moms on campouts (so long as they refrain from "mothering" their sons or other boys). However, I think if the boys wanted this policy, the troop leadership would have to consider it.

There's something strange going on around here! BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!!! (Sorry - wrong movie)