Rooster7

You want "Guy Time" spend some time taking your son to a football game, or baseball game. You make the time and decision to spend some quality time with only your son. If your in a group like scouts, live the policies, don't bend them to fit. ASM1, 1) Some of us can't afford to take their kids to a professional (or even college) football or baseball game. 2) Spending time with your son in Scouts, seems like a reasonable way to find some "guy time" with your son. 3) There's a difference between "father and son time" and "guy time". The first is one on one and more intimate. The second is a group thing and more about male camaraderie. 4) There's no BSA policy that states that women have to be on campouts. 5) You're addressing someone (Youngblood) that IS a son (not a dad) and he's only one year removed from the program. 6) His thoughts (which you described as not being with the 21st century) are those of a 19 year-old and happen to reflect the way most boys feel in his old troop. 7) If Youngblood has a son that he wants to spend quality time with, then I'm in for a big surpriseI'd be a grandfather! 8) It appears that he wouldn't mind women being excluded from campouts if there was enough qualified male leadership. However, his old troop allows women on campouts and they are treated as equals (as they are of course) at all troop functions. 9) His only point was - often the boys do not want women to be on campouts because it creates a different environment. Whether or not the women are to blame, is not the point. The boys just like the idea of being "with the guys" and exuding some testosterone. 10) My guess is, most boys in most troops feel this way. If it's not commonly known, I'm willing to bet it's because - one, the adult leadership never asked, or two - if they did ask, the boys were intimidated and refrained from answering honestly. If Scouting is suppose to be for the boys, and this is what the boys' want, why would it be wrong for a CO to create such a policy?

Now, here's where I'm ignorant - Creationists, what predictions have been made or tested? I find I'm not really aware of any modern day tests and regardless of how 'hypothesis' and 'theory' have been butchered in this thread, I am sure there are enough scientists out there who have wanted to find just such proof as experimentation might provide...? Littlebillie, The following may not apply to youI was just inspired by your thoughts. Please don't assume that I am addressing you personally. Before one can address the theory of creationism, one needs to come to grips with the "God theory". That is to say, before scientists and anyone else can examine creationism objectively, they need to recognize the existence of God. Let's face it - How can someone believe an object was created, if they do not believe in the creator of that object? So please back up one step in this discussion, and let's examine another theory or hypothesis - God exists. Or, so I may illustrate my points better, let's try the inverse - God does not exists. If you believe that God does not exist, then you need to recognize and admit these truths: Emotions are meaningless. Love, hate, envy, joy, peace, etc. are all emotions that occur because of a chemical reaction in the brain. Emotions are not derived spiritually because the spiritual world does not exist. All motives and actions taken by human beings are self-serving because there are no spiritual bonds, which holds us together. If for some reason we act for the benefit of another, it's merely because a chemical reaction occurred in our brain, which prompted the response. If something "good" or "bad" occurred as a result of this chemical reaction, it is merely the result of our physical composition and completely uninspired. Human beings (and all other animals for that matter) are nothing more than biological machines. We have no capability of "growing" and become anything other than what the physical composition of our their bodies will allow. The human soul does not exist. This is a spiritual concept, which represents the essence of who we are, beyond our physical bodies. If God does not exist, the spiritual world does not exist. The human soul serves no purpose. It's a useless idea. Good and evil does not exist. No one should even recognize them as valid concepts. How we feel about issues and the behavior of others is simply irrelevant. If God does not exist, everyone's behavior is appropriate. We are simply executing our "program". People are not responding to spiritual things, they responding to the promptings of chemical reactions. If we foolishly accept the concepts of "good" and "evil", what individual or group is qualified to define them? Even the idea of plurality is a moralistic concept. So, the basis for morality (as TJ and others might have it) is open to change. A plurality could simply decide that the minority is now the source of all moral standards. There is no purpose in life. We live. We die. All our efforts are temporal. From one generation to the next, we simply exist for a short period, and then we don't. If we believe that we are building a better life for our children, it's merely because our program tells us that is so. Motivations such as love, is a faade, an illusion. Our motivation, if any, would be to satisfy the chemical promptings in our brain. The world is simply the result of random interactions between objects and animate-beings and other objects and animate-beings. If you believe that God exists. Emotions ARE the result of spiritual motivation. The human soul yearns for God. He enables us to grow spiritually. Good and evil exist. Life goes on beyond the physical world. Our efforts as mortal beings have meaning because what we do on earth matters. We will live on to see the fruits of our labors and to worship the God who loves us. I see these truths as being self-evident and undeniable. If you do not, then I truly pity your soul. You must be spiritually dead. Yet, this is my perspective. If you truly believe God does not exist, then my lamentations are just the ravings of a madmanor more appropriate, the random and uninspired mutterings of a fellow biological unit that's simply responding to a stimuli per the dictates of his physical makeup. There's nothing personal here. If you do take it personally, it begs the question - Why? Now for the second theory or hypothesis - God created the world and all of its inhabitants. What supports this claim? If you accept the existence of God, it's not difficult to see his hand in the creation of all things. In fact, even if you don't accept his existence, there is clear evidence that all living beings were created and have very unique and sophisticated designs. Obviously, this statement does not ring true for some of the posters on this forum. That being the case, and since I am not an expert in biology, I won't attempt to prove it. Let's try this angle. Do you have soul? Is there more to you than a bunch of chemically produced emotional responses? If so, who put that in you? Did evolution produce your soul? Evolution? What purpose would it serve God to use evolution? If we ignore or choose to believe some other interpretations of these so-called scientific proofs (i.e., carbon dating, fossil records, etc.), the theory of evolution falls apart and a huge void is left behind. One could argue, and no doubt some will, that this proves that evolution must be true. To me, it only proves that man is desperate to find an explanation for his existence that excludes God. The scientific community makes a living by shattering old theories and/or the beliefs of others. They are constantly speculating, creating new theories, and writing papers to support their claims. Yet years later, these same theories and very often the means to derive them, are revisited, revised, and/or brought back into question. I'm not willing to ignore creationism because some of today's scientists and their current methods indicate that it's not so. These scientists and their supporters scream and yell that we (creationists) are ignoring reality. However, when their theories are disproved, they do not blush. They move on to another explanation that excludes God and/or justifies their previous position. Yes - the scientific process is never ending. They will continue to revisit and revise their theories until they come face to face with their creator. How ironic? Believe it or not, despite these thoughts, I do believe in the scientific method - but I also believe in God and common sense. All gifts which he gave us.

We be different, men and women. It's refreshing that the posters on this board recognize that there are differences. That's not true everywhere you may go in this country. As the French say, "viva la difference!" I particularly like the posters who note that while we are different, each gender brings something to the table. AMEN to that. Yaworski is Mr. MOMWho would of thunk it?! It's a little funny when you consider his hardcore attitudes on some of these issues (not that I necessarily disagree). It just doesn't seem consistent with a guy who stays home and changes diapers. No insult intended...

Yes, murder is murder. But when it's because of your color or the way your mama raised you, when it's 'nothing personal', then it's basically the same thing as genocide on the installment plan. Okay, I understand a couple of your points and disagree with a couple of others. Using murder as the example, hate crimes do demonstrate cold-bloodedness. However, so do lots of other crimes. There is a case going on right now that deals with the execution of four white friends. There would have been a fifth, but she managed to live through it. Two young black men (in their twenties) killed these folks. They marched them out to the middle of a field, one at a time, and shot them in the head. The girls were also raped. These murders are not being treated as a hate crime. Why? Apparently, robbery and rape is being claimed as the killers' motivation. But let me ask you some questions - Do you think you could shoot someone in the head, point blank, without hating them? Even if race was not a factor, do you think this crime was any less heartless? Do you think the families of these kids (also in their twenties) hurt any more or less knowing that the killers were racists? Would this crime be any less cold-blooded if these men were white? Do whites in society have less to fear when they hear about crimes such as these? As for your "genocide on the installment plan", you seem to be implying that if there isn't a special penalty for hate motivated crimes, that they will go on unabated. There seems to be an inference that genocide is inevitable unless there are harsher penalties for these racist killers. I say hogwash. Take the case in Texas, for which minorities and liberals "looking for a cause" criticized Bush. These men were sentenced to death. If we simply enforce the laws we have, and get rid of bleeding heart judges, the current system works. If the argument is, "we want to make sure there will always be an appropriate penalty - therefore, let's raise the stakes." Then I say fine, but let's do it for all violent crimes. That way, we can both go sleep at night knowing that if someone harms one of our loved ones, an appropriate punishment will be dealt out. Our society claims that it wants to be color-blind and to ensure justice for all. Yet, we keep creating laws that focus on color and assume justice will be served. I don't mind seeing a bigot fry for a merciless murder. But I don't want to see a brutal murderer and rapist go free after 20 years, because it was assumed that race had nothing to do with it. If that's my daughter, I don't give a damn what the liberal intellectuals and lawmakers have to say about race. I want justice for my daughter, my family, and all of society. That should translate into the electric chair. As to your comment that MAYBE one is able to defuse a situation that is not race related - okay MAYBE he/she can. BUT MAYBE he/she can't. The point is, each case should be treated separately, and the heinousness of each case should also be view separately. As for your comment that every hate crime is completely cold-blooded, even that can be argued. If a bigot and another driver gets into a traffic accident, which escalates into name-calling, which escalates into assault - who can say what played the biggest part in the crime - racism or flaring tempers from the accident or the heat of the day? Yet, jurists are going to be asked to make a decision about a person's heart with little to go on. Potentially they will sentence someone to jail for a number of years based on that finding. For all they know, prior to the accident, the bigot had a change of heart and wasn't acting out on his prior prejudices. There's too much mind reading going on in these cases. Look at the facts. If the crime was heartless and cruel, the punishment should be all that more severe. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

And, of course, I disagree with your blanket assertion that the government has the power to promote a belief in god; of course, if it does, it equally has the power to *discourage* a belief in god, and if the powers-that-be decide that god belief is something to be discouraged, you won't have a leg to stand on. After all, official government statements saying that "gods are myths" aren't telling you what religion to follow, either. Constitutional in your view, right? First, if our official government did proclaim all "gods are myths", it would be completely opposed to the beliefs and character of the founding fathers and their writings about government. Second, if such statements were made shortly after 1776, they probably would have inspired a second revolution (but this one against the newly established U.S. Government). I agree that it would be Constitutional. Such declarations ("gods are myths") would not constitute the "establishment of a state religion" and/or hinder the public from freely exercising their religious beliefs. However, the said declaration would be contrary to the will of the people and counter productive to the state. It would encourage animosity against the federal government and promote rebellion amongst the people. The compelling interest of the federal government IS to recognize that God exists.

Zorn, I have not read all of your posts, so I am a little hesitant to throw my name in a hat with yours. If this hesitation is unwarranted, then I offer my apologies (I simply don't know that much about your beliefs). Having said this, I agree with your last post. There is definitely a huge double standard in our society. Anyone who fails to see it needs to ask himself why. Majorities don't create racism. Attitudes create racism. Despite the rantings of some in the media, it is possible to be a minority and be a racist. The thing that kills me - are the hate crimes laws. Frankly, while someone's motivation might be dumber than the next person's, murder is murder - rape is rape - a beating is a beating. All victims suffer the same. All victims bleed. And the family and friends of the victim suffer the same agony. It's stupid, and insulting to all victims, to insinuate that a crime is more heinous simply because a bigot was the perpetrator.

But the word god was added to encourage theism (see Eisenhower's remarks when he signed the legislation), which is NOT a compelling state interest, and is in fact something that the state is prohibited from doing. NO, that's simply not true. The state can promote the belief in the existence of God. What they can't do is tell us which god to believe in, and/or require us to worship God in a particular way. Furthermore, based on the morality of our generation, I would say the state does have a compelling interest.

Sctmom, I agree. As a generalization (oh no, now that's probably going to get me in trouble), I feel women tend to be too soft on the boys. Some men can be too harsh. There needs to be a balance. For some situations, it wouldn't hurt us (men) if we showed some more compassion. On the other hand, I think men understand that there are situations where we should be encouraging the boy(s) to toughen up. At the risk of being labeled a male chauvinist, I honestly believe that women do not understand the trials that most boys endure. They sympathize. They might realize that a boy is undergoing some sort of trial, but I don't think they usual understand all of the ramifications that are related to the male gender.

I don't allow the dilemma to happen. Before I commit to an event, I ask my child if he wants to participate. Once my child commits, then I commit. Once I commit, then I won't allow my child to back out. If I'm not involved, and the change of plans does not hurt the organization sponsoring the event, I might allow my child to change his mind.

I believe it's possible that God used evolution to create the inhabitants of this world. However, I don't believe it's likely. More importantly, I know it wasn't necessary. God's power is not limited. He knows each one of us intimately. Creating the world and its creatures in seven days or even in one second would be a small feat in comparison.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Ditto to k9gold-scout and others. Also, I don't commit to events that don't involve my kids directly. I don't have the time.

sst3rd, For crying out loud, does everything on this forum have to be broken down to the lowest possible interpretation????!!!! I don't understand what you're talking about. Your "one reservation" stinks!! A little harsh, wouldn't you say? Does everything have to be twisted into something sexual????!!!! WOWI really don't know where you are going with that statement, but I would hardly classify my thoughts on this subject as being "sexual". I simply made an observation about how men should be more qualified to handle boys and their problems. For some folks, I may be stating the obvious, but I didn't want that particular point to be lost. Obviously so !!!! We're ALL mentors to our Scouts. Yes, we adult male leaders used to be boys. But that was long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far, away. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks." Lighten up buddy. Try decaf. P.S. I'm not sure how old you are, but my galaxy doesn't appear to be quite as far away.

Rooster, you sound more like the Mother Hen than the Rooster. Maybe. However, in my defense and for some others, perhaps a lot of this debate is related to where one lives. If you live in the D.C. area and picked up the Post or the Times over the last couple of days, you would have read about how police arrested over 50 men for having sex in a Virginia state park. Apparently, the local homosexual community likes to express themselves alfresco, unhindered, and among nature's creatures. There's enough garbage happening in today's society that I don't blame anyone for being over-protective. As for the Scouts being independent, I don't believe you have to experience everything in life to claim that you are prepared. Regardless, I will concede that I probably need to loosen up. As for patrol and troop outings being treated differently by BSA, I don't really understand the logic. Frankly, everything that could go wrong on a troop outing can go wrong on a patrol outing. There are no special or unique circumstances surrounding a patrol that provides it extra protection. If they elect to do an overnight campout, predators could seek them out. The policy is inconsistent. Also, to my knowledge, there is no BSA policy that says an adult cannot come along on a patrol outing. When this is the case, does BSA policy state that two adults must be there? I hope so.

I agree, we can go too far in our pursuit to keep them safe. Alas, as I noted in the other thread, I have my "mother's blood". So, I tend to err on the side of being too protective. No matter, your point is valid. The element of adventure can be ruined if an adult is always lurking nearby to jump in and "save the day". As an aside, I think the BSA policy is looser for Patrol outings - two deep adult leadership is not required for day trips. I wonder why that is??? Someone correct me if I'm wrong --- I'm sure Bob White can and will provide some information on that one.

Speaking of words meaning different things to different people... Bob White, You said - "When he came up for advancement I signed his scout spirit because he displayed the scouting characteristic however I did not sign his leadership requirement because he did not do his job and he knew it." I thought that you stated in previous threads that a Scout met the requirement for his leadership position so long as he remained in the said position for six months. Or, in other words, a SM could not refuse to sign off on a leadership position, unless the Scout was removed from the position prior to the six-month requirement. Did I miss something? Did you say something other than what I am stating here? Has something changed?

From what I've seen, there are very few troops that actually depend on the adults for "daily operations". At least, I hope that's true. Most adults are there - as a resource (if the boy leaders should need some advice), and "just in case" there is a desperate situation (i.e., a medical emergency). Regardless, as an extra measure of safety, why wouldn't you want an adult there? My only point is this - Having adult supervision around doesn't mean a troop is less capable. If it does, then the said adults are stepping outside of their boundaries.

Yes, but why must we assume that these two issues are one in the same. Doesn't BSA require two deep leadership for troop functions? If a troop takes the precaution of having adult leadership (even when it's not mandatory), does that mean the boys are being hindered? Does it mean that the boys are not equiped "to organize a campout, plan and cook the meals, set and break camp, and handle emergencies by themselves?" For the most part, the boys should be doing all of these things - even if the adults are there watching.

yaworski may be right. I do have my "mother's blood" in me. I'd be the first to admit, by most people's standards, I'm an over-protective parent. Still, I have been on a few bike rides (20 to 35 mile range). Bob White is right. There are usually multiple levels of skill and maturity involved. Also, not every Eagle Scout will be responsible or smart enough to ensure no boy is left behind. Perhaps they should be, but I've met a few that were not.

I think leaders with too much of "an understanding eye" are part of the problem. We are in affect saying, "You're right. There's reason to be embarrassed". Very often, taking a stand means others will ridicule you. I wonder how the founders of Scouting would deal with this issue. Would they understand? Or would they ask the boys to think about what they (as well as Scouting and it's uniform) stand for - and ask the boys to make a stand? I don't know for sure. I do know this - If the uniform embarrasses many of the older boys, and the troop sympathizes too much, you're going to have a lot more of the same down the road. Perhaps this is unrealistic, but I would love to see some older boys with backbone (as kruggiano displayed). We need to encourage that kind of bravery and pride. This seems like an opportunity for a SM to teach something of value to the boys.

Quixote, I understand your point, but... I think, from a safety standpoint, you should have two adults ride with them. Can the boys be trusted to stay together as a group and/or keep track of one another? What if (God forbid), there was an accident? Could these boys administer the proper first aid? If need be, could they ride fast enough to get help? Are we sure these boys would not panic? What if a stranger approached these boys? There are so many things that could happen. While I realize that one of the objectives of Scouting is to prepare these boys for situations such as these, I think we (adults) should still be there for them. I would not risk it. Having said this, I don't think you've committed a crime for pondering such an idea out loud. Personally, I would ride with the boys. At a minimum, if two adults were not going to ride with the boys - as a parent, I'd want to know.

Just as was stated, some Scouts prefer to talk to a receptive woman leader about subjects they need to talk about, but would feel less comfortable talking to a male leader. I can empathize with this to some degree. If my son was feeling sick or was having some sort of an emotional problem, I can see the advantage of having a woman in camp that might act as a surrogate mother. This idea gives me comfort as a parent. I want to know that my child is being cared for, and treated compassionately. However, I do have one reservation. Let's turn this statement around and reverse the genders. Suppose we were discussing men in Girl Scouts - some Scouts prefer to talk to a receptive man leader about subjects they need to talk about, but would feel less comfortable talking to a female leader. This statement seems a little odd, does it not? Wouldn't a female leader be more appropriate for this discussion? Who knows more about little girls? A woman should understand a girl's fears and desires. I'm pretty convinced that a woman leader would be best qualified to deal with the situation. Likewise, I feel this would be true in the Boy Scout scenario. Yes, a woman tends to be a little more sympathetic. However, we are trying to mentor young men. Perhaps, sympathy (whatever that might translate into - in terms of an adult response) is not what the boy actually needs. I'm not saying a woman would not deal with it properly. What I am saying is, a good male leader is more apt to identify the fear or concern properly and know what the boy needs. If that sounds bigoted - I suppose I am guilt. I honestly believe that a man understands boys better than women. In some respect, we are experts - after all, we use to be boys.

First, just for the record, I hate the term homophobic. Gays and their liberal supporters created this term to portray their opposition as fearful bigots as opposed to religiously principled people. So, if you want to continue an intelligent discourse, refrain from labels and try logic. As to BSA being a business, please demonstrate to me who is making a financial profit. Aside from those folks that earn salaries (which is perfectly acceptable for a non-profit organization), who else is making money?

Between this thread, another with the subject heading "earrings", and several others on homosexuality, there must be well over 500 posts. I'm tempted, just out of morbid curiosity, to see what kind of reaction the following thread would draw - Homosexuals and Atheists create their own "scouting" organization - Earrings are part of the uniform (left or right ear depending on "orientation") and Pledge is optional. Of course, that's probably a little long for a thread title.

Once individuals start to form a group, their rights don't just pool together to suddenly be worth more collectively than they were independently Sure they do. It's called democracy in action. This how representatives are elected, referendums are passed, and how elected officials create laws - by majority vote. The concept that "people" and "communities" and "groups" and "minorities" and "majorities" have rights is still the biggest stumbling block in this debate, for some. As has been correctly pointed out already, only individuals are granted rights (either through the Bill of Rights, natural law, human rights or the hand of God). Have you read the Bill of Rights? There are references to the people this document. Try as you will to redefine the word, but Websters recognizes this as a plural. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Contrary to your opinion concerning "only individuals are granted rights", the Bill of Rights clearly provides the people with rights. It does not identify the individual as being an entity separate and above a group.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

the minorities would successfully argue that the local government was endorsing that faith. No doubt some would argue. And in many if not most cases, they may be successful. However, I maintain that the government would not be endorsing a faith by making such a purchase. They would be serving the will of the community, which they were elected to do. The endorsement would be the community's, not the government's. Their argument would be that the majority, by virtue of larger population size, simply rolled over all the minority faiths. The phrasing of this statement infers that the goal of the majority is to do harm to the minority. First, that is not the goal. Secondly, I don't see the harm that you are implying in this statement ("rolled over all the minority faiths"). It's an unfair portrayal of the process. Majority Rulethis is exactly how it is suppose to work in democracies and representative republics. The Constitution guarantees individual rights. These rights would still be intact. The government would not be making an endorsement. The endorsement would be that of the collective community. All minorities would be free to worship as they pleased. Their religious freedoms would not be violated. "Individual rights" does not mean that minority populations have an equal voice to that of the majority. That violates the principles of every democracy. It simply means each individual is guaranteed a certain right or rights regardless of the will of the majority. And as I have previously stated, those rights would still be intact.