Rooster7

sctmom, First, thanks for hearing and understanding my point of view. Second, thanks for the kind words. You do seem to understand what I am saying, with one small exception. I wouldn't use the occasion of a prayer to teach anyone about my faith, unless specifically asked to do so. I think, with the possible exception of my references to God, the prayer would be self-explanatory and compatible with people's expectations. For example, if I was asked to say a prayer for the troop traveling on an outing, I might say: Heavenly Father, please protect our boys and the adults accompanying them as they travel to camp. We seek your mercy and love. In Christ's name, I pray. Amen. I do not have a problem with generic prayers offered by others if that is what they choose to do. I'm simply saying it should not be mandatory. For NJ's approval, I agree that any prayer officially adopted by a troop should consider the entire troop and not just a segment of its population, with exception to troops chartered by and for a particular faith.

If you are asked to perform such a function, you are not being asked to do it for your own benefit or as part of your own individual relationship with God, but for the benefit of the group. The needs of the group should therefore be taken into consideration. In such a situation, I would want everyone to feel included and comfortable. I think God would be happy with that. Perhaps there is a subtle point here that is being misunderstood. I'm not suggesting that a group prayer, said at a troop function, should be for the benefit of the individual. Of course, the prayer should be relating to the group. Yet, no one should say a prayer that contradicts one's personal beliefs. The listener is passive. He can accept or reject references to God or anything else his conscience tells me to do. The person saying the prayer is proactive. His words are his own, and they should be reflective of his personal faith. This is especially true when one is saying a prayer. Random House defines prayer as "a spiritual communion with God" I pray to God, not to a generic supreme being. When I offer such a prayer, people in my troop can rest assured that I am praying for all of them. It is inclusive. However, to suggest that because I feel compelled to recognize the God of my faith that I must bow out of public prayers is religious bigotry. You say, "Say a generic prayer for all or don't participate in this portion of the program." I say, "Say a prayer for all, but pray to the God of your faith." It is presumptuous to expect every Scout or Scouter to be able to pray to a generic god. Who is to say that this practice should be considered normal and acceptable? What do you know about my faith and everyone else? As I said, in my case, you might as well ask me to ignore my personal duty to God, which is against the Scout Oath. The God of my faith is a jealous God and he demands that I offer prayers to Him alone. So I say yespray for the benefit of the entire troop, but pray to God according to your own faith. If anyone objects, I would suggest that they read the Constitution. Perhaps more importantly, I suggest that they read the Scout Oath. BSA does not ask me to deny my faith; there should be no exception for public prayers. What I find most offensive about your statement is this - "you are not being asked to do itas part of your own individual relationship with God" In my faith, every prayer offered has to with one's individual relationship with God. No one in Scouting should ask anyone else in Scouting to say a prayer that ignores his relationship with God. Lastly, I find the comments of the politically correct to be amusing. Depending on the topic, the people involved, and the day, they often contradict themselves. For example, if we're talking about any other faith aside from Christianity, I hear the PC crowd say: "I want my child to be exposed to as many faiths and cultures as possible." "We should not suppress the faiths of others." "Let people be free to practice their faith as they see fit." I agree with the above statements. However, when the conversation is turned around and the religion of Christianity is being discussed (especially as practiced by conservatives and evangelicals), the same PC crowd says: "You have to be inclusive." "Public expressions of your faith will suppress the faiths of others." "If you want to live your faith, go to your church." "Freedom of Religion" and tolerance is for ALL. Religious freedom and tolerance is not localized to specific buildings of worship. It is not a "safe zone" found within the property lines of your church. It's supposed to be a public right. BSA recognizes and respects this right; Scouts and Scouters should too.

Acco40, We are not arguing about your "rights", but more of consideration for others. For whatever reasons, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (Herbert Walker) and Clinton did not publicly invoke Jesus' name when reciting prayer, benedictions, etc. Bush (Dubya) did (does). Some have complained. Is he violating any ones rights? No. Does he have a responsibility to try to be inclusive (sometimes he represents the position or office of the President and not himself) and not use denominational references? Some, including myself, believe he does. I don't think he's being exclusive when he says Jesus' name. He's simply living his faith. He didn't give that up when he became President. As for those that feel excluded, I think they need to tend to their own faith. Election to public office does require one to subscribe to Universalism. Nor should it be expected. Mr. Bush's prayers should come from his heart and be guided by his own personal duty to God. Public policy should be guided by his duty to the office of the Presidency. When you wear the Scout uniform, remember that sometimes your represent Scouting, not Mr. Rooster, and Scouting does not recognize Christianity, Hinduism or any other religion as the one true way. I don't stop being Mr. Rooster either. Furthermore, I see the inverse of your statement. Scouting recognizes all major faiths, including Christianity, Hinduism, etc. Yes, I see Christ as the one and only way. Yet, BSA doesn't punish me for my beliefs. If/When I close a prayer in Jesus name, I'm not lecturing anyone on theology. I'm simply recognizing my Lord and Savior. Which by the way, per my faith, is part of fulfilling my duty to God. To a large extent, and regardless of what you may believe, if I don't close my prayer in His name, I am contradicting the Boy Scout Oath. Your comment that prayer is not evangelizing (is that a word?, maybe prayer is not evangelical in nature) and that folks who are offended by someone else's prayer simply because that person mentioned God by name, have a very weak faith indeed is a rather crass comment. I don't think it was crass, but I do think it's true. If we (as Scouters) are raising our children to have a strong faith, they should be able to survive the closing acknowledgment of a prayer. Furthermore, if tolerance is not merely a battle cry for the politically correct, then our children will understand why others (adults and other children) need to acknowledge the God of their faith. If not, then maybe we need to teach more tolerance. I've heard many Christians say they are offended by rap & rock lyrics. Is that because their faith is weak? Okayso now you're comparing the filth in various rap songs (including lyrics that glorify rape and other acts of violence) to someone saying a prayer and acknowledge God by name. You want me to explain the difference? Hmmm. I'm stunned. I just don't know what to say to such a comparison. Let's try thisI am tolerant of being exposed to religions different from my own because - I understand the desires by people to recognize, honor, and love God, even if I may disagree with their beliefs. I expect the same understanding from others. I am not tolerant of offensive rap music because - I do not respect people who, among other things, celebrate the rape of women and violence against police officers. Nor do I understand the desire to spew profanity across the public airways. Do you see this subtle difference? . By the way, when you feel prompted to say "In your Son's name, the Lord Jesus Christ" how do you know the Holy Spirit did the prompting? Well, I guess you're not of my faith, so you wouldn't understand. How can I explain being born again and being guided by the Holy Spirit? I don't think it is possible. It is a spiritual experience that cannot be adequate described with mere words. Nevertheless, there is at least one test that can be done. That is to take the "prompting" and test it against the scriptures. Trust me, there is plenty of scripture that instructs Christians to acknowledge God before men. Were you prompted by the Holy ghost 20 years ago? Not sure what this question means. What happen 20 years ago? And why do you feel the need to SAY anything verbally? God has very good listening powers. You do not need to petition the Lord with VERBAL prayer. No, there is nothing that says a prayer has to be verbalized. On the other hand, if I'm asked to say a prayer, such as a prayer for protection as the troop travels, I will pray as God directs me. Just to acknowledge rlculver415yes, this thread has wandered off track. However, I'm not sure a thread entitled - "Call to Ban Morman married fathers", ever had a clear topic of discussion. For the record, I'm against the ban.

You should try working for NASA. They'll bury an acronym inside another acronym that's buried inside yet another acronym. Like PRS, which stands for the PORTS Replacement System, PORTS being the POCC Operational Requirements and Test System, POCC being the Payload Operations Control Center. It takes about six months just to come up to speed so one can understand what is being said in a meeting.

Each of my three sons, at the age of eight, was capable of the same reasoning that I displayed in my previous posts. That being said, my children would have survived the "Hindu led" Day Camp with their faith in tact. If your eight-year-old could not, then I suggest the problem lies in your faith, or the practice there of, and not with the principle of religious freedom.

Littlebillie, 'If I feel prompted by the Holy Spirit to say, "In your Son's name, the Lord Jesus Christ", and I say the "Great Chief of all Scouts" instead, I have offended my Lord and Savior.' well, that seems to suggest a) that yours would have to be the one single true faith, and that b) God as you know Him has no patience for religious tolerance, or even courtesy to other faiths..? In regard to "a", I believe that when I evoke Jesus' name, I am not preventing anyone from praying to the god of their choice. I have not hindered anyone's ability, including the 11-year-old Hindu from inserting the name of the god of his choice in that particular prayer. To my knowledge, I, nor any other Christian, has any secret powers of mind control. If you mean, that my personal conviction to evoke God's name implies that I believe there is only one God, then your assumption is correct. In regard to "b", per my faith, that conclusion is also correct. God has no tolerance for faiths that do not recognize Him. It's called idolatry. Rooster7, how would you feel if a Hindu leader invoked one of the Hindu trinity at a group prayer? You would happily grin and bear it, with love and understanding? Would I be happy? Not particularly. Would I tolerant it as an expression of his faith? Yes. With "love?" Maybe. Depends on how well I know that person, and what I know of him. With "understanding?" Yesthe same understanding that allows me to express my faith. Would I evoke Jesus' name vice the Hindu trinity? Yes. Would I accept the parts of the prayer that were consistent with my faith? Yes. As I said, we have a Constitutional right to "Freedom of Religion"NOT "Freedom from Religion". This is a concept that many in our country have not quite grasped. Being a country that tolerates all faiths, does not mean eliminating all references to God. It means allowing all references to God.

TJ, If a boy is being brought up in a faith, I believe even an 8-year-old can understand the difference. If his parents are not providing him with a foundation, then I suppose the prayer may have some influence. Nevertheless, in Boy Scouts we are dealing with 11-year-olds and older, not 8-year-olds. Lastly, the boys themselves as opposed to the adult leaders offer the vast majority of these prayers. "Freedom of Religion", does not mean freedom from religion (or as someone else on this forum put it, freedom from being exposed to Christianity). "Freedom of Religion" means each individual is free to pursue his own faith (or no faith at all). That does not mean, nor should it ever mean, individuals or groups cannot ever publicly expose their religion to other people. We are supposed to be a free market place for ideas. This includes religion. Furthermore, when we join an organization in this country, our right to express these ideas or thoughts are not suspended by default. Should an organization, such as BSA, edict that its members are not permitted to recognize God by name in public prayer, I will have to deal with such a policy. Until then, I maintain my rights as a citizen of this county, and more importantly my calling as a disciple of Jesus, to recognize Him without restraint. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Prayer is NOT evangelizing. Folks who are offended by someone else's prayer, simply because that person mentioned God by name, have a very weak faith indeed.

What I believe is this... If I feel prompted by the Holy Spirit to say, "In your Son's name, the Lord Jesus Christ", and I say the "Great Chief of all Scouts" instead, I have offended my Lord and Savior. If the cost of being non-offensive to others is to offend God, then I am not willing to pay that price. My faith tells me to put God above all others. I don't even like the phrase "my God", because it implies a lack of faith in Him. God is not my God or your God, God is God. I'm not going to water down that fact so that others can find my faith to be more palatable. As I said in my previous post, everyone is free to pray to the god of their choosing. If I recognize Christ by name that does not mean others must do the same. If your faith does not prompt you to mention God by name, then I guess you cannot relate to what I'm saying. If your faith does prompt you to recognize God by name, then I think you should feel free to do so, regardless of when and where God prompts you to do so. Should I fear man (and his scorn) above God's?

So, why is it acceptable for Rooster and BSA to believe some religions are abhorrent, but not acceptable for acco40 to believe the same? It's not, 'cause Scouting is "absolutely non-sectarian". A couple of comments for clarification (since TJ has taken upon himself to illuminate my position) - While I don't completely reject TJ's statement, I don't believe he can quote me as saying that I find a specific religion to be "abhorrent". That may be overstating it a bit (or notdepends). Regardless, what I truly find abhorrent are the deviate sexual acts that two men willing pursue and engage in together (or two women). As for religions that condone, or at least fail to condemn such activities, I believe that they are for the most part, deceived. While BSA may claim to be "non-sectarian", they do not claim to be value neutral. BSA is certainly against murder and rape as well. So, why aren't folks claiming BSA to be a sectarian organization based on their positions against murder and rape? Regardless of why the founders and/or the current leadership believe homosexuality is wrong, it is their prerogative to determine the values of the organization. Just because TJ and others want to claim that their values were derived from the faiths of a select few, doesn't make it so. And even if his supposition is true, this fact does not make their stance wrong or immoral. As a private organization created and established in a free country, they have every right to define their own values. In summary, to answer TJ's question, it is acceptable for BSA to define homosexuality as abhorrent because it's their right to do so. As to why they choose to do so, it's simply a matter of them applying the values that they believe in. You can argue that they are religiously based, but your evidence to do so has no merit. As difficult as you may find this to believe, many folks can see the wrongness of homosexuality just as clearly as they see the wrongness of murder and rape. As for my stance on evoking God's name when saying a prayer (which, despite TJ's claim, I have not expressed in this thread), I believe every boy in BSA should be free to practice their own faith as they see fit so long as it does not infringe upon others. As for my personal faith and practice, I believe when I say a generic prayer I am offending God. I do not believe in a generic God. I believe in the God of Abraham. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. When I evoke His name, I do so for myself, not others. Others are free to recognize whomever they want. If they want to insert the name of someone else as they pray, they are free to do so. From the world's standpoint, my prayer does not have any more power than anyone else's. Of course, as a Christian, I would debate the use and power of praying to false gods. Nevertheless, this is my personal belief, which I am not imposing on others. So, yesI believe every Scout should be able to pray to whomever he wants, whether that be in private or in front of a group. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I agree with everything that's been said with one disclaimer. But first, I'd like to echo Bob's comment about the ex-SM's "poor etiquette." If nothing else is true, the ex-SM is guilty of using extremely poor judgment (by sending out that email). Worse yet, he may be intentionally trying to usurp you. Did he leave the position on his own terms? Is he trying to serve two roles (maybe CC and "SM")? Whatever the reason, his email response was wholly inappropriate. Now for my disclaimer...I am assuming that you are completely innocent (I have no reason to believe otherwise). That is to say, the committee has no reason to believe that you would allow a T-shirt design to be used that conflicts with the image (i.e., respectful, polite, etc.) they want the troop to project. For example, some folks in Scouting see no big need to project a wholesome image. They might approve of a T-shirt that sends the wrong the message. If the committee has just cause to believe that you would inspire and/or approve of such a T-shirt, I think they do have a right to demand pre-approval. On the other, if you have given them no reason to distrust you (and since you are the SM, that should be true), then I think "micro-managing" is the proper diagnosis. So, if my assumption is true, then I would politely inform the committee that if they value your service, they should show you more consideration...they should give you the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, if what you said were true and legal, then the Klan would have been banned out of existence years ago. This has not happened because it would violate the Constitution. People have a right to join whatever organization they so chose (as long as its chartered activities are legal)...freedom of association. The fact that the organization has fallen victim to pedophiles is moot. The organization does not endorse pedophilia. BSA is a victim, not a perpetrator.

My "nephew" (17-yr-old son of really close friends) never got to be part of scouting because of city of Branford, FL banned the program after a similar incident there. rlculver415, I'm certain that there is something missing from your statement. No city government has the authority to ban private citizens from joining a youth group such as BSA. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding. On appearances, you seem to be indicating that the Florida city outlawed BSA as an organization. Obviously this cannot be true. An organization cannot be found guilty by association. I whole-heartily agree with the rest of your post.

Mike, Thanks for the invite. Actually I haven't been directly involved with the high adventure stuff...maybe next year. Our Scoutmaster (an officer in the Coast Guard), along with one of the other ASMs, is leading the hike on the Wonderland trail with six boys. Our Committee Chair (and former Scoutmaster) is heading the Keys trip. I haven't had the energy or the funds to explore that kind of stuff yet. I will be heading off to Summer Camp with the boys (my ninth year in a row). Fortunately our troop does have plenty of adult help. We had to turn away several parents of the new Scouts. We have six parents coming to help with the new Scouts (two for each group of eight). They will be working their way through the "Brownsea" program (designed for first year Scouts). Another four adults are coming along to make sure the rest of the boys stay out of trouble (which usually entails us sitting around the cabin, cracking jokes and complaining about our jobs). Actually, with exception to the parents assisting the first year Scouts, summer camp is pretty easy duty. We have a "Medicine Man", a "Banker", and a few other small jobs, which gives us something to do, but for the most part we're just watching the boys have fun. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Where is Bob's post? What are the drawbacks? Currently, my sons' troop is approaching 60. We are not quite on the scale as OGE's troop, but we do share many of the same characteristics. We're pretty active (have at least one or two outings each month), have a large talent base of adults, and seem to be getting bigger every year (24 Scouts bridged up for 2002). This year our troop will be attending summer camp with some 40 boys. Four other boys are working as CITs at the same camp. This year we're supporting high adventure trips that include a two-week hiking trip around the basin of Mt. Rainer and a sailing base trip in the Florida Keyes. I am asking for the following reasons: 1) As it stands now, there doesn't appear to be any problems. We have a Scoutmasters Corps that includes over a dozen ASMs. It appears that we could support more kids if we wanted to do so. Our bank account has remained at a healthy level for years (hovering around 5K usually). 2) Our troop has discussed slowing down our growth, but we have some fears about that...What if we slow down, and then suffer some unexpected attrition? What if we can't start the growth up as easily as we shut it down? 3) If we climb above 60 and start approaching 90 (like OGE), what kind of problems can we expect? 4) Who officially makes a decision such as this - Committee? CC? COR?

acco40, With all due respect, the reference from the Scoutmasters Handbook in your second post is very different from your interpretation in your first post. First Post: If the boy in question asks you questions about his sexuality as the example so states the BSA policy is THAT YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO COUNCIL HIM! Second Post: If a Scout comes to you with questions of a sexual nature, answer them as honestly as you can and, whenever it is appropriate, encourage him to share his concerns with his parents or guardian, spiritual leader, or a medical expert. I hope you do see that there is a significant difference. While they may not directly contradict one another, one does not give birth to the other. The Scoutmasters Handbook gives much more latitude than what you originally implied in your first post. As for advancing personal agendasthat's a loaded statement. BSA is a character building organization. The Scoutmaster is supposed to reflect the values of BSA and the chartering organization. One can hardly call itself a character building organization without making some value judgments. Furthermore, the freedoms given to chartering organizations such as the LDS churches are not exceptions. Every chartering organization, so long as they do not directly oppose BSA policies, has the right and freedom to tailor a program that reflects and emphasizes their values.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

acco40, Your advice may be correct (per BSA) and even well intended, but it's not really addressing my question, which was - "I know what most Scouters would say. I know what the best answer is, legally. If that was my only concern, I could easily answer my own question. However, I'm more concerned about what God would say." Now, I am little curious about your reply. Could you point me to the BSA manual and the specific page which reflects your statement - if the boy in question asks you questions about his sexuality as the example so states the BSA policy is THAT YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO COUNCIL HIM! Your statement may well echo BSA policy, but I've never heard it stated this way before. It seems to be a little rigid since it does not take into account whether the parents have given their permission and/or the qualifications of that particular leader.

NJ, Okay...I'll give you that I did start one thread - Disturbing New from NY (forgot about it). As for my short-lived sabbatical in February, although it's embarrassing (because I couldn't stay away from the forum as I claimed I would), one can hardly count that as a homosexual thread. I merely mentioned it among others as an important issue worth fighting for. I'll even admit that the "brainwashing" comment might have been a little over-stated. As for the rest of your post, it's not worth the cyber paper it's printed on. You know...I have no idea if I'm doing "my cause" harm or not. I'd like to think you're wrong. Whatever the outcome, I honestly can say this - I believe what I am saying is right - intellectually and morally. If you feel the same, I guess we'll always agree to disagree. In the meantime, I intend speak the truth as I know it. If you think I'm being abrasive or un-Scout-like, I'll just have to live with it.

The "glacier theory" has some merit, but it's founded on a false premise. It presupposes that God is guiding the glacier to some ultimate destination. Furthermore, because God is guiding it, this theory assumes that the glacier knows right from wrong. This is contradictory to the bible. In reality, the glacier is simply a metaphor for humanity. God will not direct the glacier (i.e., humanity, mankind, "man") unless we seek Him to do so. God will allow us to drift in any direction we choose and suffer the resulting consequences. If we abandon God and his teachings, He will abandon us. He is our rudder. Without Him the glacier will not arrive at a "happy place". Man (collectively) is attempting to steer the glacier, but it is a futile endeavor. As man continues to ignore God (in worship and as the source of power and wisdom), the less influence God exercises and thus the glacier drifts more and more out-of-control. Mankind does not have the wisdom or power to direct its own course. We need God. There are others, who believe that mankind can successfully direct itself. I find this fascinating because it highlights the crucial differences between liberalism and conservatism. If you break down the differences carefully, you will discover this truism. Liberals tend to believe that man is inherently and essentially good. Conservatives tend to believe that man is inherently and essentially bad. As you might guess, liberals more than conservatives embrace the idea that society will eventually figure out "what is right and wrong?" Liberals trust big government, because they believe that mankind is noble. They believe, together, we will "make our way through the dark" and become one big happy world. Because man is "essentially good", liberals have faith in social welfare programs that give the recipients much more than the benefit of a doubt. They believe in second, third, and forth chances for violent felons. "Reformation, not punishment!" is their battle cry. They laud peace agreements, which are not closely monitored or backed by military might. They see no great need for a powerful military. They believe that we should trust the collective countries of this world (i.e., the U.N.) to make selfless, just, and high-minded decisions. They celebrate sexual perversity as diversity because "aside from one interpretation of God's word, whose to say its wrong?" They believe that a women's "right to choose" is more important than a "mass of tissue". For many, science is their religion. If a panel of judges removes God from our country's pledge, it will cause them no concern. They prefer a government without God. When the federal government takes control of an issue, they are pleased because they trust the outcome. And why shouldn't they? If one accepts the notion that man is basically good, these ideas are within the realm of reason. They honestly believe that humanity will overcome. Like a glacier with a collective mind and an invisible rudder, they're convinced that we will find that "happy place" and all will be right. If they had a song, it would probably be John Lennon's "Imagine". Conversely, because conservatives believe that man is "essentially bad", they believe social welfare needs to be closely controlled or it will simply encourage laziness. As a deterrent and a preventative measure, they want strict consequences (i.e., long jail terms or the death penalty) for violent criminals with no possibility of parole. "Victims Rights!" is their battle cry. They know, given the opportunity, America's enemies will inflict as much harm as possible. They want peace treaties that can be enforced. They believe in a powerful military and want it deployed to protect significant interests. They believe that humanity is not wise enough to take life without cause or to manufacture it as if it were some kind of commodity. They believe the dismemberment of a fetus is exactly what it sounds like, murder. They do not trust institutions such as the U.N. because they often become instruments of the greedy. They know all organizations have the potential for evil. Because man is corrupt, they take God's word seriously. They don't justify immorality because it serves their purposes. If God is removed from our country's pledge, they will be very disturbed because they know God will not be pleased. When the federal government takes control of an issue, it gives them reason for pause. They do not trust big government because it puts power in the hands of a very few men (who are prone to corruption). Of course, there are conservatives that do not believe in God...but for the better part, conservatism has its roots in biblical teachings. If they had a song, it would probably be "Amazing Grace". The original version of the glacier theory is flawed. To be sure, God will not guide this glacier unless we ask Him to do so. Without Him, our destination will not be pleasing to anyone. Does this mean we are doomed? No. Man, without God, will seek and fulfill his own sinful desires. However, as a nation truly "under God", we can find direction and fulfill a much more noble purpose. We should seek God's wisdom and intervention at every opportunity. As an aside, because I'm sure I have offended a few folks, I'd like to clarify something. I do not believe liberals are evil. Although, I do believe that most are deceived about the nature of man. As a Christian, I believe you can be a liberal and be saved. I do not believe all conservatives are perfect, or necessarily God-fearing, God-loving folks. I do believe that conservative politics tend to reflect a belief in God and the fallen nature of man. I'm convinced that this philosophy represents our best hope in finding that "happy place" because it recognizes our need for God. Of course, this is only my opinion (my personal belief). Like any man, I am prone to error. If you're a Christian, read your bible and come to your own conclusions. If you're not a Christian, then I guess you have two choices. Investigate further, or laugh it off at my expense. If you chose the former, great! If you chose the latter, I'm not offended. As a matter of fact, even if you are a Christian, you're free to disagree. If you want to believe I'm a "bigoted fool", you're free to do so. I don't think it would be justified, but it's your prerogative. I feel no ill will towards younor should you feel ill will towards me for expressing an opinion. If you do, then you should consider the possibility that I've "hit a nerve" and question it. When I was about twenty, I was often quite irritated with those "backwater, self-righteous, war-mongering, right-winged, ultra-conservative, bible-thumping Republicans". Then one day I decided to challenge all of my preconceived notions about God and politics. Of course, because man is corrupt, I found plenty of incidences (adulterous evangelical preachers, bigoted politicians, etc.), which confirmed my original thoughts. However, rather than concentrate on "them", I started to probe myself. In my self-examination, I discovered that many of the things that conservative Christians had to say bugged me because they struck chords that rung true in my heart. They revealed things about myself that I didn't like. Reading the bible was down right scary because I felt as if I was reading my epitaph. The more I read, the more I was convinced that God was speaking directly to me. I became "born again". As my faith changed, so did my politics. I'm not suggesting that everyone who disagrees with me, consider re-examining everything they've ever thought was right and true. Yet, if you've never examined "the other side" with an open mind, then I suggest you try it. I feel if nothing else is true, I can honestly say that I have examined both sides of the political spectrum. I was brought up as a liberal Catholic. JFK was "the man" (in life and death). I know liberal politics and the social philosophy that inspires it. I also know conservative politics and the biblical teachings from where it derived its roots. OkayenoughI'll pass this knot along to next the guy

Melnibonean, Your story is every parent's nightmare. I pray for your ongoing recovery. May God give you and your family peace.

Weekender, I do believe however, that there is a natural order of life that includes marraige between a man and a woman and that the more the boys see examples of strong loving marital relationships the better. You have no argument with me. I agree.

BubbaBear, I posed a compromise to you...if you or Rooster stop debating this issue in this forum, then I will agree to stop also. I got no direct response from you or Rooster. I don't WANT to spend hours debating this issue over and over again. It is tiresome. It is especially so when those on the other side chose to ignore logic and force the argument into a never-ending circle. So, why do we debate this topic? Personally, I do so out of conviction. I'm not going to sit on the sidelines as certain individuals attempt to brain wash folks into believing that BSA is doing something wrong or immoral. I want the truth to be represented. I have not started the threads on the homosexual debate. I have merely responded to those folks who insist on using the forum to justify immorality. As long as these folks continue to do so, I will respond (as long as I have the energy to do so).(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Most of the adults (leaders and parents) were yelling at him to wear it right. The more they squawked, the more he resisted. I took him aside, in private and tried to explain that his uniform represented BSA and the Scouts to many people, that he was not just wearing it for himself. Perhaps it's just me...Maybe I'm more of a disciplinarian than most other Scouters. This Scouts attitude really "bugs" me. If one (i.e., a leader - adult or boy) were dealing with a five year-old (vice an 11 or 12 year-old Scout), I wouldn't blink an eye at this post. So I have to askwhy does an 11 or 12 year-old want to resist the adults? Does resist mean defy (that seems to be implied)? If so, I believe this boy needs to be lectured/disciplined again. The topic should be "granting respect to adults." Was this addressed at all? Sorry...but disrespectfulness, especially from Scouts get my shorts in a bunch. By the way, were the adults actually yelling (as noted above)? It appears that the adult leaders need some training. Regardless, I stand by my original question/gripewhere's the respect from these Scouts?

Surely you recognize more than a few folks from the board that fit into the categories above? TJ, You left some folks off your list. How about these guys: There's the not so religious, who claim to own a bible, but don't care much for what it has to sayat least not the parts that talk about sin. There's the "I believe in morals, but I'm not sure which ones I believe in today; and tomorrow, that list may be a little different" There's the "Don't tell me about your morals because they're based on your faith. My morals are better because they come from society, or at least the segment of society that I associate with today." There's the "Let's bury our heads in the sand" crowd and pretend that homosexuality is normal. (I could create a list equally as long as yours, but you get the picture) Fortunately, these guys don't sit at that table in Irving. Try to understand this point. It's not about "deciding what's best for other people". BSA is setting a standard. It's their standard. They want to be a national organization that trumpets one universal message. As a national character building organization, they apparently feel it is important to be consistent. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

You need to be specific. There has to be a reference. Are we talking about compromising one's opinion, one's morality, the charter of an organization, or what? How is it being applied? This is like asking, "Is debate good or evil?" It depends on the subject and your motivation. There is nothing inherently evil about "compromise" or "debate". They are tools. Are you using those tools to destroy or to build? This is the characteristic, which defines the morality of such a question. In the case of "compromising" BSA policy on homosexuality by deferring it to local units, I would say it is "evil". Why? Because the purpose of such a compromise would be to tear down BSA as a national organization and to eliminate it's standards. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)