Rooster7

littlebillie, I guess we're in agreement. At least, there's not much in your posting that I would argue against. I do have this to add. If I knew the parents were homosexuals and/or if I considered their views on sexuality to be immoral, I would not agree to be an intermediate. I would not endorse immorality. Here's a potentially big quandary for me (and I'm not sure how I would handle it)...A boy (whose parents believe homosexuality is not immoral) approaches me and tells me he is confused about his "orientation". I would be very much torn - Do I tell him what I think and know in my heart to be true? (it's rhetorical, so please don't reply) Or, do I play it safe, and refer him to someone else? 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.

OGE, I understand. Sexuality (in various forms - subtle, and not so subtle) are a part of life. I believe that there are healthy examples there of, such as an embrace and kiss between a husband and wife. Of course, there are limits to such public behavior especially around Scouts. Nevertheless, I contend that it is practically impossible to eliminate all examples and/or signs of sexuality. Furthermore, to some degree, we should mentor healthy interactions between the sexes. Don't get too carried away with that previous statement. Take my ASM/river guide example. I wouldn't necessarily expect a 24-year-old male ASM to ignore the expressed signs of interest by an attractive 23-year-old river guide. I would expect his behavior to be self-monitored, self-controlled, and respectful. I would find it perfectly acceptable if the ASM expressed his interest as long as it was not rude, crude, unrestrained, and undisciplined. In other words, as long as he subtly mentors a healthy and respectful way of expressing interest in the opposite sex. I am not saying - he should be conducting "classes" or calling specific attention to his actions. I am saying - attraction between the sexes is normal and his behavior should reflect the character of a Scouter.

So, a husband embraces his wife in the parking lot before leaving on a Scout trip. There's a short kiss and a firm hug. Does this qualify as sexuality? How about this? A 24-year-old male ASM is part of the two-deep leadership on a whitewater trip. During the trip, a 23-year-old female river guide subtly flirts with the ASM, which the ASM subtly returns. Eventually the boys become aware that these two are dating (via observation around town - female drops the ASM off at a meeting, they're seen at the movie theatre, etc.). Has the ASM introduced sexuality into the program by reciprocating the flirtation and dating this young lady? Baden-Powell basically said he would never initiate a conversation with a boy about sex without the permission of his parents. That seems reasonable to me. However, if given permission, he said it was the Scoutmaster's duty to guide a boy in this area. littlebillie and OGE, what's your opinion on this matter? Bob White (I can't believe I'm asking you guy, but I know you know the answer), what's BSA policy on this subject (i.e., SM has parental permission to advise the boy on sexual matters)?

I've stayed out of this thread...not because I don't have my own opinion (as if anyone thought otherwise). I just didn't have the energy. Any way, I have a confession to make. I have had the guilty pleasure of watching TJ and Bob White engage in this bitter debate. As someone who has debated them both, it's been a most enjoyable spectacle. ...I'm just teasing guys; so don't get your shorts in a knot. Having exposed my sin here, I'd like to side with Bob White (not that he necessary wants me on his side). Hang in there Bob...(sorry TJ).

Having the phrase "under God" in the pledge is hardly "wearing religion on your sleeve". Apparently, recognizing and/or talking about God in public is a frightening proposition? Perhaps some folks are afraid that they just might "get saved". Wouldn't that be a scary thought? packsaddle, since you seem to enjoy getting a rise out of people, I thought you'd appreciate that last comment. If you believe in God, He's a part of your everyday life. Perhaps, for people who don't take their faith seriously (or who have no faith), this is much fuss about nothing. However, many folks who take their faith seriously want God to be mentioned. It's not about "wearing your religion"...its about living one's faith and recognizing one's creator.

littlebillie, Wouldn't the pledge represent MORE folks without "under God"? Think about that for a few seconds. I think your question has an obvious answerit's "No." Leaving it out would offend and misrepresent the tens of millions of religious folks (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.) that believe it should be there. But just for grins, let's follow your logic and see what it produces. I pledge allegiance LOUD BUZZER. Some "Americans" don't believe in taking pledges. We better change that to something less committal. How about "I observe" as opposed to "I pledge allegiance". to the flag LOUD BUZZER. What a minute. Some "Americans" like to burn the flag. We don't want to exclude them. Let's take that out. of the United States LOUD BUZZER. Some "Americans" (not all from the South) believe we shouldn't be united. In fact, the Supreme Court just might make that a reality if they continue down this road. of America LOUD BUZZER. We don't want to offend the English, French, or Spanish; they had as much to do with our discovery and establishment as a nation as the Italians. We'll play it safe and take that part out too. and to the Republic for which it stands LOUD BUZZER. Some "Americans" believe we should get rid of Congress. Better take this part out. We don't want to offend those folks fighting for a true democracy. One Nation LOUD BUZZER. There's that pesky one nation theme again. See explanation for removal of "United". Indivisible LOUD BUZZER. Sounds a little militaristic. Lest we offend any pacifists, we better remove it. With Liberty LOUD BUZZER. Are all "Americans" free? What about all those criminals filling our jails? Do we really want to offend them? And Justice LOUD BUZZER. Justice for whom? According to the Washington Post, only angry white men get justice in this country. Gotta take that out. for All I guess we can let this one go, but it could get tricky later. We'll leave it in for now. SO, What does our new all inclusive pledge look like: I observe the States for all. There you have it. It includes ALL "Americans". It's non-offensive. It's short. It's concise. Easy to rememberit should make everyone happy. Of course, it's also pretty meaningless, but that's just a minor detail in the big scheme of thingsthe main concern iswe don't offend.

"Absolute morality" is just another way of saying "Whatever I and the people like me believe and do is right and moral, and the rest of you people are therefore immoral." In reality, this is of course, the exact opposite of absolute morality. A group of people cannot dictate absolute morality. Absolute morality is God's laws. Actually, the above statement is an example of relative moralityas society changes, a group of people dictate the laws that should change with it. From a practical standpoint, if we want to govern society by God's laws (i.e., absolute morality), a group of people must determine what are God's laws. This is where the debate comes in, because humanity is prone to corrupt the interpretation of God's laws. This is also NJ's source of contention because "who is to say what faith has it right?" Recognizing the fact that we are a democracy (or rather a representative Republic), I realize that he has a legitimate point. That is to say, in essence, we live under majority rule. It is possible that the majority will get it wrong (and not follow God's laws). Still, as long as this country maintains a Christian majority, there is nothing wrong with Christians voting for representatives that represent their view of morality. Those who complain that our morality is rooted in our faith, are only complaining because they are not the majority. It should not matter one iota, whether my morality is rooted in the bible or "my personal opinion", my vote counts as much as any other. This is not the establishment of a religion; it's a viewpoint of right and wrong. As a citizen, my viewpoint is not open for integration anymore than the non-Christian. One can, and should apply his/her viewpoints on morality when one votes. The government, outside of established law, does not have the right to examine and/or pass judgment on the moral viewpoints of its citizens. In short, Christians have a right to a moral viewpoint without it being made suspect or negated because they believe in God's laws. Now, along comes Rooster and says that the commandments that Christians do NOT follow were wiped away by Jesus Christ and are not moral laws, but rituals. The Ten Commandments are NOT examples of ritualistic law. I never said that they were...I never implied it. I gave specific examples of ritualistic law (i.e., animal sacrifices, what one eats, what one wears, etc.). Moral laws are those laws, which dictate how one should treat/respect/love others and God (i.e., the Ten Commandments). Christ did not make these laws obsolete. Christ did not abolish these laws, but he did free us (his followers) from judgment.

packsaddle, You've made four postings to this web site and at least two have been "to poke fun". Despite your claim (I'm all about the boys), your actions say otherwise. OGE, You'd be surprised as what we agree on...probably more than you think. eisely, I think I understand your point...but to contrary, I feel the phrase ("under God") is a big deal. Its a statement that most folks can ralley behind. The pledge tells the world who we are and what we believe. Of course, no pledge can fully represent every person in a 250 million plus nation. Yet, I think our current pledge does a pretty good job.

There is nothing wrong with Scouters debating the issues of the day. Yes, we may not be directly contributing to "the cause" (i.e., the boys). However, I happen to think defending the pledge and its Constitutionality is a pretty good cause and somewhat related to Scouting, even if others do not. Nevertheless, I too am growing tired of repeating myself and/or watching others do likewise. Its not that the battle isn't worth fighting, but alas there seems to be little movement. I do have one last parting comment (and it has nothing to do with the original thread...sorry): reproductive freedom - Try not to take this personally, but this phrase makes me physically ill. It's at the top of my list...just ahead of "alternative lifestyle". It amazes me how the English language can be twisted to sterilize the most depraved causes.

NJ, This is not an invasion of our shores, it is a legal argument. No, it's not an invasion on our shores, it's something much worse. It's an attempt to redefine who we were and who we are as a nation. It's a subtle and hedious way of pushing God out of our country's conscience. The adding of the phrase is unconstitutional because it has no secular reason. It is even on the official record as being for the purpose of promoting religion over communist atheism. There is nothing unconstitutional about the government promoting religion. Our founders never intended that message. It should be obvious by their writings, our Declaration of Independence, our money, and probably thousands of other examples throughout history, including Supreme Court rulings. The intention was to ensure that the government did not establish and/or endorse a particular religion. However, promoting God in general was encouraged by the founders, not prohibited. When you also think about this was 1954 before we even had a Catholic president, I feel sure it was promoting Protestant Christianity. This is the argument that atheist and others like to make. However, it is unfounded. If you can point to a legal document which establishes this "fact" then you may have a case. I dare say, you will NOT find such a document. And even then, the fact that one group thinks (says to themselves, this reference is obviously meant to be the God of Abraham...the God of the bible), the reality is...its just the opinion of that group. The words can mean anything the listen wants them to be; "under God" is not specific to any one faith.

Okay...I'll try to make this my last post. If I find the urge irresistible, I'll start another thread. Respect. Yes, I understand. I like to think that I respect people. I understand that not everyone will think as I do. I understand that I can, and have been wrong about some issues. However, I think the idea of "respecting" folks can be over played. That is to say, I can vehemently disagree with someone's idea of morality and still respect that person as a human being. Look at Jesus' life. Did he try to make peace with everyone despite their opinions? What is being asked of you and others, is to let that be a matter between God and each member of Scouting without the BSA as an intermediary. Let's turn that around from my perspective. What is being asked of you and others, is to let BSA stand as a national organization with universal goals and standards as determined by their own leadership. Peace.

Bubba, I never suggested that we should stop loving our neighbor (regardless of his sin). This is a mistake in logic that some folks make. Judging the sin is not a judgement of the person. As you noted, God judges the person. Nevertheless, we should be aware of sin and condemn it when we see it. Jesus preached love. Yes. But, he also warned us about sin. We should not close our eyes to any of his words. By the way, thanks for yet another brand... intriguing. I'm not sure how you interpeted the word "intriguing", but believe me, it was not meant as an insult or a "brand".

sctmom, While I was raised a Catholic, I have been attending Protestant churches for over 10 years. I am a deacon and an elder in the Presbyterian Church. Recently, I have been attending a Methodist church on a regular basis. In the past, I've attended Baptist services as well. Trust me, Protestants take communion very seriously too. The bible verses that I quoted are not meant for Catholics only. Maybe it's a regional thing, but every church I ever attended emphasized that one ought to know and understand what communion is about before partaking in the ceremony. As for Catholics denying a person communion based on the fact that the person did not go to confession recently, that's a church teaching that I disagree with, primarily because I don't believe in the Catholic Priesthood. Any believer can confess his sins directly to God and be forgiven.

We are human. We do not know anything in reality. But you're human too... Which means, you don't really know whether or not you don't know anything, because you don't know anything. Did you follow that? I know that sounds silly. However, it's the logical conclusion of such a statement. Of course, even if I can get you to admit that you're capable of knowing something (truth), that doesn't mean we will both agree on what that should be. I do submit this premise though - the truth exists, it's not a philosophy or a viewpoint. Early in life I came to the conclusion that there are two fundamental certainties in life that man cannot (or at least should not) deny: One - the existence of love, and two - the existence of evil. My personal experiences and my observations of the world reaffirmed these realities on a daily basis. If you don't recognize these realities, then we will never be on the same page. Armed with this knowledge I examined the world more closely. God opened my eyes to many more truths. I'm not going to try to convert you to Christianity (you may be one for all I know). However, I would like to say, as humans we are capable of knowing much more than you are suggesting. I'm sorryI have digressed to a different topic, but your post intrigued me.

littlebillie, So morality as defined by the Bible has changed from Old to New Testament? Is this your point? Reread my post from Thursday, June 27, 2002: 9:37:43 AM. That is obviously not what I am saying. sctmom, I think most people still would define communion as a "ritual", the difference being that you see it as a way of praising Jesus while at some think (or thought) it was a way to get God to like them. I take it that the word "ritual" to you indicates something done because of habit and without meaning. I see it as a bit more than "a way of praising Jesus". Communion has elements of the supernatural that I cannot aptly explain. A Christian scholar could explain what I'm trying to say more intelligently. I'm not so equipped. See 1 Corinthians. No. "Ritual" does not necessarily mean it is done without thought. In fact, I'm sure the Hebrews in the Old Testament took their rituals very seriously and did them with much thought and prayer. If Christians are participating in communion in the manner you described (because of habit and/or without much thought), they are making a serious mistake. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Corinthians 11:26-29

Sctmom, "Can you point me to the parts of the New Testament that say that the ritual laws are no longer valid?" Please read my response to OGE. I think you'll find that it answers your questions as well. Also, how do we tell the ritual laws from the moral laws? Again, see below. However, I believe this is rather simple to determine. Ceremonial and ritualistic laws are those Mosaic laws that enabled God's people to be acceptable in God's presence, such as what one eats and wears. It also included sacrifices and offerings. Jesus' sacrifice made all these ceremonies and rituals unnecessary. OGE, Do you mean the priests of the old testaments or all priests/ministers/clergy ? Don't take this the wrong way, but I left the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has some doctrinal issues that I find inconsistent with bible teaching. Nevertheless, I still believe Catholics are my brothers in Christ. See my other post in the thread entitled - A better question. Now, to answer your questions, rather than me telling you what I think the bible says; lets try this instead. Please read Hebrews, chapters 7, 8, and 9. I encourage you to read them, pray for God to speak to you, and mediate on these chapters. I'm convinced that you'll discover what I did. 1) The laws of the old covenant are no longer applicable. 2) These same laws established the Priesthood, which is now obsolete. I am not suggesting that Priests are bad. I am saying - the Catholic Church purports the Priesthood as a necessary intermediary between God and His people. I believe this premise to be contradictory to bible teaching. Jesus was and is the last Priest. His sacrifice made the old covenant obsolete (including the Priesthood). And while this is New Testament, while at the Last Supper Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me", was he not encouraging celebration of what Catholics call mass? The re-enactment of the Last Supper? Was he not calling on us to perform at least this ritual? Please help me understand your position on this topic. I don't see communion as a ritual. It is a living memorial of Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross made me presentable before God, not the act of communion. littlebillie, another interpretation of this is as the symbolic of the rending of clothing to signify mourning, only on a grander scale. far less latitude is taken in making this interpretation. If you come to that conclusion after reading chapters 7, 8, and 9 in Hebrews, I would be amazed.

TJ, Actually, the sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality, it was rape. Yeah, I heard that one before (from some homosexuals in the paper about 10 years ago). I find it laughable that I should have to counter that argument. In regard to that verse, I will allow you to believe as you wish uncontested. So, are you going to ignore those five or six other verses? Whytoo difficult to defend? Are you going to pretend they are insignificant because the bible has so much more to say about other sins? 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' Leviticus 20:13 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:24- 27 As you suggested, I left the Catholic Church because there were some doctrinal issues, which I found inconsistent with the bible. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church has the essentials down pat. I have no doubt that they are my brothers in Christ. They recognize the holiness of God. They know that Jesus is the only way. They do not deny sin when they see it. As I said once before, I'm more of a "resurrection" Christian, than a "crucifixion" Christian. Perhaps I am wrong about what you're trying to say with this statement. On the surface, it sounds like you're saying that you recognize God's love (and His mercy which He's willing to impart on us), but not his righteousness (and His wrath which we deserve). If so, you have plenty of company. Many self-professed Christians like to believe this. It keeps them off their knees and enables them to do as they please without guilt or shame.

littlebillie, Are you a Christian? If you're not, then perhaps you will not understand what I am about to say. If you are, then you should already know what I am about say. As a Christian, Christ's sacrifice on the cross did many things for us. First and foremost, he provided a way for us to be redeemed (purified us of our sinspast, present, and future). Second, because this redemption is for all time, we no longer require Priests or ceremonial rituals to purify and make us holy before God the Father. He symbolically tore the curtain, which blocked our access to the Most Holy Place. The ritualistic/ceremonial laws of the Old Testament (such as the ones you quoted) are no longer applicable. Moralistic laws (i.e., right and wrongthe laws that guide our behavior as we interact with God and others) are eternal. At least, this is the Christian perspective. Bottom Line: You're examples are not moralistic absolutesthey are ritualistic/ceremonial laws, of which, Christ made obsolete. God's moral laws are eternal, of which, Christ provides redemption for those who seek Him. With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!" Mark 15:37-39

In the absence of willing adult males, I think they can and should be leaders. However, I do feel that Scouting is about mentoring boys so that they can become men. Consequently, all other factors being equal, I prefer to see a man in the role of SM or ASM. Of course, given the choice between a well organized, morally grounded, trained female and a unorganized, immoral, untrained male, I'll take the woman every time. Who is the better role model for your daughteryou or your wife? For meit's not about equalityit's not about being better or worseit's about recognizing differences. Diversity seems to be a popular word these days unless you're talking about the male gender. All men were once boys. Thus, men ought to know a little more about being a boy than a woman. Men are more aware of the temptations, fears, joys, and motivations that can be associated with most boys, at all ages. Again, this is not to say that a woman could not be a good SM. I am saying that a man, by virtue of the fact that he is a man, is more suited for the job.

Quixote, Just wanted to let you know...I appreciate your postings. Keep it up. In Him, Rooster

TJ, It is remarkable how you can stake 100% of your claim that homosexuals are immoral on a verse from the Bible, and refuse any discussion about whether those versus could possibly be misinterpreted. 1) Never said I staked 100% of my claim on any one bible verse. In fact, I have pointed out on numerous occasions how it homosexuality is an obvious perversity of nature. 2) When I interpret the bible, I reference many verses, not just one as you claimed. 3) You've never offered any specific examples or logic as to how a bible verse condemning homosexuality could be interpreted different. How can you accuse me of not listening to your interpretation when you haven't offered any? yet on the issue of slavery, suddenly the verses of the Bible are not to be taken so literally or specifically. 1) I never claimed that every bible verse was to be taken literally. 2) I did state that one needs to read other verses and know the history of the people in the bible. The hypocrisy knows no bounds. I think most people know hypocrisy when they see it. Your statement seems more self-indicting than anything else. Ed I would love to sit down with you sometime around a campfire with a cup of coffee & chew the fat. I appreciate the sentiment. I think it is apparent that we fairly like-minded. It may make for some boring conversation though (i.e., "right", "right", "but of course", "right again")...but that's a dilemma that I willing to risk. Perhaps we can get together one day. Let me know the next time you're in the DC area, and I will do the same for you the next time I'm in PA (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

TJ You might be judging this based only on the "outside activists", but I don't think you can possibly back up your claim that most of us who believe homosexuals can be moral people also lack a belief in God. Certainly the statistics of participants in this debate on this board don't support that conclusion. Of course the people who post to this board are not the same crowd you will find in the general population. Regardless, whether we are speaking about posters on this board or the entire American populous, I intentionally chose the word "most" and not "all". As for backing up my claim, I don't have a study or poll that I can site to prove my point. However, I ask the posters on this board to use their own senses and common senseI don't believe I am off the mark in regard to my statement. Most of the pro-homosexual crowd has a larger agenda. If they win this battle, rest assured that most of these folks will be fighting for another cause that flies in the face of tradition values. You'll not find any condemnation of homosexuality in any quotes from B-P or ET Seton or Dan Beard or James West of Bill Hillcourt or any of the other giants of Scouting past (at least I've never seen any). Whether or not these folks made public statements of condemnation is not the point. The question is"What did these gentlemen believe in, and stand for, concerning sexual morality?" Here's a quote by Baden-Powell from his book, "Aids to Scoutmastership"It should give you a clue: "Personally, apart from explaining as a preliminary how plants, and fishes, and animals reproduce their species, I have found it appeal to boys, as it did to me when I first heard it, to tell them how in every boy is growing the germ of another child to come from him. That germ has been handed down to him from father to son from generations back. He has it in trust from God; it is his duty to keep it until he is married and passes it to his wife for reproduction." Baden-Powell spoke about what ought to be. He did not speak out against what ought not to be. Not because he didn't have an opinion, but because it was obvious to most God fearing people of his generation. See, I believe that Scouting, with 4 million active members from every corner of America, is just too big of an "association" and too divided on this particular issue to have a blanket national policy banning homosexuals. TJ - How do you think this "association" became so big? Is it because they capitulated on controversial issues? Or, is it because they stand by their values? I say it's the latter. OGE Rooster, I've got to disagree with your logic. I don't like the fact abortion is legal in the United States. However, I do not contemplate leaving American society because of one issue it allows that I vehemently am opposed to. I will work within the system to change the system. I believe there a great difference between membership in one's country (which is usually determined by birth and not choice) and membership in a volunteer organization (which is always by choice). I would like to know why women cant be "hands on leaders" In the absence of willing adult males, I think they can and should be leaders. However, I do feel that Scouting is about mentoring boys so that they can become men. Consequently, all other factors being equal, I prefer to see a man in the role of SM or ASM. Of course, given the choice between a well organized, morally grounded, trained female and a unorganized, immoral, untrained male, I'll take the woman every time. Who is the better role model for your daughteryou or your wife? It's not about being better or worse. It's about recognizing differences. BubbaBear Please correct me if I am wrong; didn't you say somewhere that you were raised a Catholic? If so, you were taught to "judge not lest ye be judged". Try not to get confused by "open minded people" causing so much discord. As for "open minded people", I put that phrase in quotes for a reason. Yes, I believe in having an open mind. I'm not knocking innovators or philosophers. I am suggesting that some people's definition of being "open minded" means one needs to reject old values and the institutions and people who support them. As for the first part of your statement, I was raised Catholic. I am aware of Jesus' words. I am also aware of this biblical teaching: In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. 2 Timothy 4:1-5 Although I am not in favor of homosexuals being in Scouting (for the reasons I have already spelled out), I am equally against any groups who wish to dictate policy when they need to look at their own morality as well. Bubba - I respect your thoughts, but this is an ill-contrived notion. Effectively you're saying, "If you're not morally perfect, don't express your opinion." And since no one is perfect, no one should attempt to establish policy. The fact that some Catholic priests are pedophiles does not diminish the church. I hold the church's leadership accountable for prolonging and hiding a very ugly situation, but it would be inappropriate to condemn the faith. BTW, I have not been a member of the Catholic Church for many years. Unless we control every moment of our children's contact with anyone else, how can we prevent them from learning from others? If we trust that the day care center we leave our children to is protecting our child while we are not there, and one of the "teachers" provides an immoral lesson, how can we stop that from happening? What if that day care center is a ministry of the very church that we were raised and married in? That is a tough situation. However, I never said parents should shelter their children from all other influences. I merely said, teach your children your own values; if you don't, others will. On the other hand, if you know of a negative influence, I would do something about the situation. If I knew that an adult was teaching my children values contradictory to my faith, I would not hesitate to remove my child form that situation. As for my family's situation, we home school. Consequently, we do not have to worry about adults at the day care center, etc. Another very good point can be made out of all of this; we are overlooking the children's ability to teach other children. If we do our utmost to shelter our children from what we view as immoral, what is to say that they will not learn it from other youth that we do not defend against? Again, I never said parents should shelter their children from all other influences. I merely said, teach your children your own values; if you don't, others will. BobWhite If a person disagreed with the tenets of a church they don't join the church to become a Sunday school teacher, they join a different church. The Sunday school teacher takes the job to teach and spread the beliefs of the church. If they speak against the church they would expect to loss their job. Not because they don't have the right to disagree, but because they are not doing the job they are supposed to be doing. AMEN. Hey BubbaBear! This sounds like an answer to one of your questions too. Mike Long Interesting, I stated my objections to disparaging others faiths on another thread and was blasted for it. I hope you did not feel as if I was "blasting" you. Perhaps, you were not referring to me. Regardless, I defended my comments because I felt they were truthful and within the realm of the debate. My intent was not to "attack".

NJ, I REPEAT (from my previous post): "We have sometimes used the terms slave and slavery in the preceding discussion, but any one can see that the Mosaic servitude had none of the characteristics of modem slavery." Why then, we ask, confound things entirely dissimilar by using the same terms? As long as our [pro-slavery] teachers [fraudulently] call the Mosaic servitude slavery, the people will be likely to infer that it is what it is called. Why? In the case of the pro-slavery crowd, it was to justify behavior that they knew was immoral and against God's teachings, yet was beneficial to them (free labor). They twisted the history of the bible in order to justify their desires. In the case of NJ, it's to discredit God's word (the bible) and portray as it being inconsistent, so he can justify relative morality (changing morals for changing times). He does not appear to be interested in the facts, only what gives his viewpoint credibility. No my friend, God knew what he was saying 5,000 years ago. What was true then, is true today. Man's laws and your interpretation thereof (as a lawyer) have nothing to do with God's laws. You are merely picking verses that on the surface support your claim. You are not considering the facts or the history of these particular people (the so-called "slaves" and the Jews). A tactic or strategy that is not too uncommon with some lawyers, but certainly as a Scouter I thought you'd do better. I challenge posters to go to the link that I referenced and learn more. God did not endorse the enslavement of innocent peoples.

You have it backwards. The BSA is the one that recently changed their standards and implemented a new policy banning homosexuals. This was not a policy (or even a topic of discussion) prior to the last 80's and really late 90's. Ah yesyou seem to be of the opinion that the Baden-Powell and those associated with BSA in the early 1900s were social progressives. Did it ever occur to you that society's disdain for homosexuality was so widespread that it was unnecessary for the organization to draft a formal policy? Does BSA have a policy on bestiality? Of course it does not. In today's society this practice is commonly accepted as perverse. There's no need for BSA to adopt a formal policy. On the other hand, should large segments of our society become so ill and attempt to legitimize bestiality, be assured that BSA would draft a policy. However, you can be just as confident that this not a new standard. BSA has the same standards that they endorsed nearly one hundred years ago. To suggest that the BSA powers-to-be in the early 1900s were more liberal than their successors in 2002 seems less than sincere to me. And I've responded many times to your general assertion that parents should not place their boys in Scouting if they disagree with this one new policy... to make that kind of a statement is silly and suggests that Scouting has no other value than being a safe haven from associating with homosexuals. It's the same silliness behind those that claim (though I don't believe) they would quit Scouting if this one policy was changed and made a matter of local decision. I don't find this assertion to be silly. Nevertheless, I would like to suggest that most of the folks who want to open BSA's doors to homosexuals, also want to open the doors to atheists. So, it's not just this one issue. Truth be told, it's an assortment of issues. Today, it's homosexuals and atheists. In a few years, if some folks have their way, BSA will be under attack because it makes boys say the Pledge of Allegiance. Maybe, these folks will fight to get bisexuals accepted in Scouting. Perhaps, they'll try to take the boy out of Scouts, and make it a unisex organization. I have no doubt that this is NOT just a one-issue battle. Furthermore, even if this was a one-issue battle, it's a very BIG issue to me. If these parents felt that the "homosexual ban" was so minor, then they shouldn't be trying to discredit the organization that they joined. Otherwise, they should not have joined at all.

I don't believe all of the boys of Scouting are getting the message that they should have a "definite negative attitude towards gays"... quite the contrary, I believe most of the boys of Scouting don't even know there is a policy or an issue of debate. But that does not eliminate culpability for the BSA... some of our boys are getting that message, whether we intend for them to or not. I think this greatly depends on the age of the Scout. I'd be willing to bet that most boys over 14 are aware of the BSA policy, or at least the debate. Nevertheless, I'd also be willing to bet that BSA's policy stance on this issue is not the driving force behind any boy's viewpoint of homosexuality. And some of our boys are getting this message from Scouting even though it is contrary to what their parents and churches are teaching them. Hmmm. An organization has a very public policy on homosexuality. Despite the said policy, a group of parents voluntarily seek membership for their children. The organization is now supposed to change to accommodate their vision of the program? Yeah, rightthat's the American wayor is it? In a previous post I raised an extreme example of the boy (an Eagle Scout) who brutally killed Mathew Shepard. I know that Scouting didn't teach him to do that. And I know that he probably picked up his extreme hate and fear of gays from many influences on his life (parents, community, etc). But Scouting certainly reinforced his views. As I said, I think it is irresponsible of us to believe that all of the boys of Scouting understand the "subtleties" of our intended message on this policy. This so-called extreme example is a bad example. So, every time an individual distorts or corrupts a viewpoint on an issue, and acts upon it, all groups associated with that viewpoint should take responsibility? For example, if some environmentalist whacko drives a spike in a tree (with the intent to cause a lumberjack serious harm), do we blame the Sierra Club because they endorse the preservation of nature? If a child murder commits suicide, do we blame religions that condemn murder as a serious sin? Where do you draw the line? It's a ridiculous association. Why don't you blame the NFL for the OJ Simpson murders? After all, the NFL doesn't allow women to compete and they encourage aggressive behavior. Pleaselet's get serious. Regarding who I am, I have posted many references to my Scouting background on this board. I am an Eagle Scout with more than 22 years in the program at every level from local to national. But this debate is not about me or you or any of the messengers. It is about principles of right and wrong and about the benefit or harm to our organization and the boys and parents we serve. Agreed. Yet, you seem to think one way on the issue and BSA another. If morality is relative, why should you condemn anyone else's viewpoints? Per your own logic, your views on morals shouldn't have any more weight than BSA's. Just because you claim boys are being harmed, doesn't make it so. Certainly you are not suggesting that whenever someone comes under stress from society that those elements in society responsible should be blamed and forced to change. If so, then we should disband the police department. After all, they're responsible for an awful lot of guilt and stress inflicted upon felons. I realize that these folks committed crimes, but some of these crimes may be outside of your moral compass. My point isBSA is ONLY guilty of holding a moral viewpoint. If that viewpoint causes people stress (even young boys), then those folks need to figure out a way to reconcile it in a healthy manner. Healthy boys tend to reason through these things and make healthy decisions (i.e., a heterosexual boy might reason, "Despite having a very strong physical attraction to girls, I must learn to restrain myself and act appropriately around them."). If a boy rapes a girl, should we blame BSA because they "subtly" endorse heterosexual relationships? I think not. We should examine the boy in question and his upbringing. Likewise, if a boy with homosexual tendencies does harm to himself or another, we need to examine that particular boy and his upbringing, not BSA's policy stances. From a personal standpoint, I believe the healthiest thing for such a boy would be for him to have a discussion with his father, mother, and his pastor (or religious leader). Regardless, if he goes down a different road, I suggest you look at the folks who put him on that road. TJ seems to believe it's the moralistic parents, the churches, and organizations that promote traditional values such as BSA. I think it is the so-called "free thinkers", the liberal media, the "open minded" teachers, the "compassionate" neighbor, and perhaps the "misguided" parents that condemn Judeo-Christian values (this includes many other like-minded faiths). These people have caused their children (and perhaps others as well) to become confused about sexuality. In other words, you reap what you sow. I pray for these children. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)