Rooster7

I think we can all agree that the Catholic Church has bumbled their response nearly completely on this tragedy. Even the most die-hard Catholic would have to nod his head to that statement. This is a rare moment of agreement, but one that I can appreciate. I doubt very seriously if the Church will, in the end, ban gays from the clergy. Perhaps you are referring to same small minority of Catholics that have broken away from the Church. I don't know all of the various segments that have branched off from the original Church. Nevertheless, it's safe for me to say, any Catholic Church that wants to maintain a good relationship with Rome (i.e., the Pope and the ruling body of the Church) already bans unrepentant homosexuals from the priesthood. And in fact, they (emphasis on unrepentant) are not welcomed as Church members. While I have not attended a Catholic Church in quite sometime, I feel have a pretty good handle on their doctrine. If I'm wrong, I urge the members of this board who are dedicated Catholics to speak up and educate me. As a former Catholic, I know of many folks who attended church, but did not know what the Church believed in. I hope that those who chose to respond do not fall into this group ("Sundays only" believers of the faith). This is not a problem limited to the Catholic Church. Of course, Protestant churches see this too, as do other faiths. My point is, please don't respond unless you truly know the church's position. Well, of course I don't believe homosexuality is a sin, but I do see where that is the belief of a majority of Catholics. However, so is drunkenness (in their minds), yet I've always heard that you can often count on a Catholic Priest to be a great drinking buddy. For a guy that trumpets liberal causes, you sure dropped the ball on that last comment. Wasn't it just a little bit less than politically correct? In fact, some might say it was outright bigoted. Are negative stereotypes offensive all the time, or only when it offends a group that you consider an ally? I know you're not fond of organized religion, but let's keep the debate factual.

jmcquillan, I am, and will forever be, amazed, that the news regarding the church, and its public call for exclusion of gays, has not garnered the condemnation from those who condemned the BSA. In the instance of the church, the call for that exclusion was based on abuse of children. In regard to public condemnation of BSA verses the Catholic Church, I have no opinion. Or rather, I'm not sure what I think about that situation. However, I need to comment on your quote (noted above). The Catholic Church may well be concerned about the well fair of children in the company of homosexuals. Yet, I'm certain that this is NOT the driving force behind their exclusion policy. Per the teachings of the bible and the Catholic Church, homosexuality is a sin. That being the case, why would the Catholic Church allow someone who professes to be an unrepentant homosexual, to enter the clergy? Even if the said homosexual were repentant, the Catholic Church would still need to assess that person's fitness to serve. Good judgment demands that they evaluate the nature of the sin and the potential risks associated with it. For example, if a self-professed adulterer applied for the priesthood, certainly the Catholic Church would be inclined to deny him entry. His sin puts the congregation at risk. Furthermore, if unrepentant, he would not be fit for simple membership. Not because he is a sinner, but because he refuses to recognize his sin and flee from it. Christians as a whole, and I'm sure the Catholic Church is no exception, know how "sexual sin" can destroy lives. This is self-evident and a biblical teaching. Consequently, it should surprise no one that the Catholic Church would exclude them from the priesthood.

Bob, I disagree with these two sentiments (from your previous post)... ...when a SM "refuses" to sign a requirement all it does is create more distance between the SM and the scout or the SM and the family... ...If three committee members unanimously decide he should advance, then he should. 1) The SM is in charge of executing the program. If he or someone in the leadership corps does something that causes a scout or his family to be unhappy, he should be the first one to respond. He should be able to explain the situation to the scout, and his family if necessary. Furthermore, the SM should evaluate a scout on Scout Spirit and decide whether or not the requirement should be signed off. He attends the outings and the meetings to monitor and advise the boys. He, more than any other, is capable and has the knowledge to determine if the scout is fulfilling that requirement. 2) Any resentment that the BOR might spare the SM, would merely be redirected to committee members. This situation would not be any healthier for the troop. 3) Letting a BOR "arbitrate" (for a lack of a better description) the matter as opposed to letting the SM's decision stand, undermines his authority as a leader. 4) In affect, you are saying that the BOR should decide if the Scout has Scout Spirit and sign him off. While there may not be any BSA literature stating that the SM is solely responsible for signing off Scout Spirit, there IS literature stating that committee members should NOT sign off the requirements.

SagerScout, I appreciate the retraction. As for your gay friends, I harbor no hatred for them. I don't like his or her "lifestyle", or attempts by folks to promote that lifestyle as moral. The fact is, I find many gays to be likeable. In regards to my own behavior, I stake no claims to purity. What separates us, is our views on the behavior (lifestyle, orientation, preference, whatever one wishes to label it). I see it as sinful, always will. That does not mean I have no sin. Nor does it mean I condemn and hate those that are sinful (regardless of the sin). It does mean I abhor the behavior. If my child has a temper tantrum and strikes out, I find that behavior detestable too. Yet, I still love my child.

The Board interviews the Scout and makes a decision to advance him or not. This advancement is entirely in their hands. If they decide not to, it must be unanimous, and they must provide specifics on what is required of the Scout to be advanced, as well as help the Scout setup a timeline goal for doing what is needed. I'm not on committee or directly involved in the advancement process. What happens if it's not unanimous? Majority rule to advance? Also, once the SM refuses to sign off on Scout Spirit, does anyone else have authority to do so? Can someone else come behind the SM and sign off a Scout for Scout Spirit? If so, wouldn't this circumvent the authority of the SM? Can the advancement committee "overrule" the SM and sign the boy off on a requirement? Just curious...

OGE, Warmed by your news. I'm sure this is a moment your son and yourself will always remember. Something tells me, he's just as proud of you as you are of him. God Bless.

Sorry to break my promise, but I have to respond to this offensive implication: Just because we don't beat lesbians up and hang them on fences does NOT mean that we are supporting child abuse. This statement is way out of line and has nothing to do with any previous post on this thread. In fact, the only hateful and bigoted statement that I've seen so far, is this one.

I think it depends. Is the family REALLY into scouting? Are you attending as a troop or as individuals? Each situation is different. Recently, a stepfather of a Scout passed away in our troop. One man chose to attend in his BSA uniform. He was the only one and it seemed oddly out of place. On the other hand, a Cub Scout from our pack passed away a few years back. As I recall, the den and many others did wear their BSA uniforms. It seemed very appropriate. I really think only the people directly involved can answer that question - "uniform or suit?" What does your gut tell you?

shemgren, At the time you experienced the problem in your troop, I take it that you were not the COR? Just curious. Obviously if you were the COR, you could have forced the issue.

I'm not an expert. However, as you seem to know already, it is not normally acceptable to have any other flag paraded or posted before the US flag. The US flag is always brought in first (and held higher than others), unless you are participating in some sort of international event.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

eagle90, I always assumed that "eagle90" meant you recieved the rank of Eagle in 1990. Now, you finally reveal the truth. It turns out you're a 90 year-old Eagle scout! Just kidding...what does the 90 stand for? Any thing?

Hey...Congratulations!

Sctmom, This is my last post on this particular threadI promise. Christianity is NOT a belief system. A major distinction between Christianity and other religions is this fact. Christianity is not a philosophy one seeks to live a moral life. Belief in Christ Jesus is a response to God, an acknowledgment of one's own sinful heart, and a thankful acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. It is not predicated on how well one has followed a moral code. Salvation is based upon recognizing one's own corrupt nature, calling upon God, and responding to Him by accepting his Son's gift with a grateful heart. Salvation is not predicated on one's performance as a moral person. Is God displeased if we don't follow his teachings? Of course, he is! However, to enter his kingdom is not a matter of moral philosophy. The truth is not about philosophy. It's about having a relationship with God.

NJ, The difference between Weekender (or me, for that matter) and yourself, is - We don't want to see the look on your face when you find out. We'd rather see you spared that unfortunate surprise. This brings us back to proselytizing. If we truly believe what we say, and the stakes are as high as we claim them to be, what kind of men would be if we didn't tell you the truth (regardless of the forum)? That being said, it is not my intent to go further with this conversion...er, I mean conversation . I merely want to point out that you may be picking a fight with a man, who's only motive is to see the best possible outcome for you and/or your family. I find it highly ironic that you would wish him ill will. As for Pascal's wagerI prefer the power and the promise of the Gospel, than a faith purely based on God's wrath and the probability (as measured by others, I stand convinced) of his existence. Pascal's intentions may have been pure, but his wager focuses on God's righteousness to the exclusion of God's love. God is both. As for it being a courtesy to not share one's faith, how can that be? If you truly believe you know the way to God's heart and eternal salvation, how can you not share it? How can you allow others to pass through your life, and never let them know anything? Doesn't your heart cry out to share the truth with people you love and care about? In my church, I was taught that idolatry could take many forms. It doesn't have to be an object. It's anything that you place above God. It could be a religious artifact (i.e., praying to a statue), a person you love (i.e., a refusal to recognize God for fear of it's ramifications for a loved one), or a vice (i.e., sexual sin). Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. ROMANS 1:1-6 (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

sctmom, Given the situation you described (people forcing non-Christians to sing songs about Jesus or be alienated) I'd have to agree. However, that appears to be one extreme end of the controversy. The other end is to demand that folks not sing about their God (or that they must only sing certain songs). That situation is just as wrong. The middle ground is to let folks sing the songs of their faith without forcing others to join or listen (There's more room for discussion in this area, but I'm not going there). As in all groups, individuals can and will abuse privileges. Each troop's leadership needs to evaluate if this is occurring. However, I do not believe the solution is to make everyone recognize a generic god. In fact, this would be blasphemy in some religions. My God demands that I recognize him by name.

The acceptance and celebration of one faith, does not mean that other faiths must be excluded or dishonored. Christians can just as easily sing a song about Moses. However, if they chose to sing a song about Jesus, it would not be to incite or alienate others (Jewish or otherwise). It would be to honor God per their own faith. Likewise, if Jews chose to sing a song about King David, I doubt many Christians would be offended. I don't understand why a growing number of folks in our country feel that an open expression of one's faith, devalues the faith of others. This is a false premise. It is a major reason why so many want to remove religion from the public square. I vehemently disagree with it.

NJ, I appreciate the humor. For both our sakes, I'll keep my tongue in check on this one. Suffice it to say, I did appreciate the joke. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Outstanding. My wife and I were looking for an organization for our daughter. This may be it. We have lots of time...she's only three, but we've already decided against the GSUSA. We don't like their political spin. I will definitely investigate this organization. On the surface, it sounds great. Thanks for the links.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

There are some institutions that take Eagle very seriously. Specifically, it can have a big impact on whether or not one will recieve an ROTC scholarship. The NAVY and the AF were impressed with my son's Scouting achievements - most notably his rank of Eagle.

If the program is being implemented as it was meant to be, perhaps "we" should do nothing (i.e., stay the course). I think this is why the conversation turned towards a national ad campaign. Scouting was, is, and will always be cool as long as we continue to fulfill the promise. It's a matter of perception, not an implementation problem.

Doesn't "we" include BSA the organization, its volunteers, and all of its paid staff? I hope it does. If so, why should we limit our suggestions and criticism to just the volunteers and our local units? Aren't we all in it together? Any way, I am running out of steam here. Bob, we simply disagree...on a number of things. I think a smart marketing plan could do a lot to improve BSA's image and the numbers. BTW, I cannot remember seeing a single advertisement for Scouting. I have been living in the D.C. area for 43 years. There may have been a couple, but it must have been a long time ago. Did I mention that you were stubborn? (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Marketing does more than provide name recognition. Good marketing creates an image. For many boys, BSA's image is not positive. Why should they visit a troop if they are convinced that Scouting is un-cool? Presented with the current image of Scouting, these boys would never visit your troop. No changes made at the local level would affect their decision one way or the other. They are already convinced that Scouting is something they don't want to do, not because they know anything about the program but because our media has created a negative image of Scouting. Why does everyone want to talk about "what can somebody else do?" It's not a conspiracy Bob. Nobody is claiming to be perfectnor should the paid staff of BSA. As someone who has volunteered hundreds of hours, I feel I have as much right as anyone else to make suggestions and to even criticize the organization.

FYI... I'm currently planning a similar white water trip for my troop. Per Safety Afloat, all participants need to be qualified swimmers (i.e., pass the BSA swimmers test within the last 12 months). If anyone is not a qualified swimmer, then that person needs to be on a raft (with PFD) with a certified lifeguard. Also, you need one certified adult (Safety Afloat) for every 10 Scouts.

I guess it depends on how you define "large turnover on a regular basis". If large is anything greater than 10 percent, I disagree. If its 50 percent in the first year, then we probably agree (although I would reserve judgment without knowing the rest of the story). Better retention would do as much or more for the program than the cool ad campaign. Retention comes with delivering the BSA program and using the BSA methods. Attracting and retaining, surely you can see these two as separate issues. Why can't we work on the retention problem and have a smart marketing program at the same time? Should we write off the millions of boys who perceive Scouting as un-cool? They have no idea what the program is like. Even if you fix the retention problem in some of these troops, the boys of which I speak are not going see those changes. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Barring some sort of governmental decree, the morals of a society will always be relative, not absolute. Even then, a governmental decree is only as absolute as that government. God is infinite. Without God, we are truly at the mercy of society and vulnerable to the subjective thinking of each new generation.