Rooster7

Bob, My point is if your car's tire is going flat, the solution is not to pump in more air. If you don't fix the leak first you're wasting the air. Interesting analogy. Let's build on that. You don't stop putting air in the other three tires because the fourth one has a leak. You do both. You fix the leak, but you also continue to put air in all the tires (i.e., other troops should not have to suffer because another troop has a problem). We as leaders don't first solve the scout retention problem, pumping more scouts into scouting won't solve anything. Hmmm. First, these guys aren't Scouts. They're boys who are not joining their local troop because they perceive Scouting as being "un-cool". Second, while some troops may have problems, they are plenty that would receive and retain these new boys. Third, even if the so-called retention problems were not resolved, more boys would be participating. There's no reason to believe that the retention rate for these new boys (brought in by a marketing program) would be any different than the current rate. Nevertheless, the numbers overall would increase dramatically. Aren't we supposed to bring the program to as many boys as possible? If a marketing program brought in 2 million more boys and only 1 million stayed, isn't that better than the 2 million boys never being exposed to the program? Fourth, one could argue that a marketing program may in fact affect the retention rate. If the country's perception is that Scouting is very cool, some boys may hang around long enough to agree with the perception. Some boys may not believe the garbage that media implies about Scouting. The peer pressure in and around schools could be nullified, or in fact, be changed to view Scouting as a cool thing. Thus, more boys join. More boys stay in the program. The original point of this board was how to put the cool back in scouting. Too many leaders replying seem to want National to solve that problem. Disagree. We're merely saying that national could contribute greatly to the cause by helping to change the public's perception of Scouting and the boys who join the organization. Something should be done to counteract the sit-coms, movies, and other media influences that trash the organization and make fun of those who join it. Certainly there are things that we can do at the local level. However, you seem to think that every problem is a leadership and/or training issue. This is not always the case. I believe national has by giving us the best youth program available. Agreed, but they're unwilling to spend the dollars to tell America about that great program. The responsibility for "cool" is in the program of the local unit. Disagree. As you have stated yourself on numerous occasions, if we're doing what we're supposed to be doing, the program is already cool. Cool is a matter of perception. National could do a lot to change the perception with a good marketing program. Your unit is scouting to the young people in your unit. They don't care about what the ads show, they care about what they DO in their meetings and outings. Agreed. This part of your statement is definitely addressing a local problem. However, not every troop has this problem. There are very many (probably most) troops that are presenting a great program. These troops should not be penalized because of some dropout rate that national is measuring across the nation. Scouting flourished for decades before mass media even existed. We need to focus on what we can control not on what we wish someone else would do. Agreed, but I can still do my job and have a desire to see national implement an intelligent marketing plan. These goals are not mutually exclusive. Both can and should be done. The boys won't wait around for your wish to come true. They will stay because of what YOU do with them this week. Agreed, but the dropout rate is not always attributable to the troop's leadership or the execution of the program (as I tried to point out on two previous occasions). Can't you acknowledge the fact that a troop can have a high dropout rate due to factors that were beyond their control? Does every Boy Scout issue/problem have to be blamed on the leadership of the troop (i.e., not following the program, poor training, etc.)? Since you're not their to see these leaders or how they execute the program, I would think that you could afford a little grace. BTW-I would prefer the words "dedicated to the scouting methods" over stubborn. I understand your preference, but your "dedication" exacerbates me. Believe it or not, most of us are dedicated to the program. You are not the lone voice in the woods. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

And yet others don't want to define anything as being immoral. This enables one to promote/defend the behavior of their choosing. "What's good for you may not be good for me." Right? Your reasons for ignoring the questions about NAMBLA and kiddie porn ring hallow. The fact is, you cannot show us the criteria for which you claim something to be immoral or moral.

Bob, If I had to describe you in two words, it would be these: knowledgeable and stubborn. No one is denying the value of good training. As I tried to point out, we're really talking about two different issues. I never made the claim that a marketing plan would resolve the dropout rate. I merely listed several factors that contribute to the dropout rate that are often beyond the control of the troop's leadership. Transient area (where I live is a prime example - suburbs of Washington, D.C.) Personality conflicts with other Scouts Camping experience is not what the boy expected Parents do not like the program or the leadership The boy wants to be with his friends that are doing things outside of Scouting Competition with other activities An acceptable compromise or remedy is not always assured. The Scout and/or his parents can be the barrier as opposed to the program's execution or the troop's leadership. Consequently, trained, prepared, willing, and able as you may be, you will lose some Scouts. Furthermore, not every troop faces the same issues. Some troops are going to lose more Scouts than others due to no fault of their own. Are they always blameless? No, I'm not saying thatbut I did say this: All one can do is run the program as it was meant to be. A lot of the factors that lead to boys leaving are primarily within the control of the boy and/or his parents, not the troop leadership. We can't be held accountable just because the dropout rates don't meet the expected norm or the desired standard. As Mike Long said, statistics do not tell the whole story. So, what will a good marketing program do? As so many others have recognized, it will get more boys in the door and exposed to the program. Even if the dropout rate does not change, we would see a dramatic increase in participation. BSA and the boys choosing to stay would be all the better for it. In the meantime, yesby all means, lets make sure the program is being done right and try to improve (decrease) the dropout rate. But don't throw the baby out with the bath waterLets get as many boys in the program as possible.

OGE, I think that's a great idea. It would help clarify the essential policies and workings of a BSA troop. In fact, I'd prefer to see a booklet (like the one in the Boy Scout book for the parent/son talk concerning sexual predators). The signature line is good too. If there's concern or confusion over the program, the leaders/committee could always point back the booklet. It would also help keep the leaders honest, in regard to their approach to the program. As it is now, I think many parents take information provided by leaders with a grain of salt. I say this for the reasons that I noted in my previous post. It's been my experience that some leaders and trainers (not necessarily in my troop) very often do not delineate their statements. They do not tell their audience what is "carved in the stone BSA policy", vice a recommendation, vice a troop policy, vice "my" preference.

sctmom, I fully agree with your post. Great advice. As an adult, I am more qualified than a child, to know what is best. As my son's parent, I feel compelled to use my knowledge and wisdom to ensure his growth and happiness. Sometimes, we don't agree. On occasion, he can provide insight and a rational that will change my mind. More often than not, my 40 plus years of living, and my love for him, wins the day. I realize that children are not completely ignorant. However, we (adults) do have wisdom that they do not. We should not be afraid to use it, especially when our goal is to ensure a bright future for our children.

Mike Long, Amen to your last post. We have a similar situation with our pack and troop, although perhaps not as severe. For about ten years or more, the pack ran an excellent program. We had a strong tradition of having dedicated den leaders, hard working Cubmasters, and well organized committee members. The pack is now under new leadership. We're not certain what the future holds, but we suspect that it's not going to measure up to our past. This group of pack leaders does not seem to be quite as enthusiastic or dedicated to the task. As was true with your troop, we are probably going to inherit a lot of boys with the wrong expectations and/or attitudes. There are many other factors to consider as well - Transient area (where I live is a prime example - suburbs of Washington, D.C.) Personality conflicts with other Scouts Camping experience is not what the boy expected Parents do not like the program or the leadership The boy wants to be with his friends that are doing things outside of Scouting Competition with other activities All one can do is run the program as it was meant to be. A lot of the factors that lead to boys leaving are primarily within the control of the boy and/or his parents, not the troop leadership. We can't be held accountable just because the dropout rates don't meet the expected norm or the desired standard. As Mike said, statistics do not tell the whole story. BTW, given the time, resources, and the demands (in and out of Scouts) placed on my troop's leadership, I'd stack them up against any troop in the nation. Our Scoutmaster is good as they come, and every Scout in the troop would say as much (even the ones that chose to leave). The adult volunteers supporting him (ASMs, committee members, etc.) are as dedicated to the program as anyone I've seen on this board. If our dropout rate was 1% or 90%, I'd stand convinced we're doing as good as job as we can. As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of liars - liars, damn liars, and statisticians." I'm not accusing anyone of lying, but I am saying statistics are merely numbers. They are not arguments in and of themselves. Someone else once said, "The problem arises when people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support instead of illumination." Yes, a high dropout rate is not desirable. Certainly, it is possible, maybe even probable that the troop is doing something wrong. At a minimum, it is worth at least a cursory examination. If there's some merit, then by all means dig deeper. However, a statistical development does not substantiate the existence of a problem. Illumination means looking at all available evidence to help answer a question. Support means finding and citing particular statistics that support a point that's already been decided upon by the author. In short, the leadership of each troop is more apt to know the truth about their particular circumstances than outsiders quoting statistics. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Bob Russell, Mike Long, and sst3rd seem to understand my point. We are discussing two separate issues. One is a matter of attracting interest, the other concerns retention. Yes, the 50% dropout rate (for first year Scouts?) needs to be addressed. Furthermore, I agree that it probably is an issue of program implementation at the local level. However, what about the millions of boys not even exploring Scouting as an option today because of it's less than "cool" reputation? I'm merely suggesting that national could address this second problem easily if they had some smarts about them. Bob (White) - You didn't strike a chord with me. My (or rather my sons') troop has about 60 boys. Each year we average about 12 to 15 new Scouts (most bridging from our feeder pack). About 50% of these boys stay with the troop until they're 17 or 18. I don't know how we compare to other troops, but we feel we run a pretty good program (per BSA). We about lose 3 or 4 Scouts in the first year. It's been our experience that it is not because of the program or it's execution. It's usually because the boy or boys simply didn't like some aspect about Scouting. This could be anything from too many bugs, not being able to sleep on somehting other than a mattress, to missing mom and dad on an outing. No matter how great the program, or "faithful" the leadership, you're going to lose some boys over the years. I feel no shame in this or any great need to reexamine our methods. This year, we have a big influx - 24 boys are bridging. My bet is, I'll get to know about 12 these guys pretty well after about 6 or 7 years. If you were suggesting that a 50% dropout rate for all Scouts (as opposed to just first year Scouts) is an indicator of a badly run troop, I would disagree. There are too many factors other than the program and its execution that can influence this outcome. The most infamous of these are the two "fumes", perfume and gasoline. However, there are numerous others as I alluded to earlier. As cool as Scouting is, not everyone is going to respond. For many Cub Scouts, it was their parents' idea to be in the program. In Boy Scouts, usually (as it should be) the boy gets to decide for himself, and in the long run, some simply opt to do other things. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I disagree, at least in part. BSA would have much more interest if a well thought out marketing plan were devised. Once in the door, BSA would retain many of these boys. Getting these kids in the door is more than half the battle. Bear in mind, the subject was "How do we keep the cool in Scouting?" I submit that Scouting is cool; it's just that many boys (maybe most) won't even approach the door of a troop because of "bad" press. I'm not referring to the Gay thing or any other political issue. I am referring to the fact that the media as a whole has made Boy Scouting into something that should be mocked. I've never heard the phrase, "What are you, some kind of Boy Scout?" used as a compliment. In sit-coms and movies, Boy Scouts are always ridiculed. If you can find a positive example, I'm sure I can five that are negative. BSA should get smart and counteract this with the truth. Look what the military did following the Vietnam War. Do you think those commercials ("Be all you can be", etc.) are a waste of money? Think again. Marketing works. As far as programs not being what they should be, I imagine there are plenty of examples of this. Regardless, I think BSA could easily double their numbers if they packaged themselves right, regardless of any other change. Envision videos of confident and well organize boys as they head down the rapids of the Youghiogheny River screaming with excitement, basking in the sun while sailing the Florida Keys, hiking the basin of Mt. Rainer, camping in the woods of up state New York, biking the C & O Cannel, etc. What if the public's impression of boys in Scouting was that of strong, smart, confident, very often athletic, young men (or soon to be young men)? What is it now? For the most part, the media portrays boys in the program as weak, under confident, socially inept, uncoordinated, and generally as outcasts. If boys were given an opportunity to see the program as it really is, BSA wouldn't be able to handle the increase in numbers. Would they lose some of those new recruits due to some badly ran troops? Yeah, but they would keep just as many or more elsewhere. If a budget committee is waiting for units "to show they can retain scouts" before they are willing to present a smart marketing plan, then they are cutting off our nose despite our face (never really understood that phrase). If BSA truly wants to thrive, they need to get exposure. They need to show these boys that the media has it all wrong. By the way, I heard from someone recently that the average dropout rate (national) for Boy Scouts is 50%. You seem be using that number as an indicator of a bad program? What is the average dropout rate for Boy Scouts? (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

OGE - Amen to your last. We shouldn't try to change the program. We should change the perception of the program. Was it on this thread or somewhere else that someone opined BSA's lack of suave marketing? Regardless, I agree with the sentiment.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Just a few thoughts One, most parents/guardians do not get actively involved in BSA as an organization. From my observations, it appears that most troops/packs are run by 20 to 30 percent of the adults, or less. I don't offer any excuses for the lack of participation. It's only an observation, and no its not backed up by any statistics (at least none that I can point to). But I think it is safe to say, the majority of parents are bystanders. I see this as a local problem that the pack or troop leadership should address, but very often does not. Two, most new Scouters (i.e., parents bridging with their sons) eventually want some input into the troop as to how it supports the Scouts and provide oversight. Three, not every parent/guardian is going to get formal training (for a variety of reasons). However, every parent/guardian should be educated about the program, if not formally, then informally through the pack or troop. Four, either through oversight or by design, many Scouters do not distinguish their personal preferences from BSA policy, or from troop policy. That is to say, I have seen many examples where parents were provided information about Scouting without qualification as to it being a BSA policy, a troop policy, or merely a preference of individuals within the pack or troop. This leads to much confusion down the road. In short, because one and two are true (just my opinion), it is very important that three (training, whether it be formal or informal) occurs, and with careful consideration to four (source and authority). If we don't do four, then we (Scouters providing guidance and training) lose credibility. If we lose credibility, then all the training in world is useless.

Hey, that is a great movie. It's slightly slanted to the left...but hey, I can suspend reality for the sake of some cheap entertainment. All kidding aside, I liked the movie (but not the politics or rather its unfair portrayal of conservative politics). As for this debate, I wouldn't have a problem with the posting of the "Five Pillars of Islam" as long as the government showed its historical significance to this country or that particular area of the country. Since Christians founded this country, I believe the Ten Commandments qualify as being historically significant to the United States. It is the basis for most laws that were originally established in this nation. As to this being an issue of "separation of church and state". First, this phrase, which the ACLU has come to know and love, is not in the Constitution. It's in a letter from Thomas Jefferson. He wrote it to a minister, who he was trying to assure. Jefferson told the minister that the state would not and should not interfere with the business of the church. His letter never addressed the issue of whether or not the church should ever influence the state. The Constitution does say that the state shall not establish a church. However, I stand convinced that this action (posting the Ten Commandments) is not tantamount to establishing a church. In fact, as I read the Constitution, the state can (if it chooses to do so) endorse religion. Furthermore, by my reading, it could even endorse a specific religion. The line that was drawn is one of "forced religion". In other words, the state cannot penalize or reward individuals for having a particular faith (or no faith at all). Nevertheless, this tenant was not meant to hinder all public expressions of religion. No one is penalized or rewarded by the posting of a creed. However, as of this writing, I must admit that I am of a minority opinion (at least on the Supreme Court). Nevertheless, it's not the first time a group of men misinterpreted another group of men. As wise as those gentlemen may be, I believe the Supreme Court is fallible. Given enough time, I can find numerous other intellectuals and experts in the law to back up my assertion. Yet, I will refrain, because I merely wish to register my opinion today (not start "a contest of the wills").

First, I have to say, cool isn't "cool" anymore. Nor is "Bad" good. And "Baaaad" is no longer very good. I believe the question should be - How do we keep Scouting "sweet" or make it "tight"? Any way...As Ed noted, I don't think Scouting is for everyone. There may be some things that can be done. I'm not saying to ignore the issue. Still, I wouldn't want to see too many changes just for the sake of the numbers. It seems to me, the program is doing a pretty good job of keeping several million boys active (and relatively happy). Ain't that Sweeeet!

As for Scouting banning liars, etc... you are wrong. There's no specific national policy that automatically rejects members who lie or steal. The expulsion of those members is left up to the local parents, leaders and CO to be handled on a case by case basis, factoring all the circumstances. Hmmm...This is enlightening! It explains why a former Boy Scout and President of this country had to redefine the word "IS" for the rest of us. In fact, going by his definition of "sexual relations", homosexuals don't even have sex. Sorry, couldn't resist. Frankly, I don't care about the numbers. If BSA remains the program it IS, and the numbers go down to 60 (the number of boys in my sons' troop), I'll be just as happy. My sons are being taught the values that made this country strong. My sons are a part of an elite group that believes in character over politics. If they standout more and more as the exception, so be it.

I'm just astounded that they even make a 6X!

I do agree with you. However, I will always see homosexuality and pedophilia as having at least one common link - sin. I do wonder what possess some folks to behave in a certain manner. I am curious about some of the same things you have stated. Yet, I am not completely baffled. Ultimately, I am convinced that these people (whether it be the pedophile or the homosexual) are exercising their free will to achieve self-gratification. "Why do people suffer?"From accidents, disease, or at the hands of others (i.e., the victim of a pedophile), is an age-old question. I do have an answer, but its not one that most folks are willing to accept. My answer is from the Bible - "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28 Don't ask me how? I don't purport to be God. I do believe in Him and His Word.

sctmom, Even though I don't agree with you about everything, Rooster, I do appreciate your debating style. I'll take that as a compliment...I strongly suspect that we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Despite our differences, I also suspect that I would enjoy your company. You seem to have a very good heart. You put in me in a very difficult situation. It's quite puzzling. My convictions run deep. These are not issues that I feel I can ignore for the sake of friendship. Yet, I really don't want to offend folks such as yourself and OGE. Funny, how life works out? Many of the people I like the most, I quite often disagree with passionately. So, I thank you for "appreciating my debating style". I only hope you can still appreciate me when my passion for an issue overrules my ability to reason amicably. Yet, I also hope you can appreciate that while I want to be viewed as your friend, I have to speak the truth as I believe it to be.

I tend to agree (particularly in the Suburbs of D.C.). However, even here, not every family has the funds available. This should not be a reason to keep anyone out of Scouting. If I'm not mistaken, a BSA policy was created to that end.

To my knowledge, no troop can mandate a uniform be purchased by a Scout. A Scout is to be in uniform to the best of his ability. If a family cannot afford the uniform, then it seems to me that the Scout doesn't have to wear one. Of course, for the reasons you stated, he may well want a uniform. If that is the case, I'm a little short on answers.

featherswillfly, Good to hear the news. I hope this is the end of this tale. You and your family should remain cautious for a while. I will keep you in my prayers.

ba-dad, I am in agreement with all of the others here. I encourage you to do the things that you've committed yourself to do. However, whatever happens, I would not leave your son in that environment. I'm not as concerned about the push-ups as I am about the yelling. This can really impact the way a kid thinks of himself, most notably in regards to his self-esteem. I'm a pretty hard-nosed conservative (as many can attest to). I believe in not "babying" a kid, but this guy's behavior sounds way out of line. It has the potential to do much more harm (in the long term) than simply making a kid cry (which is bad enough). It may be a huge sacrifice on your part, but maybe God is calling you to become this den's leader...Something to think about.

I'm not sure if my thoughts should be in another thread or not, but here goes. I am a merit badge counselor for several merit badges. Recently, I oversaw three separate groups within my troop for Emergency Preparedness, Family Life, and Personal Management. One of my sons was in all three groups. Upon achieving the rank of Life, he was lectured by the advancement coordinator who happened to sit on the BOR, for having too many "group merit badges." This irritated me for several reasons: My son has earned several merit badges that involved "group sessions", but he has earned just as many without group sessions. In other words, he knows how to work with adult counselors as an individual and in smaller groups. With exception to the Emergency Preparedness merit badge, very few of these group sessions were for the purpose of instruction. In other words, most of the requirements were earned/completed outside of the group. For the EP sessions, multiple counselors (six) were utilized to provide instruction on an individual basis. For all other cases, the group sessions were used for discussion and the signing off of requirements. Following the G2SS, at least one other person (aside from the Scout and Counselor) needs to be present for merit badge counseling to occur. It only makes sense to make that person another Scout. For me, it is more practical to set up a schedule and to invite a small group (six to ten Scouts), then try to meet with the same ten Scouts on five different nights (in pairs of two). A counselor should make wise use of his time. I don't believe in group merit badges. That is to say, the group doesn't earn the badge, the individual does. Quite often, when I am done overseeing these merit badge sessions, less than half the boys will earn the badge. Some will come back later to finish up. Others never complete the badge. Finally, and this is the part that bothers me most, there is an inference that the Scout has not truly earned a "group merit badge". That somehow, because it was done in a group setting, the badge has less worth. And even more disparaging, the logical conclusion is, the Scout has not truly earned his rank because of these "group merit badges". For all of the reasons mentioned above, I found the advancement coordinator's remarks to be inappropriate. To some degree, she made my son feel as if his badge was inferior. And of course, the other unmentioned implication is that I was "easier on him" than others. This was never stated, but because of her other remarks and the fact that I was the counselor for these three badges, I felt that it was implied. So, what do you think? Am I being overly sensitive? If there is no reason to suspect the counselor of being 'easy' on his or other kids, should "group merit badges" ever be criticized? What exactly constitutes a "group merit badge"? More than two kids? If requirements are being earned elsewhere (outside of the session), what's wrong with a counselor requesting "all interested boys" to meet on a certain night?

Sctmom, You said - A friend of mine who is gay, hates these parades where they go around "half dressed". This is only a small part of the gay community. Whenever I see one of these events on the news, they sure seem to be out in force. I keep hearing about these "reserved" gays who don't want to be associated with the "on the fringes, outspoken" gays at these events and elsewhere. This "small part of part of the gay community", would they be the same ones that sponsors these parades all over the country? Would they be the same ones disturbing the masses at St. Patrick's in NY? Would they be the same ones posting garbage all over the Internet? This small part of community seems to be everywhere. They look and act no different than anyone else in their daily lives. They hold regular jobs, dress the same, live in the same neighborhoods, etc. Your statements may be true for some, many, or even most of the homosexual community. I don't know. Regardless, these same statements could be applied to many folks who are held captive by a vice (addicted gamblers, adulterers, alcoholics, pedophiles, etc.). People do a very good job of hiding their vices. This is particularly true if/when they realize others would not like what they would see. About the quote of 35% of pedophiles are homosexual, does that mean they have had some time in their life had a homosexual experience or they consider themselves homosexual and are participate in homosexual relationships with other adults. To my knowledge, they are self-professed homosexuals who committed acts of pedophilia.

NJ, I couldn't say one way or the other if they have a hidden agenda. I'm merely stating, from my perspective, the policy achieves two ends. Whether or not BSA planned it that way is not within my powers to discern. As to your claim, "...there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of gay leaders who keep quiet about it." While this claim does support your argument well, it is hardly factual. Indulge me and I will draw some conclusions about society and the gay community using the same kind of "facts". In today's word, it seems to me that "being gay" is to be celebrated. In today's world, where every reality based TV show has at least one gay participant, homosexuals are striving for attention. In today's world, gays equate themselves with black civil rights leaders of the 60's. In today's world, gays parade down the street half dressed. In today's world, gays have their own magazines and newspapers. They even have their own holiday - "Gay Pride Day". In short, homosexuals (as a group) are no longer in the closet. That being said, I find it difficult to believe that "thousands of gay leaders" populate the BSA's ranks unnoticed and unchallenged. This seems logical to me and much more likely. Hardly factual, but it has at least the same amount of merit as your previous statement. As to your claim (or anybody else's, including BSA) that the homosexual is no more likely to become a pedophile than a heterosexual, I submit this FACT for your review: While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual. K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197. http://www.dadi.org/punfmvlu.htm If the homosexual population is 2% and account for 35% of the molestations they are many times more likely to commit this crime.

Dan, IMHO rooster likes to debate! Guilty as charged. Still, I won't debate just for the sake of it. I debate issues that matter to me. OGE, So the debate will be over whose view of the Christian God is accurate, right? There are fundamental differences between denominations that are worth debating. I intend to show SagerScout two such differences. It's my hope and prayer that she will consider them. If, in the name of unity, we always ignore these "minor" differences, eventually we'll stray so far from the truth, it will be impossible to recognize the two as the same God. Perhaps my perspective is wrong. Nevertheless, we should both examine the bible and pray to determine God's Word (truth). SagerScout, Yes, the Messiah was male when on this earth but his human form, even resurrected, was only temporarily on earth, while his eternal self is divine and beyond our language's descriptions. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:16 Jesus, when referencing God, always used the male gendered noun - Father . This is one example, but the Gospel is filled with references to God as Father. Never did Jesus use the female gendered nouns or imply that anyone should. If Jesus has no problem identifying the gender of God, why should his followers? And for what purpose would anyone introduce this ambivalence when the Gospel is clear. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Yes, I would not disagree. After all, you are quoting the bible. Only God can judge. Only God can determine the fate of his children. However, take this verse in context with the rest of God's Word. While we are not called to judge God's children, we are called to speak out against sin. If we speak out against murderif we label it as a sin, are we passing judgment? The Old and New Testaments condemn homosexuality. If we speak out against homosexualityif we label it a sin, are we passing judgment? We, brothers and sisters in Christ, can speak out against sin and not pass judgment (in terms of eternal condemnation). I do not wish to seek God's authority or power. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians, 9 - 11 Mommascout, Obviously, you have given much thought to your children's education. One comment - If I were able to send my child to a private school, I probably would choose a Catholic school. I appreciate their no non-sense approach. From my understanding, they focus on the basics (reading, writing, and arithmetic), work with parents, and don't tolerate disruptors in the classroom or anywhere else during school hours.

NJ, I'm aware of BSA's official stance on this issue. I've seen their fact sheet and the disclaimer. Regardless, I'm pretty convinced that they are killing two birds (improper role model and reducing risk of pedophilia) with one stone. Of course, as always, you're free not to believe it.