Rooster7

The comparison is not fair. The Ten Commandments is the basis for U.S. law. It has historical significance as it relates to U.S. law. Or, as one of our Supreme Court justices noted - "The monument simply reflects the Ten Commandments role in the development of our legal system," (Rehnquist) Furthermore, I feel it is not right for the government (federal or state) to disassociate itself with a precept (or 10 precepts in this case) just because a religious faith endorses the same values. By that standard, we should abolish all laws. The posting of the Ten Commandments is simply recognition of this country's founding principles. Given the choice, some people would purge all references to Christianity from our country's history. Some schools have already managed to do so.

ScoutRuud, Simply put, the United States of America is not Europe. We're not perfect, but we've done pretty well without much help from our European friends. That's not meant to be an insult. It is fairly accurate. You can turn your nose up at us all you want, but that doesn't make you, Europe, or even the United Nations, right. Time, and God, will tell. Unlike ScouterPaul, I'd like to believe the majority of Americans STILL believe the things that I do (including the opinion that homosexuality is immoral). If you feel we are unenlightened, then I guess we're going to have to live with that thought. By the way, to my knowledge, the United States has not signed the United Nations "law" declaring that sexual orientation (i.e., homosexuality) is a protected human right. If so, please point me to the document.

ScoutRuud, Simply put, the United States of America is not Europe. We're not perfect, but we've done pretty well without much help from our European friends. That's not meant to be an insult. It is fairly accurate. You can turn your nose up at us all you want, but that doesn't make you, Europe, or even the United Nations, right. Time, and God, will tell.

TJ, You said, Amicus briefs in opposition to the BSA policy were submitted or joined by the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association. One brief noted that even some individual churches within the Southern Baptist Convention have ordained gay clergy. Most of those above are Judeo-Christian. And they disagree with you and the BSA. I don't cite this in order to prove the morality of gays. I cite this in order to show that this opinion is far from consensus, and bolster my position that in such a case, I support placing the interpretation as close to the parents as possible. I don't see how that could ever be considered wrong. Unbelievable! Just where do you think these churches stood in 1910? Do you think for one second that they would have made these proclamations back then? The answer is obvious. Just like it is obvious where the founders of BSA stood in 1910. This is why you want to argue moral relativity. By doing so, you can make absurd claims about how morality has changed since 1910. Not true. I think you know better, but will never admit it. You said, The discretion to exclude immoral people from participating in Scouting should remain where it has been since 1910, at the local Chartering Partner level and as close to the parents as possible. Again, not true! This is a false premise. BSA never allowed local charting partners to establish their own criteria for morality. If they had, we wouldn't be arguing now. You said, You expect me to prove that gays are moral. You insist that I defend relative morality in order to prove my argument that gays are moral. Obviously, you cannot defend such a system. No one can. You judge BSA to be disingenuous because they deem homosexuality to be immoral by no objective standard. Your judgment of BSA is hypocritical. You have no objective system yourself (aside from majority vote). Your system cannot prove any behavior to be moral or immoral. Consequently, you are willing to tolerate any behavior the majority is willing to tolerate (at the local level). I agree that BSA's stance is not based on an objective system. It's based on a Holy God (Judeo-Christian values that are rooted in the bible). Once again, I state - BSA was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (just like this country). While BSA has invited all of the world's major faiths to join, I stand convinced that they never intended to give up the moral principles on which they were founded in order to accommodate these faiths. The invitation was an effort to include as many boys as possible, but not at any price. If your vision comes truebeing an Eagle Scout, or even just being a Scout, will be reduced to some meaningless badge. Scouting is not about camping skills. It's about character. A Scout's character should not be subject to interpretation at the "local level". BSA has its standards, and so far (God willing), they're going to keep them.

None.

TJ, You said, I could restate those exact words back to you and prove the point of my debate. I realize, when I bring God into the conversation, I open a whole new can of worms. As you have pointed out, BSA has invited many faiths to join its ranks. So, who is to say which "morals" are to be used as guideposts? Still, I feel I can make a cogent argument to justify the Judeo-Christian values. Nevertheless, for the moment, for the sake of argument, lets say my position is weak. Show me how your position is any stronger. You keep avoiding this fact - Your proposal is to define morality at the local level by majority vote. If this is acceptable, then you are willing to accept many things. Slavery was acceptable to the majority in America not so long ago. At one time, Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews was pretty popular among its citizens. If this was not bad enough, the "voters" will not be the parents (as you have suggested) but a group of people selected by the charter organization (committee members). In other words, even if the majority of the parents in the neighborhood didn't like the policy, they could not change it. The charter organization itself could the Man Love Boy Association or so other depraved group. You have failed to explain how this can be a reasonable approach. Also, you have failed to explain how you can call "murder" a near "absolute moral wrong" and still believe in such a system. After all, today's minority opinion may become tomorrow's majority opinion. In other words, there are no absolutes. Your system for determining morality does not allow for it, in fact, it prohibits absolutes. This goes back to some of DD's statements. Your system in affect gives tacit endorsement to all behavior. Once you remove God from the equation, no one can claim anything is morally wrong. It ALL becomes relative. You won't admit this. You keep denying this. You know its wrong. YET, you continue run this conversation in circles because you cannot defend your system of morality. I see it. DD sees it. Weekender sees it. Cjmiam sees it. I could go on and on The point is, once again, morality cannot be determined by popular opinion (i.e., majority vote). BSA obviously feels this way too. Even if many of its so-called members, may feel differently. If some charters (it matters not to me if there are many) wish to ignore BSA's position, they should do the honorable thing - resign and start their own organization. While I'm standing on my soapbox, I will submit this one more time (although I'm sure you feel I am only giving you more ammo) BSA is not a Christian organization. However, it is an organization that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (just like this country). While BSA has invited all of the world's major faiths to join, I stand convinced that they never intended to give up the moral principles on which they were founded in order to accommodate these faiths. The invitation was an effort to include as many boys as possible, but not at any price. My feelings on this subject appear to have some validity. You are the one fighting to have BSA change, not me.

By the way, I think it is pretty arrogant to assume someone is less experienced than you, simply because that person disagrees with you. For the record, I do know some homosexuals. Some I love and pray for. I also know some adulterers, liars, porn addicts, alcoholics, etc. Many of these folks are very likeable, some might even be family. In fact, I have my own set of flaws. Here's the difference. I am not suggesting that these flaws be accepted as normal and/or moral. I am not pretending that I have God on my side (or some moral code) endorsing my bad behavior.

TJ, No, you unfairly equate my statement to mean "simple majority" rules. It's no more appropriate for that country to treat its women as second-class citizens than it is for the BSA to treat homosexuals that way. And not just because 51% of the rest of the world believes it to be wrong. As I have already argued with you in a separate thread, I believe morality is relative. Some morals come closer to absolute morality than others (like basic human rights). AND YET, you still continue to avoid the question. How are these morals established? What person or persons can declare a moral to be universal? If it's not 51% of some population, who is empowered to declare what is moral or immoral? Based on what criteria? If it's purely relative, then why do you pretend to be on high moral ground in regard to your stance on homosexuality? You give me no objective way to determine if something is moral or immoral. I have to assume you are not equipped to do so. So, I repeatI implore youplease answer this question with a simple, one or two sentence response (take three or four if it helps), that make senses. And please don't point me to another thread. I've read them. They pretty much dance around the real question. Who has final say over what is right and wrong? How would you implement it in BSA? If you pull out "plurality" again, then please explain how it could be practically implemented in an organizationany organization (if simple majority is not your foundation)?

TJ, You just love to spin around in a circle. Frankly, it is tiresome. In the previous thread, which you pointed me to, you said morality should be determined as follows: By plurality and relative perspective on mores. And by mutual respect for each other, tolerance and standing on common ground. Ironically, that's the same argument some use to kick gays out of Scouting. However, in that thread, and as you have repeatedly done in this thread, you have failed to expound on that simplistic answer. Let me ask again. I will consider future avoidance to mean that you cannot answer in a logical manner (which, I pretty much figured was the case anyway) - If it's not by simple majority, then please explain how this wonderful system will work? Who has final say over what is right and wrong? How would you implement it in BSA? AND REMEMBER - You said it was not a matter of a simple majority vote (which is good, because that would really cause your argument to suffer a quick death).

Bob White, Your last post was right on target. I agree with it whole heartily. "TJ", I think you have received the answer to your original question. Can we agree (to a compromise or some sort of resolution)? By all appearances the answer appears to be "no". That being the case, why don't you start your own organization? Regardless, it does not appear you have the plurality that you were seeking to support your stance. Speaking of which, per your vision of the perfect world, morality should be determined by plurality. If it's not by simple majority, then please explain how this wonderful system will work? I am anxious to hear your answer. I am convinced that it will be non-sense, but I have a morbid sense of curiosity. I want to see the "logic" that would govern such a system. If I am right, it will be so convoluted that others will have to shake their head in agreement with my assessment. It surely will be a very subjective system susceptible to human whims. Nevertheless, do tell! I really want to hear it explained in cogent manner. While we are on the subject, I'd like to be on record as saying - "I do NOT believe morality can be separated from God". Without God, we have no true purpose...Each new generation would merely be worm food for the generations to follow. Without his influence, morality is purely subjective, governed by flawed people seeking to serve themselves (that would include all of us). Without God, love and all other emotions are merely chemical reactions that occur within one head. Why should we bother to pursue what is right (or moral)? So we can boast about ourselves? Stay up one night and think about it. A world without God is not a world that one should seek. Having said that - The day we decide morality is subjective, will be the day we create just such a world. Regarding this specific debate, it matters not what you (or the plurality) might label as moral or immoral. BSA has determined homosexuality to be immoral. It's there choice (as Bob White, DD, and others, have indicated time and time again). Our government ensures them that right. Just to emphasize my previous question, please explain to me how your system of "morality by plurality" works? What happens when your nation is divided on an issue? Does that make the issue amoral? If it's not a matter of simple majority, then what governs the outcome? Please explain, if you can.

DD, Did you get my email response?

Rooster7 said: You're not going to find common ground. For most of us (those who strongly oppose homosexuality on moral grounds), to compromise on this issue, is to surrender. Yes, I recognize that. And that's very unfortunate for us as an organization. Some people who disagree with you feel just as strongly. Many more who disagree with you might not share the passion that either you or I bring to the debate, but nonetheless feel the sting of being a part of a policy they believe to be foolish or wrong. That's interesting, but "your side" per BSA policy is the wrong side. This may be unfortunate for your "group" (whoever you feel you are representing), but I don't think it is unfortunate for the organization - BSA. In fact, I'm not convinced that a change in policy is inevitable, as you have suggested. I realize that your tactic, or at least the tactic of homosexual activists, is to wear the other side down. However, more and more good people are realizing this fact as well. It may be a matter of time when folks like me don't have to argue so hard because we'll be preaching to the choir. If I'm wrongwell, time and God will reveal the truth for all to see.

Specifically, Lowering Standards is bad because the BSA is an elite organization with High Standards and debasing its principles dishonors its integrity. There it is...In a nutshell (no offense intended DD ). Well said!

Just as I suspected... The mantra for real estate and public education seems to be one in the same: Location! Location! Location! sctmom, Trust meYou can find plenty of that "stuff" in the Northeast.

The point of this thread was not to debate all over again using the exact same arguments; it was to start a new debate on a possible resolution. tjhammer, You're not going to find common ground. For most of us (those who strongly oppose homosexuality on moral grounds), to compromise on this issue, is to surrender. As DD has tried to explain on numerous occasions, you might as well propose a resolution that includes bestiality, incest, and prostitution. Does that sound insane? Well, now you know how we feel about your proposed resolution. The fact is, you've never come to grips with the idea that we find the behavior to be repulsive and unacceptable, so much so, that we refuse to have our children join an organization (at any level) that would accept that behavior as being moral. We are not going to expose our children to unrepentant practitioners of perversion, at least not knowingly. These are strong words. Nevertheless, they are merely words of someone who believes in God, country, and family. Something BSA taught me not so long ago. They reflect the same values that this country embraced for more than 200 years. Why should we change one iota? I like the organization just as it is, and I intend to fight to keep it that way.

NJCubScouter, Bottom Line - BSA has created and established itself a reputation over the last 92 years (good or bad, it matters not). It embraces a very specific set of ideas and goals. They should not allow others to feed off its name and infrastructure when those individuals do not stand with them, but against them. BSA is a national organization, with a wholesome reputation, from coast to coast. They, and many of their supporters, like it this way. There are no legal or moral reasons compelling them to change. If others disagree, then those individuals are free to create their own organization with their own ideas and goals. This stance is not narrow-minded or bigoted, as some would have you believe. It is a stand based on principle and inspired by one's beliefs in a free countrythis country. No one asked these "non-believers" to join. If they are as honorable as they say, they should resign and pursue their own organizationas opposed to trying to dismantle and/or re-invent an organization that was never created with them in mind.

sctmom, I agree with most of your post. I see an agenda in some public schools, but that could be a matter of location... Regardless, I do have one comment. You said - I've seen a few instances where the kids were 17 and could barely read because the parents didn't do much at the home school. I've also seen the articles on the ones who excel. Per every study I ever read on home schooling, the example you gave (17-year-old barely able to read) is truly the exception. As a group, home schoolers do far better than public schoolers. This is not to say there is anything wrong with sending your child to public school. I merely want to emphasize that home schoolers do very well as a group. In fact, in my neck of the woods, the possibility of your 17-year-old not being able to read is more often associated with the public schools.

I shouldn't have to ask. Nevertheless, I am not adopting a policy that is contradictory to National. Bob, frankly, I can't respect you as a Scouter. On the one hand, you claim to believe in BSA and the program. On the other, you're circumventing policy.

tj, I suspect that this is the solution that has already taken hold - that is, by default by local units ignoring the policy. I stated under a different topic, that would be my approach, if it has the concurrence of our CO and parent's committee. For gay/lesbian adults that want to participate in scouting for the right reason, and who are known to the troop and respected as individuals, I think that most scouters will look the other way. First, I do not respect any Scouter that would purposely ignore a highly publicized policy, and particularly so when National has clearly stated their position. If you are not following the policy, you should start or leave the organization. I don't care how devoted one might be, that person is obviously not devoted to BSA as the organization that it wants to be. Second, when a child is molested by one of these individuals that you and others have so much confidence in, don't be surprised when the parents of the said child, come to take your home and everything else you might possess. BSA certainly won't back that charter. The parents would have a very strong case since they have every right to expect that the charter would be following BSA policy. These people (who ignore policy) do BSA, the boys, the parents, and themselves a huge disservice.

DD, I'll have to check my email at home. I don't think we have received anything, but I could be wrong. It's possible that he has the wrong email address. I had some wierd stuff happen when I first try to establish an account on this site.

Brad, I agree...It does require sacrifice. My thought - I realize (and the next generation of Roosters may fall into this category) that not everybody can home school, even if they wanted to do so. - was to acknowledge the fact that my children may have to make a much greater sacrifice. Or, if the sacrifice was too great, and a good alternative was available, they may opt not to home school.

I see no middle ground with le Voyageur's statements. They are offensive. When we stated our complaints, he returns with this - The anger that I am now seeing flowing my way verifies my observations....those in the majority will close ranks to insult, beat down and keep in place the minority who dare step outside of their dark shadows. Those who dare speak a truth foreign to theirs will be silenced....thanks for proving me right.... This is pretty one-sided, but he is the one doing the attacking (not the other way around). His version of truth is to insult and vilify us.

I know some terrific kids with outstanding values. Some are home schooled. Some go to public school. Some go to private school. Home schooling worked for my family. It may well be true that regardless of where I sent my children to school, they would have shared our values (mine and my wife's, which we hope reflects our faith's). Also, I realize (and the next generation of Roosters may fall into this category) that not everybody can home school, even if they wanted to do so. But here is what I can say about home schooling: 1) It allows one to tailor the curriculum to their children's ability level. This mean my son does get forced to 3rd grade math if he's struggling to understand 2nd grade math. We can bring him up-to-speed at a rate that does not frustrate him. Conversely, we can accelerate subjects [such as science] so he is not bored. 2) It allows one to re-enforce the values and teachings of one's faith [i.e., we can have a Bible study]. Also, while we might teach our children about evolution, we can highlight the flaws in that theory and emphasize what we believe [creationism]. Is homosexuality wrong? When is it appropriate to be sexuality active? Is abortion a women's "right"? Or is it the "murder" of a child? These are questions, which I want addressed in my home. Also, I do not want the public schools in my area [paid for with my tax dollars] presenting these topics to my children in a manner, which I believe would have been prejudicial and contrary to my faith. 3) It allows one to spend more time with one's children. I am confident that my children are more concerned about meeting my approval than the kid down the street. Sometimes it is more out of respect and love than complete agreement, but the allegiance is not questionable. Does this mean that parents of public or private school kids do not have the same allegiance? Of course, it does not. But home schooling gives parents the opportunity to spend valuable with their children and become a greater influence. 4) There is a socialization issue. However, I submit these two thoughts. As long as you have your kids active elsewhere, they will be fine. My sons played boys club sports [ages 5 to 16]. They were in Cub Scouts. They were and are in Boys Scouts. They attend Sunday school with other children their age. They are members of various church youth groups. They play with the children in the neighborhood. They spend time at the neighborhood pool during the summers. They mow lawns for money. They go to the stores. I could go on and on. The bottom line - they are exposed everyday to all sorts of people, young and old, all races, all religions, etc. However, they are mostly exposed to us [their parents] and other adults who we believe will educate and encourage them in the right direction. Funny thing, and this is not meant as a knock on public schools, but I find it very ironic that so many people worry about the socialization of home schoolers. Home schoolers do not have to worry about gangs [who could hurt their children or solicit them as members], drugs [at least not to the same extent], peer pressure to conform [to have the best clothes, to do something they ought not to], and a number of other pressures that public schoolers have to contend with on a fairly regular basis. Of course the counter argument to that is - "What are they going to do when it eventually does happen?" I'm pretty confident it will be the right thing. Nevertheless, I see no point of exposing them to these things at an early age and on a consistent basis. In summary, God blesses us in different ways. Certainly, many children come out of public and private school systems as excellent citizens and devoted children of God. I'm certain that many of them can point to more accomplishments and honors than many home schoolers. Never would I argue to the contrary. However, having said that, I believe home schooling offers a tremendous opportunity for parents and their children.

Le Voyageur, Your last post angered me. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. You are guilty of the very thing that you claim others are doing. Simply said, you are the one attempting to blind others of the truth.

My wife and I have been home schooling for the past nine years. So far, God has blessed us. My three boys are all doing well. My oldest son is in his first year of college (University of Delaware). My daughter is only two and a half. We enjoy the extra time that home schooling allows us to spend with our children. Best of all, they possess the values that are most dear to us. Which, by the way, is why we have all three boys in BSA. BSA re-enforces what we teach them at home.