Rooster7

My previous post should have been addressed to MomScouter (vice ScouterMom). What can I say? My apologies to MomScouterI'm a little dyslexic.

"...the scout does not have to meet anyones expectation of performance level. They are required only to do thier best." Except that of the person signing off the requirement - of course. Which is why it is important that you carefully choose your merit badge counselors and your Scoutmaster's Corps. A square knot is a square knot. If the Scout can't tie one properly, he should not be signed off, even if he tried his best.

ScouterMom "To the best of my knowledge (someone correct me if I am wrong), the Scout Oath and Law have always included references to God and being reverent. Thus as a private organization BSA is within their rights to exclude those who do not profess a belief in a higher power." BSA as a private organization is free to interpret its own policies. It does not have to spell out every belief or inference of its policies. In fact, they are free to change their policies to be more restrictive or less at any time they so chose. The Scout Oath and Law were not written to be legally binding documents. They were written to re-enforce the values of BSA, but not the values that you apparently subscribe to. "However, I do believe that this is a form of religious discrimination and because of that the BSA should not expect to use public facilities or receive any kind of government funded perks." Fortunately, Many if not most do not agree with your definition of religious discrimination. "In contrast, there is nothing in the Oath, Law, or any handbook, leader guide, or any other publication that I have ever been provided that outlines any guidelines for sexuality. I have always been told that ANY discussions pertaining to sexuality are to be deferred to the parents. I do not for one minute believe that 'morally straight' is a reference to sexuality, but rather a directive to follow values as outlined in the Law." "Morally straight" is obviously not referring specifically to sexuality. However, most in BSA would subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is immoral. Its BSA's free right to agree and to deny membership to homosexuals. This does not have to be printed in black and white as you contend. If you have an open mind, please consider the following taken from www. Scoutingforall. com: Nice. And if I don't want to consider the same ridiculous arguments that I've heard time and time againI suppose that would make me close minded. By the way, "Scouting for All" is a catchy name. Ironically, if they achieve their goal, it will be at the expense of millions of God loving members. I guess these folks don't count. 'In a letter sent to James Dale, the BSA said that they had expelled him because he did not adhere to "the standards of leadership established by the [bSA], which specifically forbid membership to homosexuals." But where is this anti-gay "policy"? It is found nowhere in official BSA publications.' Again, BSA is not legally bound by its reference material. Not that the material is inconsistent. The simple fact is, the homosexual issue is not addressed in its reference material. So What? They still have the right to deem the behavior morally unacceptable and to deny membership to homosexuals. "Even the Supreme Court justices remarked that "It remained, in effect, a secret Boy Scout policy" and this policy ". . . appears to be no more than a private statement of a few BSA executives . . ." And yet, they also sided with BSA and agreed that they have a right to deny membership to homosexuals. Why? Because they are a private organization and they have a right to establish their own standards (written or unwritten) and associate with those people that they so chose. In fact, the BSA states officially that "[n]either the charter nor the laws of the [bSA] permits the exclusion of any boy... " . . . our membership shall be representative of all the population in every community, district, and council." Hmmm. Does that mean BSA should allow pedophiles into the organization too? How about "animal lovers"? How does one draw the distinction? Obviously, you can't. Bottom line is - Without God; morality is subjective. Regardless, it is BSA's legal right to be the arbitrator of that subjectivity and determine what they are willing to accept or not accept. Why can't you accept that? This goes to the very core of this society's freedom. It's the same concept that allows GSUSA to be the organization it presents itself to be. Although the BSA has clearly stated that sexual matters are "not construed to be Scouting's proper area," they have also stated that they "teach young boys who are Scouts that homosexuality is immoral." Even though some people in Scouting believe this, especially some religious groups that charter troops, many other religious groups do not adhere to this belief and, in fact, believe to the contrary " that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong." The BSA bylaws state that the BSA is "absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward religious training" and in fact it " does not define what constitutes duty to God or the practice of religion." Yet,despite the BSA's denials that it addresses sexual matters or that it espouses a articular religious doctrine, the BSA has condemned homosexual identity, the specific moral doctrine of only some of its religious supporters! By this logic, BSA cannot condemn any sexually immoral behavior. Given this pretence, BSA could not say sex with a child or an animal is immoral. Why do we believe these things are wrong? After all, who can say when a man or woman truly becomes a man or a woman? Who can speak for the animal? These are all inane and insane arguments that have been made before. It's the same kind of argument that homosexuals make. They aren't hurting anyone, right? It's an affront to God. It's immoral. Thankfully, BSA still has the right to feel this way. If you don't, then you have a right to start your own group. We are afraid that the Boy Scouts of America is being taken over by the religious fundamentalists who use the Scout Law and Scout Oath as weapons of hatred, discrimination, and bigotry to hurt people who are gay in the same way they use the bible, Jesus Christ and God to hurt gay youth and adults. This type of behavior is what is immoral. Funny, I feel the same way about folks who twist God's word. You brought the bible into this. Do you honestly believe that the God of the bible would shake his head in agreement with this sentiment? God is very loving, but he is also righteous. The bible speaks as much, if not more, about his righteousness as it does about his love. Many find comfort with the idea that God will accept anything. This permits them to do as they please without concern. Do you truly believe that these statements are inspired by God's love? Perhaps, they merely allow these folks to sleep well. In response to Rooster7's comment 'Your statement infers that there may be a significantly large enough contingent to evoke these changes. I don't buy it. By the way, I'm fairly certain that most of these councils are from the San Francisco and New York area.' Councils who have challenged the 'policy' do include San Francisco and New York, but they also include Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles , as well as many others and individual units. Check out the scoutingforall site for more info. Okay, so you can name a few cities, and perhaps a few dozen councils. Regardless, I'm still banking that there are more of us that them. You may feel that you're defending some noble cause. I don't know your motivation. I don't condemn people who do not believe as I do. If you're a Christian, I urge you to read your bible. When you do, you "keep an open mind". God's love is great, but so is his righteousness. Finally, in regards to Girls Scouts: I have been involved in Girl Scouts many more years than Boy Scouts. I have no desire to know the sexual orientation of any leader or girl. It is none of my business. I have no "desire" to know the sexual habits of anyone, unless it has the potential to harm people I care about. Such is the case for BSA's policy. Homosexuality (among other deviations) has the potential to harm my son directly (by unwanted contact) and/or indirectly (by corrupting his moral beliefs). GSUSA agrees. I have never known of any problems because of this. GSUSA is very diligent in doing background checks to screen out child molesters but sexual orientation of leaders or girls is simply a non-issue. Good for them. It's their choice as a private organization. It's my choice to decide whether or not to join them. I chose not to join them. I hope those "open minded" folks who disagree with BSA will follow the example of a free society, and allow BSA to be the organization it wants to be.

Agreed.

Bob White, I submit there is some gray area here, and in some other policies. You seem pretty convinced that the phrase "wear as complete and correct a uniform as he can" means whatever the situation might dictate. I'm not so convinced that this is the proper interpretation. By this definition, the Scout can say "My Mom forgot to dry my uniform after washing it last night" and the BoR would have to accept it. There are a thousand different excuses for not wearing the complete uniform. I'm not willing to accept most. Accepting these excuses would be counterproductive to character building. Short of a funeral (pretty extreme example), there are very few good reasons why a Scout wouldn't show up in uniform. As to this being an issue for the BoR vice the Scoutmaster, I tend to agree. Although, the Scoutmaster would have his say when it came to sign off the boy on Scout spirit (prior to the BoR). Your knowledge concerning BSA policies, procedures, and history, is very impressive (I applaud your dedication), but I don't think you have a lock on policy interpretation. Or at least, you haven't convinced me for this particular policy.

"What percentage of conservative parents have their children joining BSA? From what I see it is not the majority. I just don't know how you can't at least give it a try." Sctmom, Who knows what the politics are of the majority of Scouts and Scouters? It's not important. You know, even liberals describe themselves as "God loving, God fearing". The point is not that the majority are conservatives, or even that the majority would leave. The point is - BSA would lose far more Scouts and Scouters than such a policy change could possibly bring into its organization. Furthermore, once you open those two doors (homosexuals and atheists), BSA's descent down the slippery slope would be quite rapid. Fact is, many including myself would say such a policy change would put them darn near the bottom of the hill. On a more personal note, I will never allow my son to tent with a self-professed homosexual. This idea is ludicrous. Of course, I'm sure many will argue that he doesn't have to tent with a homosexual. How many homosexual boys are going to stand up and admit their orientation? And if they don't, what do we do then? When an incident occurs in a tent between one of these boys, do we write it off as "youthful indiscretion"? What would you tell the boy that was molested (or seduced, if that agrees with your sensibilities more)? You can have your son "give it a try", but I pray you don't. As for the atheists, while I could deal with this situation easier, I would still object. My family joined Scouting because of it faith based values, not despite of them. Why would BSA want to drive away a large segment of its membership to pacify a group that doesn't even appreciate the program for what it is? Brad - Ditto on your statement concerning the Girl Scouts. Weekender, DD, Ed, Glenn, jmcquillan, Fscouter, andrews, and others - It does warm my heart to know that I am part of a large movement (hopefully the majority) in Scouting that still loves God and traditional values. We owe it to our children to keep up the good fight. Weekender, stay up on that ladder and keep it coming. Amen.

"bumpedy bump"??? That's one I haven't heard before. Is that a sign of your age? Or, is a sign of your geography? Based on your previous posts, I have to assume it's some sort of affirmation (we seem to be cut from the same cloth).

Six. "What is 1st Class?"

"There is dissension among Scouters about the atheist issue as well as the homosexual issue; whole councils have petitioned the national office for change." 1 - BSA is comprised of hundreds, if not thousands of Councils. It shouldn't surprise any of us that a few folks have strayed from BSA's vision for Scouting. Your statement infers that there may be a significantly large enough contingent to evoke these changes. I don't buy it. By the way, I'm fairly certain that most of these councils are from the San Francisco and New York area. 2 - The day Merlyn and others achieve these changes; will be the day BSA changes forever. BSA will gain thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of atheists and homosexuals, but they will lose hundreds of thousands of God loving, God fearing Scouts and Scouters. It's my firm belief that there are far more of "us" than "them". If I'm wrong, I truly grieve for BSA and the folks who believe in the program as Baden-Powell originally envisioned it.

Ironic isn't it? These same groups (NOW, pro-abortion, homosexual agenda, etc.) characterize themselves as being victims of stereotypes and oppression. They denounce society (read white heterosexual males) claiming that they have demeaned their opinions and suppressed their right to express the same. But what happens when anyone refuses to agree with them? They attack their critics with stereotypes, demean their opinions (if the not the actual person or group), and they condemn anyone willing to listen to them. UNBELEIVEABLE! Their shame has no boundaries.

Maybe you see this as splicing hairs, but I see a distinction between your position and that of FScouter and jmcquillan that is not being recognized. FScouter and jmcquillan don't seem to be saying that the purchase of the full uniform is required. From my reading of their posts, they require the boys to wear as much of the full uniform that they own (or have access to) before their Troop will allow a BoR. To me, this is not denying advancement or adding a requirement. I agree with jmcquillan. We need to teach the boys responsibility and provide consequences when that responsibility is not fulfilled.

Agreed. Point well taken.

FScouter, First, let me say - Thanks - for using "implore" properly, vice "employ" like I had erroneously did in my first post. Spell checker doesn't catch everything - eh? Ugh, I hate it when I use a word improperly (although I probably do it a lot more than I want to know). I didn't mean to say that we should respond to all detractors tit for tat. I agree with your assertion that it can be a great waste of energy. Still, whenever I detect that there might be a "fence sitter" who could be swayed by a "Merlyn", I feel duty bound to say something. If we don't, one day, we may find ourselves to be of the minority opinion. I'm doing my best to explain to some folks that if character truly counts, we need to be steadfast. Otherwise, BSA could become like some of the churches that I described above.

Great post Weekender. You get another - Amen! Funny how the people who argue "separation of church and state" ignore the writings of our founding fathers as if they had nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution. It's ridiculous. They take one sentence and twist into a tenant that no one ever thought imaginable (with exception to some of our "deep thinking" justices from the 60's and 70's). How can anyone read this declaration from George Washington and honestly believe our founding fathers wanted all of government to wash it hands of God? It's truly amazing. These are probably the same people that take one verse of scripture by itself and twist it to their advantage. It appears as if every generation has it Pharisees.

Amen. OOOPs...Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Bob White, I appreciate the up-to-date and accurate information regarding BSA policies (in particular those involving uniforms). I really do. I don't appreciate the accusation of neglectfulness. You said, "Punishment for not being dressed according to your expectations? That violates so many policies it is staggering. Guys take a weekend off and set your priorities." This comment is way off the mark and unnecessary.

While it is apparent that Merlyn is fully capable of a good debate (intellectually), I must agree with Weekender. He obviously does not believe in our organization (at least not as it exists today). We should not give me reason to further disrupt discourse on this site. Debating BSA's religious requirement with Merlyn is like debating the flavor of poultry with a vegetarian. It just doesn't make sense any more. He's not going to get it...And if he does, he will probably use it as a basis for some sort of insult.

OGE, I was mostly referring to dan's post about not discussing certain issues. I understand and agree with your previous post...you "fat-headed idiot" (just kidding!).

Some posts on this site (mine included) have border on the edge of being un-Scout-like. Perhaps some have crossed over the line. We certainly need to be careful that this does not happen in the future. However, lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. Discussions concerning the uniform, camo, and BSA policy, should not be avoided. This forum has provided great advice on camping, Eagle projects, leadership techniques, and the like. Nevertheless, these so called "political" discussions are helpful too. In fact, in many ways they go to the core as to why so many us are in Scouting. As we all know, BSA is more about building strong character than campfires (at least I've always felt this way). Many of these conversations are not what they appear to be on the surface. I mean that in a good way. For example, a discussion about "camo" often turns into a debate concerning Baden-Powell's vision for Scouting. I don't want to revive the argument. It's merely an example. Here are a couple more obvious ones - BSA policies on atheism and homosexuals. Many, hopefully most Scouts, Scouters, and their families joined Scouting because of these polices, not despite of them. If we ignore these issues, than those people seeking to change those policies will eventually win. We need to remind ourselves as to why we believe the things we believe. I'd rather have these discussions on an open forum such as this so everyone is fully aware of the issues and the people seeking to change them. As opposed to ignoring them, or down playing them, while someone like Merlyn works in the background to change the program. One of the reasons many churches no longer believe in the things they use to is NOT because their spiritual leaders examined God's Word and prayed about the issues. It's largely because thousands of folks sat silently in the pews while dozens of noisy members (or even non-members) got their way. If you're silent because you agree with those people seeking change, then I guess I should shut up and be happy (obviously I don't want these changes). If you're silent because they are wearing you down, then I employ you to stay in the fray to preserve BSA as it is - A first rate program for boys that not only teaches outdoor skills, but traditional values, and love for God, country, and family.

God exists whether anyone on this board wants to acknowledge it or not. That being said, God influences us whether we admit it or not. For the most part (church doctrine aside), we know what is right or wrong inherently. Specifically, there is no doubt in my mind that an adultery, a murder, a pedophile, a drug addict, a thief, an idolater, (pick your sin or vice and insert here), knows he has committed an offense against God. At some point, if we insist on denying his existence, God will remove his influence from us and we will no longer know the difference. I know this to be true for two reasons - 1) The Bible tells me so, and 2) So does my conscience (and I have no doubt that each of us has heard his voice). Atheists can refute the above as they please, and I imagine they can do so whole-heartily because they have been doing it for quite some time. Nevertheless, truth be told, they have heard His voice at some time too. Acts 17:23 - 32 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. 24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.' 29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." 32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." Here's one for you Merlyn - Luke 11:52-54 52 "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering.'' 53 When He left there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile and to question Him closely on many subjects, 54 plotting against Him to catch Him in something He might say. Andrews is absolutely correct. The fact that any atheist knows right from wrong is just another testament to God's existence. An atheist cannot point to anything external, and if he does, it's completely subjective. God speaks to us all. It's not a question as to whether or not he exists. Or, whether or not someone knows right from wrong. The question is: Who is willing to accept His gift and follow? This brings me back to the question - "Is BSA being dishonest?" Well, since they recognize that God exists, I'd have to say they're not dishonest. Are they purposely ignoring an established law? Despite Merlyn's contention, the jury is still out. There have been many court decisions. Until the Supreme Court makes a decision on this matter that clearly states no public entity can proclaim the existence of God, I believe Merlyn is wrong. The day the Supreme Court declares that God does not exist, or that a public entity cannot attest to the same, I will believe the Court to be wrong.

Actually, there is a third alternative, but it may not apply here. If your son has completed the work, which was originally scoped and agreed to by the sponsor, he can plead his case to BSA. In other words, your son completed his part of the agreed contract. If it meets BSA's satisfaction then his project could still be signed off. This assumes of course that the sponsor is not being reasonable (which seems to be the case here). Here's the catch...He has to do the work which was originally agreed to by the sponsor. If the sponsor is prohibiting that from happening, then mcquillan is right...His only other alternative would be to find another project (assuming the suggested meeting with the sponsor fails to rattle this guy back to reality).

OGE, I did not mean to ruffle your feathers, but alas, I can see how my words managed to do so. It was not my intention. I'm a little hyper sensitive about this topic (scandals, etc.) when Christianity is brought into the picture. Many anti-religious folks like to point to the failings of Christians as if it was evidence that their faith was useless. Obviously this was not your intention, but I wanted to make it clear for others. Thanks.

OGE, I understand. Still, I think it's a mistake to point to overt behavior (good or bad) as a yardstick to measure the effectiveness of being a Christian. Certainly Christ does change lives (i.e. change peoples' behavior for the better), but this is merely a byproduct. Redemption and Salvation is the ultimate "prize", not necessarily good behavior. I'm sure you know this, but I don't want others to be confused. "Forgiven, not perfect"at least not while still on this planet.

"I don't CARE what the BSA's reasons are; I care that the BSA continues to dishonestly charter units to government agencies that obviously can't enforce the BSA's religious requirements, and that the BSA continues to push for in-school recruiting." Merlyn, You seem to be under the impression that it's BSA's duty to interpret Constitutional law and enact polices that would constrain it as an organization based upon those interpretations. First, BSA is duty bound to its members. They are a Scouting organization, not a law firm. Second, it's the Chartering Organization that may or may not be within it's Constitutional right. Third, while the organization (Chartering Organization and BSA) should be following the laws of the land, I do not expect them to make decisions based upon the possible outcome of a future court ruling, especially decisions that would hinder or change the program. Fourth, BSA and many schools are apparently willing to wait and see (i.e., let the court's decide). Fifth, BSA and many schools are willing to let the courts decide. This is NOT dishonest. Perhaps it's the people fighting to change this policy that are being dishonest. Screaming religious discrimination does not make it so. By your definition, all organizations that want God to be a part of their program are discriminatory. My guess is; you will not be happy until all references to God are banned from public forums. In fact, your claim that BSA is dishonest seems dishonest and self-serving to me. You have yet to show to me the Constitutional grounds for a Supreme Court ruling that would prohibit public agencies from declaring that God exists. Until then, I stand firm in my belief. The day the Supreme Court rules in your favor, I will spend my time fighting that decision. If you want a Scouting organization that does not include God in their program, you should start your own.

"And, of course, this illustrates the problems I've mentioned with god-based morals. You say god prohibits polygamy; a Muslim would say god permits it. It doesn't look like god-belief settles the question at all." Getting back on point with Merlyn, I think he and many others on this board are missing the point of BSA's religious requirement. It is not a litmus test for moral behavior. Recognizing the reality of God, and respecting Him (i.e., being reverent) is in itself a trait that BSA is promoting (above and beyond moralistic behavior). Obviously, BSA recognizes that different faiths believe in different precepts. However, regardless of these differences, all of these faiths recognize, respect, and worship God. As to the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants, it goes way beyond church corruption. Martin Luther was primary opposed to the Catholic Church for doctrinal reasons. Having said this, I love and appreciate my Catholic brothers, but we do have disagreements.