Rooster7

sctmom and OldGreyEagle,

I am glad we can disagree in the friendly and logical manner displayed on this board. I need to add one last thought (prompted by OldGreyEagle's last post). I do know and have gay friends too. One in particular is a very close friend. But even if this were not so, I can appreciate most people for what they are, even if I don't care for some of their actions, habits, or political beliefs. This is why in my last post I made a point to say, "We all have vices (or sins)". Even though I strongly disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, I am not pointing to them as if they were some sort of strange animal. From a human perspective, we can all claim to have personal and intimate knowledge of one another. No one can claim he is without sin. Having said that, I have no problem being friends with a homosexual. Still, I reserve the right to not approve of his behavior.

Do I believe all homosexuals are pedophiles? No. I realize that being gay doesn't necessarily mean you're a pedophile as well. Would I trust my son with a homosexual? No. Why? As OldGreyEagle stated, I view "homosexuality as an affront to God and nature". Furthermore, I believe once a person crosses a line in a particular area of sin (or vice if you prefer), he is more likely to travel further down that road. To use a specific example, I believe high school students using "pot" (sorry I grew up in the 60's and 70's) are more likely to progress to other drugs when they get older. Likewise, I believe the homosexual is more likely to experiment with other sexual deviations.

OldGreyEagle is right. As long as we (andrews, myself, and others) view homosexuality as an affront to God, and you (sctmom, OldGreyEagle, and others) do not, we will have to agree to disagree. This is the crux of the argument. Is homosexuality wrong? Is it a sin? If you believe the answer is yes, then understandably you do not want your child around someone who does not recognizes his vices as such (and perhaps for some other reasons as well). If you believe the answer is no, then there is no issue.

OldGreyEagle,

I understand your concern...to a point. I am not advocating that a panel of sex experts be established to review the "bedroom resume" of each adult leader candidate. But, as one views the natural world, is it not obvious that homosexuality is wrong? Just from a pure biological standpoint, it makes no sense. Human beings can and have sought innumerous ways to gratify their sexual urges. The fact that so many are willing to debase themselves to gratify those urges does not make the behavior more acceptable. I don't believe we need a team of folks to determine that God intended sex to be an act between a man and a woman. This much should be plain to see by all.

Furthermore, I realize that we all have vices. Some more serious than others, but we all have something in our lives and/or character that we would be better off without. Yet, as "andrews" stated in a couple of his posts, the real damage is done when the behavior is legitimized. How many of us, once confronted with our vice, proclaim the vice to be a "good thing". Many, if not most, might claim they don't have the vice. Some admit it and seek change. But few, if any, try to convince others that the vice is to be accepted. If I was confronted to be a kleptomaniac (to use an example), I could respond in three basic ways:

1) I could deny it.

2) I could admit it, and denounce my behavior.

3) I could admit it, and celebrate my behavior.

It's this third option that causes me heartburn. I have no problem with the "recovering" alcoholic. I do have a problem with the alcoholic who says, "I have no problem. You have the problem." Likewise, if a leader is revealed as a homosexual, and he refuses to denounce the lifestyle, I would reject that response. It doesn't matter to me if he keeps his endorsement of the lifestyle to himself; he's still proclaiming the vice (his sin) to be acceptable.

OldGreyEagle,

Just to clarify my position a little more...

My main point was not to say, "A homosexual leader will become a pedophile". I am tempted to debate this topic as well. Nevertheless, my main point was, don't justify behavior merely because a group of scientists claim it to be an inborn trait. If we justify homosexuality based on that pretence, then we must accept all sorts of other behavior as well (i.e., pedophilia, alcoholism, etc.).

As to the homosexual not hurting anyone by his behavior. This may be true, but it doesn't mean it should be accepted as normal or moral. I didn't want to go to this illustration, but it's the best comparison I can make...On second thought, lets just leave this to your imagination.

One can do all sorts of grotesque acts of lewdness within the privacy of his home (homosexuality aside), but if we knew that such behavior was occurring, would we trust our children to his care? Even if that person never touches my child, I would not view him as having good moral character. His behavior (inborn or not, in private or not, victimless or not, dangerous or not) is indicative of an immoral person. Once I become aware of that behavior, I would feel compelled to either remove my child from his care or seek his removal from leadership.

sctmom,

I'm only 42 years old, so I can't say with any certainty what the climate in BSA Troops were 40 years ago. Per my memory of the 60's, there was not much talk about homosexual leaders being a problem. It wasn't until the 70's, when there was a rash of incidents involving homosexual leaders that it became a focus of concern. I have never heard nor read of any incident (past or present) whereas a male leader was pushed out of Scouts merely because he was single. In short, I think many stories like these are created by people with an agenda, to present a false image of BSA. By creating such an image, it is easier to gain support and pressure them into "changing their ways". Because of their stance against homosexuality, I have heard BSA compared to the Klan and other white supremacy groups. When these kinds of stories and comparisons are not dispelled, people who mean well join the forces of change. Consequently, when I hear such stories or comparisons, I feel obligated to speak up.

As to the "choice or inborn" issue, this is a very slippery slope. Assuming, you're right - the homosexual is born with this tendency. If this is the criterion for acceptability then we will be in for a rude awakening. What about alcoholics? Pedophiles? Do we accept these behaviors? Of course, we do not. I'm not suggesting that we abandon these people. I am suggesting that we don't normalize the behavior.

I agree that heterosexuals should not be discussing their bedroom behavior. This too would be good reason to expel an adult from leadership. You suggested that we should not be "focusing so hard on the sexuality issue" and concentrate on the whole person. However, this infers we should overlook homosexuality as if it is a minor issue. To most faiths, this is not a minor issue. In the eyes of most religions, this behavior is very offensive to God, and his people.

As to your last statement - "Not so many years ago some of us would not be allowed to be leaders for many reasons --- gender, race, religious affiliation, marital status, etc." I cannot testify without a doubt that BSA never practice discrimination based on race, religion, or the like. I can't image that they had such a policy, but that doesn't mean it never happened. Regardless, comparing sexual behavior with physical characteristics and/or matters of faith is not a reasonable argument. Clearly, discrimination based on such things as race is wrong. Behavior is an entirely different matter.

By the way, I did notice that you included gender. I strongly believe that women are capable beings, as capable as any man. I also believe that women are different from men. Not less or inferior, just different. As to women being BSA leaders, I feel it is great that they have stepped forward and filled the void that so many men have left open. It's a shame that more men do not feel compelled to spend time with their sons. With that being said, I believe BSA created their organization with boys in mind (pretty obvious I know). To my point, since boys become men (yet another obvious point), who better to mentor them, but men? In a perfect world, I believe BSA should be dominated by male leaders. Do I resent women for being there? No. They're doing a great job. Do I feel a man would be better suited for the job? Given the above explanation, I believe the answer is obvious.

sctmom,

I can't support the adult leaders of which you speak. They obviously do not believe in the Scout Law and/or the Spirit of Scouting. However, contrary to you, I agree with BSA's policy towards homosexuals. These are two separate issues to be sure. A mere glance at nature tells us that God does exist...and he is obviously a great and wonderful God. That same glance at nature also tells us that homosexuality is wrong. If this behavior is not perverse than we might as well give in to everything else. Morality is not subjective. Regardless as to who agrees with my last statement, this much is true - BSA, as a private organization, has the right to set its own membership criteria. Thank God.

One typo...

I meant to say - "It's hard not to sympathize with a boy who wants to get Eagle before he turns 18."

I would be more upset with the kid who says "After I become Eagle, I'm quitting" than the boy who wants to get to Eagle in a hurry. These two boys do not necessarily share the "same story". The first boy doesn't seem to be enjoying himselfor at least, it appears as if he's not expecting to have any fun while on the trail to Eagle. Otherwise, why would he want to quit as soon as he achieves Eagle? As for the second boy (your son), I wouldn't be overly concerned. Of course, it's not a race. Surely everyone agrees with that statement and I'm not the exception. However, I think it needs to be said that some boys are extremely goal oriented. It's also natural for many boys to be competitive. It's not that I'm condoning it, but I'm not disturbed by it either. I would explain to my son that it's the knowledge you gain that's valuable (not so much the badge)as you did with yours. However, I wouldn't try to slow him down unless I thought he wasn't gaining that knowledge (associated with the particular rank or badge). My son will probably become an Eagle at an early age (14), but I'm confident that he will remain with his Troop until he turns 18. He enjoys Scouting. It's not all about beating out the other guy.

There's another beast within Scouting that is not talked about nearly as much. While everyone agrees that racing to become Eagle at an early age is not a wise pursuit, few Scouters complain about the boy who achieves Eagle just prior to his 18th birthday. To me, this is a more common and uglier problem. Why? Because Scout, Scouters, and counselors are all under pressure to make it happen. Very often, this means that the Scout takes shortcuts, counselors permit shoddy work, and Scouters look the other way. No one wants to tell the boywho is nearly 18, has been active in the Troop for six plus years, and is liked by allthat he waited too long. But this is usually the truth. Sadder still, many of these boys are counting on the counselors and Scouters to be accommodating, even if it means lowering standards (all the more reason the Scout is not worthy of the honor). It's hard to sympathize with a boy who wants to get Eagle before he turns 18. Nevertheless, a boy must learn to live with his choices in life. Obtaining Eagle is very do-able if a Scout so chooses to pursue it. If he waits too long, then he may come up short. We should not lower standards or over look any requirement in order to make it happen.

As a pure guess (based on personal observation), I would guess about half the kids obtaining Eagle do not participate in OA.

As for staying active in Scouting...as soon as you turn 18 you can become a registered adult leader (Assistant Scoutmaster). I can't imagine any Troop not wanting your services as such. If they reject you as an ASM, there's probably something wrong with that Troop. Simply look around for another one...Believe me, most Troops would be glad to have you.

By the way, should you make a lot of friends with a new Troop (boys and adults), there's no reason you cannot have an Eagle Court of Honor (even after turning 18). Mention this thought to your parents and your new Troop (after you've been around for a few months). I'm sure both (your parents and your new Troop) would be happy to make this happen for you. While we're discussing an Eagle Court of Honor, you should know that the ceremony (every element of it) is up from grabs. In other words, whoever pays for it can basically dictate how the ceremony is layed out and conducted. There are no required elements, oaths, or pledges. From everything I can gather, there are only two rules pertaining to an Eagle Court of Honor - 1) no alcohol, and 2) it must stay within the Spirit of the Scout Law (honors God, country, and family).

As a matter of fact, there is...I like to post to the following site a lot (but I would say it is only slightly more active than this one):

http://www.usscouts.org/discuss/

I thought most of you (my "Cyber Scouting Buddies") would like this...It got to me, but hey, I'm worse than a lot of women (Yes, even while practicing self-demeaning humor, I like to stir the pot). On a more serious note, and the reason for the post, see below:

WHAT IS A VETERAN?

Some veterans bear visible signs of their service: a missing limb, a jagged scar, a certain look in their eye.

Others may carry the evidence inside them: a pin holding a bone together, a piece of shrapnel in the leg - or perhaps another sort of inner steel: a soul forged in the refinery of adversity.

Except in parades, however, the men and women who have kept America safe wear no badge or emblem. You can't tell a vet just by looking.

What is a vet?

He is the cop on the beat who spent six months in Saudi Arabia sweating two gallons a day making sure the armored personnel carriers didn't run out of fuel.

He is the barroom loudmouth, dumber than five wooden planks, whose overgrown frat-boy behavior is outweighed a hundred times in the cosmic scales by four hours of exquisite bravery near the 38th parallel.

She - or he - is the nurse who fought against futility and went to sleep sobbing every night for two solid years in Da Nang.

He is the POW who went away one person and came back another-or-didn't come back AT ALL.

He is the Quantico drill instructor that has never seen combat - but has saved countless lives by turning slouchy, no-account rednecks and gang members into Marines, and teaching them to watch each other's backs.

He is the parade - riding Legionnaire who pins on his ribbons and medals with a prosthetic hand.

He is the career quartermaster who watches the ribbons and medals pass him by.

He is the three anonymous heroes in The Tomb Of The Unknowns, whose presence at the Arlington National Cemetery must forever preserve the memory of all the anonymous heroes whose valor dies unrecognized with them on the battlefield or in the ocean's sunless deep.

He is the old guy bagging groceries at the supermarket - palsied now and aggravatingly slow - who helped liberate a Nazi death camp and who wishes all day long that his wife were still alive to hold him when the nightmares come.

He is an ordinary and yet an extraordinary human being, a person who offered some of his life's most vital years in the service of his country, and who sacrificed his ambitions so others would not have to sacrifice theirs.

He is a soldier and a savior and a sword against the darkness, and he is nothing more than the finest, greatest testimony on behalf of the finest, greatest nation ever known.

So remember, each time you see someone who has served our country, just lean over and say Thank You. That's all most people need, and in most cases it will mean more than any medals they could have been awarded or were awarded.

Two little words that mean a lot, "THANK YOU".

Remember, November 11th is Veterans Day.

One fine man probably summarized it best...

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

Father Denis Edward O'Brien, USMC

jmcquillan,

Thanks for your response. It makes several good points. My initial response to this thread was a little bit of a knee jerk (which is often the case for me). I had just debated some folks at another site about whether or not the Cub Scout's Bobcat ceremony constituted hazing. This is the ceremony in which two adults turn the boys upside-down while his parents pin the badge on his shirt. I have a strong opinion about that one as well, but that's another discussion. Nevertheless, after I spoke to my wife, she was able to point something out to me that I had not thought of before. In some OA tap out ceremonies, the boys are subjected to a rather embarrassing and potentially hurtful moment. I have seen similar ceremonies performed at summer camps and large campouts. All of the potential candidates stand up while the OA Indian runs around, "tapping out" the new candidates. Eventually, all of the candidates are standing up front, while those not chosen are left standing in the audience. This humiliation is enhanced when the "chosen" greatly out number the "un-chosen". When the ceremony is performed this way, it is not in the spirit of Scouting. I must agree that it is not appropriate. However, there are ways to perform the tap out ceremony in which it is not hurtful (physically or emotionally) and creates a positive lasting impression.

I feel I need to clarify...

This is the tap out ceremony where an OA member taps the shoulder of an OA candidate, right?

If so, I'm at a loss as to how this could be construed as hazing. I believe in protecting our kids from cruel ceremonies, but I don't see it. Maybe I haven't been exposed to it enough, but from what I've witnessed, it's harmless.

I'm living in Bowie...If NCAC believes this to be hazing...Well, lets just say I'm disgusted by the PC group. Hang in there.

MrScout,

AMEN. I agree with the BSA intent of having a boy-run Troop, and I respect the adults in the SM corps. However, we should not forget that we are adults and they are children. While it may be our goal to have the boys "grow" and become men, we are the adults and should accordingly (i.e., step in and say something when its needed, should the SM or ASM not be available).

Here too, our Troop has been blessed in that we have never suffered such a loss.

God, country, and family...These are the things that BSA purports to embrace and teach. I feel strongly that this is a most appropriate time for a public prayer by the Scoutmaster. I would pray for strength and comfort for the family, praise God for allowing the boy to be a part of your Troop's lives, and wisdom for the Scouts so that they may understand - God's ways are not our ways. Depending on the Scouts, I would also consider opening the prayer to others. If you think they are too immature for this, then perhaps open the prayer to the older Scouts (let them know ahead time so they can gather their thoughts). If the Scouts do not want to participate, then that's fine too. The point is, in a time like this, we should turn to God for strength, comfort, wisdom, and courage.

The point is, in a time like this, we should turn to God for strength, comfort, wisdom, and courage. This is consistent with BSA's core beliefs. If you cannot say such a prayer, then I would suggest finding someone in the Troop that is willing and able (CC, COR, ASM, etc.).

I agree with your assessment, but ultimately it will come down to the merit badge counselor's interpretation.

For the best and most complete answers, you should probably contact your local council and/or National. However, I believe, if it is your church's desire, you can restrict your membership to church members. For example, I understand Mormons and Orthodox Jews often do this. It is the decision of the Chartering Organization. I'm assuming BSA allows this because the group's faith will be an intricate part of the Troop's activities. Nevertheless, the Chartering Organization has the right to approve/disapprove committee members and adult leaders (SM and ASMs). If the Troop focuses on your particular faith, this should be advertised well in advance. Before they join, the Scouts, parents, leaders, and committee members should be made aware of this fact. As long as everyone is upfront and open about this (from the beginning), I don't see it being a problem.

I'm not the best person to ask, but I can think of a few things. Some of you other guys might want to jump in and add to some of this (or correct it).

1) The Chartering Organization is the legal entity responsible for the Troop. It's their responsibility to make sure its being run in accordance with BSA policy. They often allow the committee to run it without restraint, but they are still the overseers.

2) They own everything...all of the equipment, including such things as Troop trailers. This is true even if the funds are coming from a "Troop account".

3) He'll need to assign a Charter Organization Representative (COR). This person is the liaison between the church and the Troop. He may or may not help with some of the Troop policies. It depends on how involved he becomes and how involve the church is with the Troop.

4) The Institutional Head (i.e., your Pastor) may be asked to resolve a Troop dispute. For example, if someone wants to remove an adult leader. The pastor could defer this kind of decision to the COR.

As a side note...I once saw a Pastor allow an ASM to be removed from a Troop, because a member of the church (who was also an ASM) had a personality conflict with the gentleman. The pastor never gave a creditable explanation, only that the man was deemed unfit. That particular pastor lost my respect. Anyway, the pastor could be put in a difficult situation such as this one.

There's no law that says you have to have a summer camp...especially with such a small troop. Couldn't you start in the summer and do a weekend trip here and there? Make sure you explain the role of the Chartering Organization to your pastor. It's good that he's supporting you, but he should have a good idea of what is expected of the church. Who's going to be your COR? Anyway, good luck.

This has nothing to do with rank advancement, but there is some really neat stuff at this site:

http://www2.chsscout.net/rescenter/video/index.shtml#section4

It has a lot of good info on Baden Powell. It even has some recordings of him speaking about Boy Scouts.

A couple of thoughts to add:

1) I like the red berets and think they really make the uniform - just a personal opinion.

2) If I'm not mistaken [always a possibility], any Patrol [or even the Troop as a whole] can adopt the use of hats, even if they are not official and wear them with Class A uniforms. For example, in our Troop, one Patrol has black berets, another has baseball style caps with their Patrol patch affixed, and yet another is thinking about campaign style hats.

Has anyone else heard of Troops or Patrols adopting certain hats (with or without patches) as their official Class A uniform hat? I've seen whole Troops at camp with baseball style caps (with Troop number and other designs). Does BSA have heartburn over this? I always understood this to be acceptable.

Thanks for the update. As you indicated, and like some of us alluded to earlier, you know your situation and the people involved better than us. Obviously you feel comfortable that you made the best decision possible given the people involved. It's ironic that you should mention your "change of heart" as you entered the church. As a devoted Christian, I am disappointed in myself for not thinking of this sooner. It never hurts...in fact it always helps, to turn things over to God, and listen for His advise (even if sometimes we don't think his advise makes sensebeing the stubborn folks that we are). As Scouts and Scouters, we should be mentioning Him more often as a source for wisdom (make that - "the" source for wisdom). Glad to hear things have worked out (thus far).

EagleWB,

I understand the Scout's point, but to me...This is a sad statement - "He said that he must know the boy before making any judgment based just on being an Eagle or not."

There are always exception. Nevertheless, if we (the adult leaders) and BSA are doing our jobs, when one says he is an Eagle Scout, it should mean something to others. It should make a statement about that person's abilities and character. I like to think, in most Troops, it still does.

I had problems when my account was first established. I tried, but was unable to get hold of anyone at Scouter Network to correct it. So, I guess I'm going to have to live with it.

Surprisingly, no one accused me of being double-minded. This is not too far from the truth. With a few exceptions, after reading everybody's posts, I find myself flip-flopping on many issues (several times). Anyway, when I can't produce a quality argument, I can always impress you with volume.

Mike, I agree with your last.

K9gold-scout, I'm not sure agree or disagree...But here's my question- Aren't you imposing requirements outside of National (i.e., 3 summer camps and a week long JLTC)?