tjhammer

At the suggestion of some others, this is a spin off of the debate in the United Way thread. BobWhite said: You will read more gay bashing remarks in this forum than you ever have or ever will hear from the BSA. I urge you to go to the BSA national website and read what the BSA's stand on homosexuals really is. It is represented very poorly in this forum.Bob, I don't think most of the people who debate here are "gay bashing", though I grant you that has occured (though it's gotten much less offensive since the removal of DedDad); there's obviously good, honest Scouters that feel strongly

OK, this is a good opportunity to spawn another thread. So I will do so.

Christ was a historical figure. His teachings (and more specifically, the teachings in his name) are pretty simple, pretty clear and documented. I don't believe in a God that micromanages. I don't believe in a God that is vengeful. (That is the God often reflected in the Bible, and I reject those depictions of Him.) I do believe in a God who created man and measures us on our ability to preserve humanity, a "foundational lesson" taught by Christ that "love" is above all else. I suspect this is a more spiritual approach, than a specifically religious one. Let me be clear... I have not said

Rooster said: While I would never claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles, I do believe both are sins of a sexual nature. Furthermore, I believe once a man descends down a road of sin, particular of a sexual nature, he is capable of becoming even more corrupt.According to the Catholic Church, so is masturbation (in fact, it's mentioned in the same catechism as homosexualitly). I hope you don't believe masturbation is the same a pedophilia, or a slippery slope toward that. Rooster I do respect your right to an opinion and your style of discussion. I can usually count on you to be a co

Slontwovvy... wow, thank you very much for that research and posting that. It's very informative as to the Catholic Church's opinion (and frankly even more "liberal" of an approach than I had thought the Church has articulated). Basically, as I read the catechism of the Catholic Church the position is this:They accept that homosexuality is "not a choice", and "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."Homosexuals (who as NJCubScouter has said so eloquently before, God chose to make as about 5% of mank

you sure dropped the ball on that last comment. Wasn't it just a little bit less than politically correct? In fact, some might say it was outright bigoted.More sarcasm from tjhammer. It must be the springtime weather!OK what are you basing your belief that homosexuality isn't a sin on? If you read the Bible, there are numerous references to homosexuality being unfit behavior in God's eyes. Ergo, a sin.I've answered this question a few times before, but here goes again, in summary:Those are references to scripture harvested from the Old Testatment, and I have already said as a Christian I belie

I am, and will forever be, amazed, that the news regarding the church, and its public call for exclusion of gays, has not garnered the condemnation from those who condemned the BSA. In the instance of the church, the call for that exclusion was based on abuse of childrenI'm not sure that's true... frankly, the Catholic Church has not said any such thing... only a few of the leaders of that clergy have stated their opinions out loud that gays should be excluded. And there has been a response from society that has cautioned it is inappropriate to blame gays for the current crisis in the Church (

Wasn't it one of the more liberal members of the forum who decried the thought of religeous organizations having too much influence on scout policy.I had to chuckle a bit when I read this, as I have found myself doing on more than a few occasions debating on this board. It's fascinating to me that many of you who stand in agreement with the BSA policy banning gays insist that you're in an "us versus them" battle. From the earliest debates that I have had on this board I've been viewed as an "outsider" (far from it), a "gay activist" (hardly, except where someone else forces to speak on my beha

At the risk of allowing this thread to go off topic ("The issue is religion"), I think that this particular offshoot is also at the fundamental aspect of this issue and most relisgious people would abandon the religious principle if they were to conclude homosexuality is innate... eisley, do you consider heterosexuality a "behavior"? Or are you specifically just referring to some of the behavior traits commonly perceived with homosexuality (promiscuous, etc) and not homosexuality itself? I don't believe homosexuality is a lifestyle, I believe it is a life. Not one single gay that I have m

While I agree with Bob White that Scouting is only as good as your last meeting or campout, I also want to second the idea of cozying up to Madison Avenue. BSA Inc. has practically no public relations or marketing skills... it's as if they've been stuck in pre-1960's ways of promoting their organization (and have ignored, for the most part, the mass media age). For the life of me I have never figured out why we didn't really use our resources to package high-impact and repetitive "spins". If I ever donate a million bucks to Scouting, I think I'd be torn between earmarking in for perpetual camp

Put another way, NJ, you and I view Scouting as being politicized by one church (I say only one, because only one has threatened to abandon Scouting if the policy is changed). Opponents of our view believe it's just the opposite, that it is those churches and others that want to eliminate the ban that are "politicizing" the BSA. I've been debating this issue on this board for nearly three months now, and I dont think I have influenced a single person who supports Scouting's policy with the logic that I've presented, which really reinforces in my mind how fundamental of a religious issue

Bob, I imagine that we agree on more than we disagree on. I hope that doesnt frighten you. Respectfully, I think you've received my critique of BSA Inc. and my desire to see a specific change in policy as somehow a betrayal of Scouting. Quite the contrary, I believe that BSA Inc. is betraying Scouting through this policy, and Im trying to convince you and others of this fact. You and I both strongly oppose the outside pressures of activist groups and courts, and believe that we should have the right to self-determination as an organization. This whole off shoot over professional Scoutin

Because Learning for Life is not the glorious game of Scouting invented by B-P and is yet another attempt by the BSA to inflate it's numbers through a watered down, semi-related program, often based in classrooms.

there are others who are not welcome to join scouts as boys - atheist boys are not welcome in scouting either - neither are liars, theives, or others whose actions or beliefs are not in line with the scout law and oathYou are correct on atheists being not welcome in Scouting, that's been a fact from the very early days, when we determined a Scout was reverent. That's been a "policy" that has been very clearly expressed and is fundamental to the Oath and Law and is really not open to misunderstanding or interpretation. As for Scouting banning liars, etc... you are wrong. There's no specifi

(I have no idea why Scouts Canada's membership is dropping... I know nothing about their Total Available Youth or any other possible causes... I do know that their acceptance of gays is not particulalry new, and like the British Scouting Association and most of the world, there's never really been a "ban" to overturn.) Bob, I have not said that the drop in membership (for the first time in more than 20 years) was conclusively linked to Scouting's very public battle... I just said that it coincides with the timing of that battle (1998 through 2001), and I observed that younger parents may

Well, I can not disagree with the fact thatScouting should reach out more to minorities. I'm not sure that's the culprit for drop in membership, because Scouting launched an aggressive inner-city out reach nationaly in the later part of the last decade. So they're already trying to reach out more, and while I'm not sure how successful those efforts have been, I don't think we can blame our lack of action in that arena as why TAY is outpacing Scouting membership.

This was originally a post buried in a separate thread. However, I think the topic (membership slipping) is signficant enough on its own that I wanted to start an off shoot thread. Many of you have questioned why this debate over Scoutings gay policy is relevant... here's yet another answer to that question. I've done some further research now, and can expound on the 1996 statistics I first provided... Scouting enjoyed about twenty years of consistent membership growth following the Vietnam War through 1997. The growth in membership started to slow in 1998 and worsened again in

Bob, we'll just have to agree to disagree on which of us really understand how Scouting works. I'm pretty comfortable that my knowledge is "deep and wide", as they say. I've been to national committee meetings and I personally know past members of the national executive board. I do thank you for at least acknowledging that I'm not some radical outside activist trying to destroy Scouting, which has been suggested here by others to my dismay. I can not stress enough however... I have never said that I have little need for professionals or that the organization would benfit from doing away w

I've done some further research now, and can expound on the 1996 statistics I first provided... Scouting enjoyed about twenty years of consistent membership growth following the Vietnam War through 1997. The growth in membership started to slow in 1998 and worsened again in 1999. In 2001, for the first time in more than two decades, membership actually decreased (though this fact is very hard to find, it is in annual reports). 2001 Membership--------Members------------Units Cub Scouts.............. Lost -3.6% ....... Lost -1.6% Boy Scouts.............. Lost -1.2% ....... L

I will, however, provide the quote, in context, that your requested. I know that he was also quoted saying something pretty similar in a Rotarian magazine I think... but can't find that right now. I note that these rare public remarks were made shortly after the Supreme Court decision, and I suspect that this kind of candor has not been uttered much in public since.National leader of Scouts says group's future is bright Roy Williams says his organization will continue to thrive despite its controversial ban on gays Sunday, September 10, 2000 By Janie Har of The Oregonian staff

Bob, I sense that you're a very good man and a genuine asset to Scouting. I'm going to drop this specific debate with you, because I feel like you can not accept that my criticism of the way we measure a reward professionals, the way we rely on numbers at a national level to influence our principles, and the way that we allow a few of our chartering organizations to impose their values upon us.... I'm sorry, but I feel you can not hear those remarks without believing that it's an attack against you personally and your role in Scouting. And sense I have come to respect your contribution to this

Paraphrase: The ORGANIZATION and the MOVEMENT are one in the sameI couldn't disagree more with this thought. The BSA organization, with it's headquarters, it's 6,000 professionals, its 327 councils and field service staff could all disappear tomorrow, and Scouting would live on in your troop, Bob. True, it would be chaos nationally, but the great game of Scouting created by B-P doesn't take much support to be successful in a neighborhood. Bob, I'm sorry you feel my understandings of the inner mechanisms of the BSA are shallow... I assure you they are anything but. I know how things are su

I don't know your scouting background back it I can say it isn't real strong when it comes to proper district operations or professional scouting. To start with it's 3 M's, money, manpower, and membership, and even that terminology is outdated.Bob, the terminology may be dated (and there's good reason to phase it out), but the principles still permeate Critical Achievements. I'm sure you're referring to the illustrious Boypower, Manpower programs of the 1970s. You are correct, that's where the motivation to focus on numbers really began, but it didn't end when that campaign became

Let me preface all of this by stating: "In my opinion..." I was raised in a Methodist Church, though occasionally we attended Baptist, Presbyterian and a local Christian Church. To tell the truth, I never noticed a single difference between any of them. I do not attend any church regularly today... I'm not anti-church; really, I just find that organized religion has a lot of rotten apples in the barrel and does not draw me closer to God in any real way. I would consider myself Christian, in that I believe in the historical Christ as a martyr who made a sacrifice for the world, who ta

(This is an off-shoot of another thread.) Ask any district executive to honestly explain "Critical Achievements" to you... that's the checklist of their job performance and the sole basis upon which they are evaluated for promotion. Ask them to show you ONE component to Critical Achievements that measures their contribution to program... it's not really there. BSA professionals excel based on three things above all else: did you meet or exceed your fundraising goals (which are an increase over last years), did you increase the number of new units, and did you increase the number of regist