tjhammer

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 registered members. Those three things, the infamous

As far as my VAST posting on other topics. Welcome to America my friend. A free exchange of ideas is what we are all about.Bob, I think you misunderstood me. I was paying you a compliment, I respect the knowledge you have contributed to this forum, and the huge number of posts that you make indicate a willingness to help your fellow Scouters. I'm not sure why you suspected sarcasm in my remark. Yes tjhammer there really is a poll! "A Louis Harris poll found that 95% of U.S. parents want the Scouting program and its values for their children"Of course... that Louis Harris poll is fantastic, and

BobWhite... have you read any of this discussion that's already been had in either Why it's relevant... or Scouting's Real Gay Policy? I realize you did not contribute to those discussions (and I respect the VAST amount of your posts to this board that are made outside this debate), but most of the points you raise now were already covered there.I agree with the Supreme Court decision, which was about self-determination for the BSA, I just worry we'll die on the sword we picked to fight that battle (an inarticulate, vague and intellectually dishonest ban on avowed gays from being Scouts or Sco

It's actually a shame that BSA doesn't publish this information themselves. It seems that in recent years the membership details have become much harder to locate (I suppose there is a conspiracy theory in there somewhere). On the whole, membership data paints a pretty good picture... usually increasing our membership year after year, if only slightly. I suppose if I had a theory on why the information is becoming increasingly less public it would be a paranoia by that national professional staff that would fear showing ANY membership trends to the general public, good or bad. The Annual Repor

OldGreyEagle said in another thread: Once again I refer to my comment, "I must be out of the loop". When did the LDS tell national that it had to make a rule no gay leaders? What documentation is used to support this claim? I am not disputing it, I just want to know where this information may be found as I am constanly reading things on this foum that I never knew (Thank you Scouter.COm for this forum)and these facts are presented in a manner that makes me feel I am the only one who doesnt know this stuff. When is this stuff discussed? Not at any committee meeting I have been to or round

Bob White said: I'm confused! Why is it that the LDS's representation is "skewed", when as a national sponsor it has the most units and the second most number of youth served? Who do you thing has the most Representatives in Congress, California or Rhode Island. If other organizations used scouting as completely as the LDS church they would have more representation.Im not sure its fair to say the LDS church "uses Scouting so completely"... they have a lot of units, but theyre awfully small by comparison to other COs. As you said yourself, representation on the National Relationships Committee

Bob, I'll respond on the other thread, where this subject is more appropriately discussed. The original purpose of this current thread is to explain why debate over Scouting's ban on avowed gays is so relevant and worth discussing.

As you see in the other post, it is more accurate to say that the Mormon Church constitutes 25% of the BSA units, not 35% as I previously stated. Regretably, their influence is skewed by a large number of small units.

CubsRgr8: Sorry, I know you asked for this information before, and then I got distracted with work for the past two weeks. Let me give you the info I have most handy right now, which unfortunately is from 1996. I am compiling additional information for more recent years. Chartering Organization 1996 No. of Youth 1996 No. of Units % of Total BSA Units % of Total BSA Members Avg Size of Unit United Methodist Churches 407,243 11,587 10.25% 13.00% 35.1 LDS Churches

As a Scouter, regardless of my position on this specific issue, I would caution you to be very careful about supporting a site like the one above. I do not know much about it, but it does not have the BSA's blessing, it is collecting cash donations and is operating as its own non-profit entity with an implied (but not regulated) mission that the money you donate to it will be used to support Scouting and fight against gays. I think the BSA and I would both argue your money is better served donated directly to Scouting.

Quixote, the observation that was made by one of the briefs filed before the Supreme Court that even some clergy within the SBC were gay was I think made to show just how far reaching disagreement is on this issue. It appears there is even some disagreement within your Church. I think more relevant than that, though, is the larger explaination of other major religions and sects within them that are on disagreement. This is at the heart of my entire point, first raised some time ago: you and I disagree on the morality of homosexuality. I do not begrudge you your beliefs, nor should you beg

Evmori, from one of my earliest posts:Amicus briefs (filed with the Supreme Court) 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. Do you believe all of those folks to be mistaken Christians too? Or just me?

>Secular v non-secular. Sorry, if I fire off my responses without slowing to type that's what you get. Yes, my point from the very beginning (and still) is that the BSA is secular (not relating to any specific religion) group. >singled out Christian conservatives as having a moral agenda? Why >haven't they included Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and all of the other >faiths that disapprove of homosexuality? Perhaps Christians (being a majority in this >country) have spoken up more than others. Rooster, you slide between the term Christian Conservative and just Chri

Well, I am a little closer to the "inside" than some; I've stated here before that I have been participating in high level debates on this subject for a while. And it interests me enough to make me want to understand it completely. But the information I cite is not exactly secret. The BSA actually explained the National Relationship Committee in their recent press releases. They don't go so far as explaining the dynamics of that group, though. As for the pressure excerted by the Mormon Church, you can find that clearly outlined in the Supreme Court case and briefs filed by the Church

>Hmm. If I defend my faith here, will I be accused as being unScoutlike? Rooster, I think you have plenty of latitude to defend your faith and your point of view without becoming unScoutlike. You've done a fine job of that to this point. I'm sure your message was a direct response to the recent removal of DedDad from these boards, but I think I can speak for most everyone here (except maybe you and one or two others), DedDad went way beyond "defending his faith". In fact, he never really claimed to be "defending his faith"... he avoided as best he could the inclusion of religion or God

I wish to apologize to members of this forum for allowing myself to "get personal". I have tried my best to remain on the issues of the debate; I believe the issues require intellectual thought, analysis and honest conversation. I also recognize that this is usually a debate between well-intentioned, honest Scouters that simply disagree on the issues. It seems that I have allowed myself to be baited into little more than a bickering contest between personalities, and I regret that I took the bait.

Amazing. Talk about arguing over "what your definition of 'is' is"... the only response I feel appropriate is this:I stand by every characterization I have made of any of your statements, and any time I have restated them without using the exact words you use, I have still done so without materially changing your actual position. I didn't leave anything "unaddressed"... we completely discussed this in previous threads. You've really got some nerve hurling your accusations and name calling.

What in the world are you talking about?

OGE, that's always been one of my favorites. It's a valuable lesson that what we do is for those that follow. One of my other favorites:Author Unknown: I awoke early, as I often did, just before sunrise, to walk by the ocean's edge and greet the new day. As I moved through the morning dawn, I focused on a faint, far away motion. I saw a youth, bending and reaching and flailing arms, dancing on the beach, no doubt in celebration of the perfect day soon to begin. As I approached, I realized that the youth was not dancing to the bay, but rather bending to sift through the d

I'll take my response about why this debate is so relevant to a new thread. That's an important enough discussion as to not bury in this current thread.

Respectfully, Feathers, Eagle90, and others that just want this topic to go away: You live in a vacuum. Either you feel this is just too difficult of an issue to deal with, or, more likely, you just don't see it as relevant. Perhaps youve never encountered a Scout in crisis because hes coming to terms with his sexuality under the shadow of the BSA policy. Perhaps youve never known a great Scout leader, who grew up in the organization, became an Eagle Scout and spent several years as a recognize quality leader only to receive a letter from Scouting banning him because word got out that he

Simply amazing. In more than 60 posts on this subject on this forum, I have never once resorted to a personal attack; that's pretty much all that I have come to expect from DedDad. All I have EVER argued is the logic of this debate. This thread marks the first divergence from that practice (hmmm, that must be why some think it's so wrong, because it is a perversion of my previous debate style). Rooster, nearly your entire post could be directed right back at you and DedDad. >They do not argue for or against any specific statements using logic. Where is the logic in the argu

DedDad says:But really, lets talk about tactics, you have some memorable ones like 50% vote (I mean plurality) is a valid moral, trouble with telling the truth, plagiarizing gay sites for fun and profit in your spare time, murder is relative, and every bodies favorite Baden-Powell was gay! Maybe I should start a stand-alone thread on your pro-perversion agenda; we havent even cracked the surface of your mistruths about BSA policy and the Supreme Court Case. OK, here''s your chance to explain your attack. Let's not muddy up the other thread, but if you want to prove your point that I

DedDad, I have created a new thread for you, titled "Why tjhammer lacks any credibility". Like usual, you're trying to shift this current thread. I encourage you to take your debate to this new area, and I'll see ya there.

Let me be very clear, my first post was not intended as a personal attack on DedDad or anyone else. It was an observation about the style of debate used by him (and often you Rooster, and a few others). It was also an observation that what you so often state to be "the way it is" or "the way it ought to be" relies on a dangerous, slippery slope theory that simply isn't reality. That said, this post will go a step further, and for the first time since I joined this board, I will actually use a little of that "moral equivalency" that DedDad relies on (hence, "bestiality, womens underwear a