tjhammer

mk9750 -- I appreciate the genuineness in your words. I certainly do not challenge your right to define morality as you choose, nor do I wish to impose myself or my beliefs upon you or your family. Please do not ever hesitate to state your beliefs, or challenge me. I dont want to see the debate squelched at all simply because theres now one of them in the room. And I truly have learned (and hope to continue to learn) about genuine perspectives through open and honest discussion here. Dont stop, and dont be afraid that your words may be insulting to me. I can handle some genuine descent amongst us friends.

I do not lie to Scouting about my sexuality. If I am asked about it, I would not deny nor confirm anything, as I see the answer to be irrelevant and the question to be inconsistent with the policy. If I were ever in a situation where I was asked by someone and it WAS relevant (perhaps the parents of a Scout that had asked me to counsel him on their behalf on a related subject), then I would feel obliged to avow to them for disclosure purposes, or otherwise decline their request. But thats a pretty rare example, and one in which a whole off shoot of conversation could (and has) been had about the appropriateness of any such counsel by a Scout leader of any sexuality.

Scouting has a very clear "don't ask, don't tell" policy in place right now, both on paper and in practice (with few exceptions for unevenly enforced "witch hunts"). And I am fully compliant with that policy. I'm not picking my terms, or choosing my definitions.

Thus another part of the quagmire, once raised by me in theoretical debate on this board, now posed again in real, personal terms: if this were a matter of principle, how am I more desirable to BSA as a "closeted" homosexual than as an "open homosexual"?

I recognize that references to my "lifestyle" are well meaning. And I know it can be confusing to find the right term (whatever is PC these days). Personally, I must admit, I don't really know what "lifestyle" you are referring to (you hardly could guess that I have a nice apartment, work far too long and hard at the office and am affixed to the couch for Sunday afternoon football, I cant imagine that you know anything else about my "lifestyle" except likely incorrect assumptions).

Careful acco40, it might be contagious.

(btw, sorry for the series of quick posts above, I thought it better to break up the points into smaller posts than just write a long one.)

mk9750 says>>one cannot actively participate in homosexual activity and justify those actions as in alignment with the Scout Oath and LawCan someone elaborate on how I violate the Scout Oath and Law simply by "being an active homosexual" (I am specifically asking for the rationale that explains how my sexuality violates the Oath and Law... oh, and one last request, perhaps you can qualify any explanation without basing it solely on your personal opinion or what your specific religion has taught you?)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

>> tj and others break at least the spirit of the rules by being homosexual

It is my opinion, based on a rather thorough understanding of the evolution of the policy, that the "spirit" of the rule is, in fact, inconsistent with both the Movement and the Organization of Scouting. The rule represents a very definite aggression by one BSA sponsor (the Mormon Church, supported to a lesser degree by various other sponsors) to legislate their morality, and their interpretation of God's will, onto me and the BSA. It is very much the goal of those behind this policy to homogenize (no pun intended) the BSA into something it has never been, and clearly states it shall not be: a mono-religious entity.

I certainly do not violate the letter of the policy, and while it might be argued that I violate the "spirit" of the policy, I do not accept that spirit to be valid nor one that I should attempt to clarify.

>your choices in your sexual life and the consequences

>thereof are between you and God

Thank you ScoutParent, for being kind enough to leave this issue between me and my God... if you would only practice what you preach, we wouldn't have any disagreement.

>I applaud your honesty & courage in your post

I would say my anonymous post is not so courageous, and I did not share this information to be honest. Had I made a similar announcement before posting for the past year, my arguments would have been skewed by perceptions. Otherwise, I don't really seek validation of any kind, however, I do accept your remark as well meaning.

I have often criticized the policy as "vague, unevenly enforced and disingenuous". Now you get to see a personal example of that.

The policy does not define to whom or how I must "avow" my sexuality. The only definition that has ever been offered can be found in the text of the Supreme Court Case, which essentially stated the position as "don't advocate against the BSA opinion in front of Scouts". I can assure you, I am not "avowed" by that definition.

Who exactly am I allowed to "avow" to (is that a verb?), without risking banishment? Can I avow my sexuality to the person I have been with for the last 2.5 years? He was a Scout. How about to my best friend, an Eagle Scout, who also happens to be gay? If I "avow" to them am I violating a policy? What about to the Scout Executive friends I have, who strongly oppose the BSA's national position, and recognize that it is vague and within their power to enforce. Are they or I in any real violation for failing to "enforce" an arbitrary policy?

BSA has no real definition for "avowed", and arbitrarily sets the benchmark for just how "avowed" you have to be before you are no longer welcome. In answer to your question, I am confident that I do not violate the BSA policy, nor do the nearly a dozen other Scouters that I mentioned earlier. My sexuality is but a small part of who I am, and it is an even smaller part of who I am in Scouting.

Perhaps the closest I have ever come to violating the policy is posting in this [open] forum, though I submit that I am no more in violation by doing so than NJCubScouter, LittleBillie or any of the other "straight" members who have so adamantly advocated that a homosexual is not inherently immoral.

I'm not "living a lie" in Scouting, and my integrity is in check. If you are a otherwise happily married man of 20 years who no longer has sex with his wife, and you never felt compelled to reveal such irrelevant information to Scouting, would you be living a lie? Of course not, your sexuality, and even your relationships outside the context of Scouting, are irrelevant.

I'm eager to more fully explain myself and answer your questions, but first a question back... Would you care to explain how I (or most of the dozen or so others that I mentioned) violate a BSA policy?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

We're coming up on the one year anniversary of my joining the discussion on this forum ("cake for everyone!"). It's been inspiring to watch the "family" of Scouters (regular contributors) share so much insight and information with each other. It's been particularly interesting for me to view the debates on so many different issues (and many of the same issues over and again).

My entire life (well, at least since I was 7) has been centered on Scouting, and my experience and contribution has spanned every level of the program (from local to regional and national, even to international). Scouting was THE guiding force in the development of my life as a young man, and while my contribution back to the program could never equal that which I received from it, I am nonetheless proud that I have done my best, and far more than the average Scouter, to help the Movement continue to prosper.

I have indicated in previous posts how deeply I feel that Scouting's gay ban is wrong. I have endeavored to argue with more logic, and less passion, than some others. I have expressed my concerns philosophically and anecdotally.

I have explained the impact of the gay ban as I have seen it on several close, personal friends. I have talked about an emotionally distraught young man, sent silently beyond the brink of crisis in his life, pushed there in part by Scouting's judgment. I have also talked of another Scouter who, in his late twenties, received a "ban" letter (shortly after receiving a letter appointing him to a Regional committee covering a dozen or so states, in honor of the good work he had done). He was banned because a local Scout executive "found out" that this Scouter had formed a life-long commitment to another man (a commitment that continues seven years later and is a model for relationships of any kind).

My motives and my passion for my position on this matter have been questioned in this forum. To be fair, no one has really posed such questions since the earliest posts I made here; I would like to hope that it became obvious to most that I was neither an outside agitator nor someone who sought to harm the BSA. Most learned I was quite the contrary to those things.

I am a champion of Scouting. And I am also a gay man.

I'm motivated to post this now, because after a year, I am content that I've stated my positions on this issue as well as I can, and it's now relevant to "personalize" the debate with other regular posters on this subject.

The question ("are you gay?") was once asked of me on this forum. I never answered the question, because it was irrelevant, should not have been asked, and did not otherwise affect the message I delivered. For what it's worth, I can honestly say my passion to debate this issue has more to do with the impact that I have seen on others, than any impact I have personally felt. I've personally known about a dozen Scouts/Scouters who are gay (my Scouting friendships have obviously not been contained just to my local community), all of whom were very actively contributing to Scouting. Of the dozen or so, I only know one who has been "banned" by BSA (because they "found out"), and a few others who just cut back on their participation out of discouragement over the new policy.

This post is cloaked in anonymity. And while my own participation in Scouting continues to this day, I am only "avowed" as a gay man to a relative handful of Scouting officials who I trust with my "secret" and that I know oppose Scouting's policy, and those close to me with whom I have served. Even without the current policies, my sexuality would not warrant any regular announcement of such. Being gay is just a part of my identity (a personal observation), and it plays no real role in my identity as a Scouter. I share it now not as an open proclamation, but more to personalize the issue in the minds of the regular posters of this forum.

I'm happy to continue to discuss this or answer any questions posed (...'cept what's my name, address and registration number , that part is still none of y'all's business). My skin is pretty thick, and I'm more and more comfortable wearing it every day. So feel free to challenge me, question me or critique me... Here's an open invitation to make the discussion more personal, if you want. Or, if that doesn't happen, then we can just return to the general discussion, and I'll be content that I'm "fully disclosed" in my debate.

Relevant case: On October 17, 2000, Leonard Lanzi, Council Scout Executive of Santa Barbara Council, stood before the County Board of Commissioners. He was called there to to defend why the BSA should continue to receive "preferential" treatment from the county, despite it's gay ban, which was contrary to the County's stated positions. Council Scout Executive Leo Lanzi stated that he deeply believed in the BSA, and would not work for them if he was "not certain that they save lives". He also added that while he was a private person, he himself was a gay man. He stated this he said "because he did not wish to lie" and because he wanted to illustrate why he still supported BSA despite this one issue which effected him personally (presumably in an attempt to convince the County to do the same).

Ten days later, BSA fired him, under the grounds that he could not be a member. He sued BSA, and settled with BSA in June of last year. I am not aware of the terms of the settlement. My understanding is that non Field Service staff (not district and council executives, etc) are exempt from the "gay ban" and protected by the non-discrimination employment laws. I wonder what was accomplished, if anything, by Mr. Lanzi's action.

Actually, Barney Frank is not the only gay member of Congress. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) are both openly gay, and as someone who has had many close friends inside the Hill, I can tell you that these three are hardly the only gays serving in Congress, they are just the only ones doing so in the public.

TJ, I have a difficult time staying angry at a man who uses logic and honestly appears to be seeking common ground.I'll accept that as a compliment, since I do make an effort to always use logic and reason in my posts, and as little emotion or opinion as I can muster.However, I also feel that you don't portray Christianity fairly.Certainly more fairly than you portray gays. My posts are about fundamentalist Christians, and specifically even about some very well known and celebrated fundamentalist Christian leaders. I can clearly see the distinction between this radical group (which I feel is about as far away from Christ's true teachings as you can get sometimes) and all of Christianity. All of your indictments of gays are based on radical, extreme examples of gay life, too. Yet you're much more willing to portray all gays in the same light.

So how about this... I'll not portray all Christians (remember, I consider myself one) based on the extreme examples of Phelps and Falwell and Robertson, and you stop portraying all gays based on the group trolling the neighborhood park you often refer to?

Falwell to Robertson's agreement: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

Falwell said he believes the ACLU and other organizations "which have attempted to secularize America, have removed our nation from its relationship with Christ on which it was founded." Sound familiar?Falwell continues: "I therefore believe that that created an environment which possibly has caused God to lift the veil of protection which has allowed no one to attack America on our soil since 1812," he said.OK, now Rooster, by me reporting what these folks said, I am "portraying them as hateful"? And just how different is this from "Rev" Phelps standing at a funeral with a "God Hates Fags" poster? (Not much different, I would say, just less distasteful.) How much different is this from the BSA saying to gay Scouts and Scouters that they are inherently immoral? (Again, not much different, BSA's fundamentalist message is just even less distastefully stated.)

And further, it's amazing to me that inside of one short post you can both distance yourself from these people ('hateful message') and embrace them at the same time ('maybe they're right'). I can only suppose that this message is their "true opinion", and surely you can agree that is likely, since you (who's opinions expressed on this board are not often that dissimilar from these folks) seem to be embracing the possibility that their statements are fair and accurate of a vengeful/righteous God.

(Note: Please don't take my observations too personally... I have come to respect you as a fellow Scouter with good intentions, I just don't agree with many of your positions... in a "love the messenger, hate the message/love the sinner, hate the sin" kinda way . This post is not intended to ignite a flame war, and I suspect our opinions of each other are pretty similar. Nor do I seek to demonize Falwell or fundamentalist Christians, I just question whether the majority of Christians have as much in common with these "leaders" as they think they do.)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

(And lest this debate be dismissed as irrelevant, keep in mind one of my most consistent observations on this board is a fear that the BSA is evolving under the control of far right-wing Christianity, and increasingly self-identifying as a "faith-based organization"... my point in this thread stays true to form and is just intended as a case for all of us to question whether this is who we want our organization to become.)

The article doesn't seem to be suggesting a moral equivalency (nor am I) between the actions of any fanatics. There is none. Let's not take this debate in the direction of "yeah, but look how bad the radical terrorist are".... of course they are nut jobs, and it would be far too easy to dismiss the point of this article by shifting the focus of the debate in that direction.

Most (all?) of us would obviously agree that fundamentalist Islam is more threatening in the world than fundamentalist Christianity (at least today)... but isn't it utterly ridiculous that ANY case can be made for that question ("which is more dangerous?") to even be asked, and for the question to have even the slightest merit? Isn't it ridiculous for there to be ANY parallels between the radicalized "fundamentalist" Christianity and "fundamentalist" Islam?

Below is an interesting article I read in Newsweek International Edition (Dec 9 edition, by Carla Power) while flying overseas last week. I post it here as a spinoff of the "Rev" Fred Phelps thread... I think the article makes a more articulate statement than I have done:

The Age of Fundamentalism

Fundamentalists of all religions have a lot in common

The holy warrior speaks simply and directly, cleaving the world neatly in two. "This is a religious struggle, a clash of cultures," he intones. Luckily, God is on the right side, having "put a hedge of protection around us."

OSAMA BIN LADEN, lashing out on Al-Jazeera? No, a lunchtime speech to the Economic Club in Detroit by Pat Robertson, the Christian evangelical. Those who might have thought otherwise can be forgiven, for the echo is spookily similar. The Americans and the British, the Qaeda leader said before the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, "have divided the world into two regionsone of faith and another of infidelity, from which we hope God will protect us."

These are good days for Holy Warriors, for this is the age of fundamentalism. Relativism remains a key casualty of September 11. In these queasy times, clinging to certainty and absolutism seems far safer than the messy course of debate and dissent. So in the Islamic world, so in America, where members of the Christian right have come out with a rash of attacks on Islam, calling it "evil" and branding Muhammad a "terrorist" and "demon-possessed pedophile." With his "Axis of Evil," George W. Bush parses the world"for us or against us," tidy lines in the sand dividing "barbarians" from the "civilized."

Look more closely, though, and the us and them distinction collapses. Right-wing Christian leaders like Franklin Graham may denounce Islam as a "wicked religion," and Muslim fundamentalists may defame Jews, but in fact their visions are far closer than either camp would admit. Their beliefs on the roles of women and religion in public life closely mirror one another. Both share a love affair with the media and a suspicion of pluralism and secular liberalism. When the Muslim College, a London-based center of Islamic learning, held a seminar for Muslim, Christian and Jewish conservatives, the participants had a shock of self-recognition, says Zaki Badawi, an Egyptian religious scholar who heads the college. Suddenly, they realized they shared attitudes and world views. Whatever their stripe, fundamentalists are absolutists at heart, says Badawi. "They dont like to hear other ideas at all. They want to hear their own voice, and are suspicious of anyone elses."

The exchange of vitriol between Christian and Muslim camps has thus produced a weird mirroring effect. It wasnt always so. Back in 1989, Irans Ayatollah Khomeini condemned the writer Salman Rushdie to death for denigrating the Prophet Muhammad in his novel "The Satanic Verses." Then, the so-called Rushdie Affair pitted secularism against religion. The sureness of the perfection of the Quran slammed up against Western liberalisms fanatical belief in tolerancein the absolutism of free speech and the status of literature as a sacred place to question and debate. Thirteen years on, the loudest voices in the debate arent liberals and Muslim fundamentalists, but two sets of fundamentalistsChristians and Muslims. If right-wing Christians attack Muhammad and his teachings, Muslim extremists attack America and the Jewsalbeit not Jesus, since he is considered a prophet in the Quran. Whatever its target, the vitriol is the same. "This is the same kind of religiosity, with the same kind of dynamisms," says Karen Armstrong, author of "The Battle for God." "All fundamentalists feel threatened by modernity, and all of them in their sense of threat tend to demonize the Other."

One Other is shared by all fundamentalisms, and that is Woman. Every fundamentalist wants a traditional wife and mother, preferably covered up. (The reason for the Muslim womans veil and the Orthodox Jewish womans wig? The shared belief that a womans hair is for her husband, not the public.) The Taliban werent alone in dominating women. The Faith and Message Statement of the Southern Baptist Convention requires a wife to "submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." Conservative Muslims, fearing sex outside marriage, would feel right at home in the Christian rights new abstinence campaign.

Though both Muslim and Christian fundamentalists claim to be wary of modernity, theyre dexterous with its tools. Just as the ministries of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart were built on radio and television, so do extremist Muslim groups owe their popularity to the Internet and satellite television. To be fair, the mainstream media use fundamentalists just as much as the fundamentalists use the media. Bombs and fatwa s make better copy than the predictable routine of five daily prayers. Operation Rescue, the anti-abortion crusade, is the stuff of national headlines, while Quaker prayer meetings are the stuff of community newsletters. And precisely because extremists make such great copy, the quietists and moderates rarely get heard. The wishy-washy liberal, the Sufi, the Israeli peacenik, the born-again Christian who believes in the separation of church and statethey are shouted down. Robertson is right. We are in the middle of a clash of cultures. But its not between Islam and Christianity. Its between fundamentalists and the rest of us.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

ScoutParent -- for the record, I'm actually in full support of "Rev" Phelps (or Falwell or Robertson or anyone) freedom of speech... in fact, I wish they got more media coverage and exposure. The more that these guys "speak up", the more that most Christians realize how little they relate to this point of view and attitudes change. Frankly, I've seen this in a microcosm on this discussion board... over the months I have increasingly found it more difficult to relate to the positions taken by the "ultra religions" (forgive me for the label) members of our little group, and they have done more to drive me away from their perspective than anything. It's a healthy exercise to occasionally stop and survey just who's in the boat with you, so to speak. Sometimes you realize that you're in the wrong boat.

OGE, I agree... these acts are not representative of much more than a miniscule sampling of Christians... and while most would find "Rev" Phelps actions to be an aberration, how different are his beliefs from much more mainstream Christian leaders like Falwell and Robertson... true enough, for the most part Falwell and Robertson and others are a bit more savvy and controlled, and only rarely do they slip up and allow their true opinions to be "known" as they did after Sept 11 (only later to quickly back away from the remarks). I suppose that I'm more concerned with the mass of silent followers, who put their "faith" in the hands of religious leaders and dogma like this, and allow themselves to be complicit by association and contributory by general support.

I agree with you, I don't believe most Christians share the beliefs of Phelps, or Robertson & Falwell... but at least in the laters' case, there is sure a large population of Christians that continue to support and follow these "leaders" regardless.

Of course... we've discussed "Rev" Fred Phelps and his family church on this board before (literally, most of the members of his following are related to him)... you can count on him to show up and protest at the funeral of any gay person (the signs mentioned in this article are very mild by comparison). I think the last time we discussed him on this board was in the days of DedDad... Phelps uses the bible to justify his radical commentary... frankly, it's not at all a different position from many others on this board, just more distastefully presented. Lest you consider him too far out of the "mainstream" of "Christian" views, don't forget that "Rev" Pat Robertson and "Rev" Jerry Falwell echoed these same beliefs shortly after Sept 11 (that God was punishing America because of gays and other "sinners").

We went to the moon?

;-)

Cubs --- that's not just LittleBillie's position, that's the official position of the BSA... for example, they don't ban homosexual Scouts and leaders if they are "closeted", and in the Lambert case, it seems the BSA was perfectly fine with him being an atheist, just as long as he lied to Scouting and said he wasn't.

The BSA's official policy on homosexuals is that they must either be "avowed" (or they also have a policy which bans heterosexuals who "avow" that homosexuality is not immoral... the litmus test that BSA established for the term "avowed" is quite simple (and it's everywhere throughout the Supreme Court case text): has someone advocated that homosexuality is not inherently immoral, and have they done so in front of a boy (either a current member of Scouting, or of the age to become a member of Scouting).

So you see... it's not LittleBillie that's trying to change the statement... he's just explaining the statement as it is really intended by the BSA (and presumably you, since you strongly support the BSA's troubling position).

BobWhite -- actually, I think you and I may be closer to an agreement than you think.

1) Note that in my post I consistently said the "purpose of Scouting", not the "purpose of the BSA", as you have done. This is an important point to me, because my only criticisms of the BSA are when it deviates from Scouting. (I'm much more in love with the "movement" of Scouting, the glorious game created by B-P, than I am the organization of BSA Inc. that operates the Scouting program here in the USA. I think you already recognize the distinction between BSA and Scouting, because I note you are often careful to use the term BSA when you make your points.)

2) Nonetheless, the "Aims" of Scouting (the "target" or "goal" for which we seek to hit are simple: citizenship, character and self. These are Scouting's goals, and it is essentially what I said in my post. The Scout Oath and Law defines what we think it means to actually achieve these goals (among this definition is Reverence and Duty to God). Much as we believe "Bravery" to reflect "mental, physical and spiritual fitness", we also find "Reverence" to reflect the same.

3) Our Methods include a variety of things to reach our Goals. Our Methods do not include teaching lessons of faith. They do include teaching a Scout "that until you recognize that the world, the community and society doesn't center on your existence, that there is a higher power that makes man unique, you cannot be a complete person. That is the BSA's opinion and that is what they have based the program on. It is a value that is key to scouting." (Beautifully said, btw, and I agree completely with the sentiment.)

But can you see the subtle difference between using the Method described above and teaching matters of faith? There is a difference, and BSA is crossing over from one to the other. By teaching certain beliefs (homosexuals are immoral), BSA is teaching matters of faith (specific faiths, even). In doing so, we are becoming a "faith-based organization", and we risk losing sight of (or working contrary to) our Aims.

Now, the matter of excluding atheists is a bit different in my mind than the ban on homosexuals (for several of reasons). I go back to my original post on this thread, where I suggest it's a shame that both sides are likely over reacting and suggest that the answer probably lies outside of the publicity.

I think it's possible to teach a Scout the very eloquent lesson you articulate above, without teaching him matters of faith. I think it's possible for Scouting to help a Scout grow into the "best kind of citizen" even if he is questioning or denying his faith. The only question remaining in my mind is whether it's possible for a Scout leader to be a good mentor to a boy, even if he lacks "faith in God" himself. And on that matter, I must honestly admit, I just don't know for certain. My gut is telling me that this is a question best left answered in the intimacy of the local relationships by the people best in position to judge the individual in question.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Very astute observation, NJ... it is peculiar that the BSA believes you can become "unAtheist" but can't become "unGay"... of course, you and I recognize that being gay has more to do with the way God made you than any choice you make, and apparently BSA's logic, in a twisted sort of way, acknowledges this.

If the purpose of the program were to be a swimmer, and you absolutely refused to get in the water, then there is no point in you being in the program.BobWhite, I do understand your point. I also commend you on a very lucid explanation of it.

Here's where we disagree: the "purpose of the [scouting] program" is not to be a faith-based organization. Scouting's purpose is to build citizens of good character and leadership. Among the many methods we utilize to accomplish that purpose is teaching a Scout his Duty to God.

This comes back to my previous question about when the BSA became a "faith-based organization". That's not a small question, or one that should be so easily dismissed.

Describing ourselves as a "faith-based organization" (which official BSA now does, albeit occasionally interchanged with "values-based organization", which is a different thing all together) represents a major shift in how we see ourselves as an organization. To me, a Church is a "faith-based organization", which is to say that it's "based on religious faith". In your analogy above, a Church would say to you that God is the pool, water and bathing suit required to "teach swimming".

That's just not been the case with Scouting until recently. Under the very strong influence (I've made this point before) of the Mormon Church, and to a lesser degree the Catholic Church, and then to a MUCH lesser degree several other denominations, the BSA seems to be undergoing a transformation (through it's policies and its statements, but not really its program) and becoming an extension of the Church.

We're taking a public, iron-clad, blanket stance on issues of faith... Issues (homosexuality) that many Churches disagree on. Why are we taking these stances, and increasingly identifying as a "faith-based organization"?

B-P would not have identified Scouting's purpose as an extension of the Church. The original Congressional Charter certainly made no such reference. Teaching matters of specific faith has not been our place (it's not the pool, water or swim suit needed to teach our "swimming" lessons).

So I suppose my concern is that we're identifying ourselves (and others are identifying us) as something we really didn't set out to be. Do we expect Scouts to show reverence to God? Yes. Is that important to achieving our purpose? Yes. But is that our main purpose? No.