tjhammer

Rooster -- I respect your zeal. I also respect your right to "evangelize" when you lead group prayers in your local unit, because I presume that the parents and CO have been well informed of your proclivity to do so and agree that they want their children to be exposed to you. (Presumably, all the parents and Scouts of your unit are of similar religions and beliefs; if not, they can always join the unit across town or start a new Scout troop.) I do not respect your right to evangelize beyond your local unit (ex: at a Camporee), because you clearly would be doing so without "knowing your audience" and it is not the role of a Scout leader to teach his religion to other people's kids. It is not the role of BSA to teach a specific religion over others, either.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Why is it acceptable for Rooster and BSA to believe some religions are abhorent, but not acceptable for acco40 to believe the same?

Rooster and BSA believe that all of the religions who don't share a belief that homosexuals are immoral are abhorent religions, and seek to ban them from propagating this belief in their local chartered units (actually, de facto force them to teach Scouts the opposite). This they believe is acceptable, but when another Scouter suggests that it's abhorent to lead group prayer by emphasizing a specific religion... all hell breaks loose (pun intended).

So, why is it acceptable for Rooster and BSA to believe some religions are abhorent, but not acceptable for acco40 to believe the same? It's not, 'cause Scouting is "absolutely non-sectarian". Sorta.

What happens or more precisely what doesn't happen on this board should be the decision of the owner who allows us to use it. Actually, the owner of this board has given us only a few very broad rules, ostensibly to maintain the general health and value of the board. Then they leave it up to the members, operating within these broad rules (treat each other with respect and keep the debate honest) to determine our own debate. The owner of the board knows that without the members who post here the board is worthless. And without giving us members the freedom (and encouragement) to post any topic (be it controversial and debate oriented or inquisitive and help oriented) then the board will lack real interest from members and visitors.

(BTW, don't read much into my comments... I think the "parallel" is weak at best, and my comments are only an observation on debate and this board, and not intended to stretch further a poor analogy.)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Bob... I really don't know who you think disagrees with you on this matter. Certainly not me, and I don't think I have ever read a single other post from anyone on this board that would disagree with you on whether the BSA is a private organization with the right to set its own membership standards. I can not recall a single post from any of the "regulars" on my side of the debate that has ever said the Supreme Court was wrong, or that BSA Inc. should be forced to change its policy by anyone other than its members, leaders, parents and chartering partners.

BobWhite -- My previous post was not character assassination (certainly no more than your subsequent one where you still insist on trying to suggest that I lack credentials to be involved in this discussion, or for that matter Scouting; conversely implying of course that your own credentials are far superior to my own. I'm simply exhausted with explaining over and again my own very significant involvement in Scouting at local, council, regional and national levels for much of the past twenty years. I have, in fact, sat in many of those different national committee meetings you reference, though as a support or task force member, not as a committee member.) I suspect you are one that likes to wear a lot of knots on their uniform breast, just to make sure we all get the point. Ive never been much good with the knots-R-cool crowd, so youll have to forgive me if I get a bit frustrated with discussing whose dossier is bigger with you.I pointed out that to try and manage an organization where every unit was given the local option to determine what the rules and values of the program was would be impossible. The BSA's stand on avowed homosexuals is not the only value that all people don't agree with. My point was that you cannot be all things to all people and be a national program.But this is the only "value" we are debating. You like to imply that changing this one "policy" to the local level would be tantamount to changing every or any policy, and that's just not what we're discussing. Stay focused on just this one issue, please. And for the record, I'll repeat the standard defense against your comment is that it certainly had no ill effect on the standards of the program 15 years ago when local units were granted the ability to allow women leaders. It has no ill effect on the values of the Mormom units when all the other units decide to stay through Sunday on a camporee instead of going home to their church (something the Mormons value strongly). At some point each of these values were debated or discussed individually, just like were now discussing the matter of homosexuals in Scouting.Secondly I pointed out that the BSA has the right as a private organization to determine it's rules, values and memberships.Another red herring from BobWhite, to try to discredit me. I, too, agree with this statement (you imply otherwise). I have said no less than a dozen times on this board that the BSA was right to win the Supreme Court case, but wrong in its choice of swords to fight it with; before we die on our own sword, I believe we need to drop it as an organization and leave the decision up to the local parents. (I've never understood how conservatives, of which I consider myself to be more aligned than liberals, could be so against the idea that decisions of morality and value education should be left as close to the parents as possible... to subjugate that authority to a national body seems completely inconsistent with true conservative thinking!)You have a right to choose (and I feel a personal obligation) not associate with groups whose values you do not share.And actually I do make such a choice. As someone else mentioned on here, I've already had this conversation with many of the people that I associate with in Scouting, and I know that we're of like minds on this issue. My personal obligation is not to abandon an organization (and really a program and movement) because I disagree with their new policy on one issue. My obligation is to continue to work within the program to change that policy, and that includes providing articulate debate for other adult leaders to fully understand the implications of the situation.Has scouting banned all gays over the years? No. Have they banned avowed gays over the years? Yes. Bob, this is patently false. This is really the essence of my previous point that you simply can't state something as fact when it is not. (I have said before that I have a lot of respect for most of your posts and contributions to this board... I recognize, as do many others, that you have a good mastery of the official program. So when you make statements like this, which are in no way accurate, people are inclined to believe you must know more than them and accept it as fact.) There is no history, recorded or otherwise, dating back beyond the late 1980's to show that Scouting had a blanket ban on homosexuals (avowed or not). Scouting, throughout history, has always selected leaders based solely on their character, and at no time was there an official policy (or even a preferred position statement) regarding homosexuality. This is a new "rule" implemented by BSA national resulting out of the National Relationships Committee.I have kept my involvement in this conversation to a minimum, mainly because of your behavior. You want others to show tolerance for the people you want to include in scouting, and yet you show no tolerance for people whose opinions do not agree with you. You avoid logical discussion in favor of personal insults. Bob, Im quite tolerant of your viewpoint and opinion. I am content to let you pursue your own opinion. I just dont want you to state your opinion as fact, when it is not. And I dont want you to force me to accept your opinion in order to remain a member of an organization that we both jointly helped build. Bob, I try very hard to ONLY provide logical discussion and AVOID any personal insults in this debate. It is very difficult to continue, time and again, to address with articulate and logical response the posts of some others, particularly those that never include logical discussion, just repetitive statement of personal opinion. And while I would not classify you in that group, you do slip into it on rare occasion, and I can't just sit back and let you insert opinion as fact. You carry too much credence as a "fact" guy on this board (even in my own eyes) for me to allow you to get away with bending those facts on these rare occasions.This issue affects very few people in the scouting program, and even fewer units.I've noticed that you had no response when we discussed how it deeply effects those few people and few units, though. It's funny; you were in adamant opposition to making a Scout sing for a lost pocketknife, because of the potential harm it could cause that one young boy. But you either don't care or just want to pretend it doesn't exist when we discuss the very real harm caused to a young gay Scout growing up in Scouting (one of the three specific examples I have given of how this policy touched someone in my life). Maybe you prefer to just think that it's a lie, so you can go back to focusing on the real damage we do as an organization by making Scouts sing.Knock'em dead in IrvingAs said before, I am already quite involved in Irving on this issue, and do participate through official channels in the discussion, particularly as an associate of the "group of nine" metro councils. I didn't get active on this board to discuss this topic until the National Relationships Committee appointed a stacked task force of twenty "diverse" members to reaffirm this policy six months ago. That's when I decided that debating the matter solely behind closed doors with people that havent seen the inside of a tent or the middle of a unit meeting for decades, if at all, was not getting me real perspective. However, it's quite funny (in a sad way) to observe that many of the personalities that exist on this board in this debate are quite similar to those sitting around the table in the National Relationships Committee:There's the very religious, and quite boisterous, "my religion is the only real religion... I'll pretend to tolerate your religion as long as I think it's cute and harmless to you" bunch.There's the "I can't tell you why I believe this way, it's just my opinion, but my opinion is never wrong so I'll do nothing but just restate it over and again" bunch.There's the "well, who am I to disagree with the Chairman" bunchThere's the "this issue is too hard to worry about, can't we focus on something else" bunch.There's the "well, I don't feel strongly one way or the other, so I guess I'll just go with the group" bunch.There's the "it's always been this way, and thats reason enough for it to always be this way" bunch.There's the "we're under attack by leftist guerrilla activists, circle the wagons and protect the young folks" bunch.There's the "well, if we give in on this issue the next step is to allow people to have sex with beasts" bunch.There's the "if we let local units decide it will be sheer pandemonium and an utter break down in the entire program of Scouting" alarmistsThere's the "I know we say theres no correlation at all between homosexuals and pedophiles, and we talk a good game about how we believe our Youth Protection policies work regardless, but *wink* *wink*, we all really know the score, right? All gays are just pedophiles waiting to rape a kid, let's keep 'em out for that reason (but don't let anyone know that's really the reason)" bunch.Theres the "we fought so publicly to win this important right of association, well look silly if we now change our minds on this issue" bunchTheres the "I dont want some gay guy swimmin in the same summer camp pool as me" bunchTheres the "heck, gays are all just recruitin... they wont be happy till they "convert" my kid to be gay too" bunchUnfortunately there aren't many members of that committee who represent the significant portion of the membership and a good number of the chartering partners and local councils that disagree with the policyThere are, though, several pompous members of the committee that believe "we can't allow parents and CO's to set a standard on something this controversial... they aren't really smart enough to do that for themselves, we better do it for them"

It's funny how the same vocal personalities hold true whether you are behind the closed door of a small meeting setting policy or on this board debating policy. Surely you recognize more than a few folks from the board that fit into the categories above?

Happy 4th of July to All! Enjoy the sun, family and friends. And thank God we have the freedom and free will to believe in our own God (in the USA and the BSA!).(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

BobWhite, youre post is nothing short of hysterical exaggeration. I know you feel passionate about a lot of things, but simply stating something as fact (according to BobWhite) hardly makes it true (I dont think Im the first to make that observation on this board).

The BSA created this policy explicitly. And they did so after I joined. Nowhere in any documentation will you find this policy, or even a comment about this, before the late eighties. And nowhere on any form that I have signed has it been explained to me that I belong to a group that believes gay boys are unworthy of membership. You can claim all you want that you knew Scouting banned gays throughout your entire Scouting career, but that will come as quite a shock to the tens of thousands of gays that have been members of the program since 1910.You are not asking for local units to have a some choices in who their members are. They already have that choice. You are asking for every unit to be able to determine what the scouting program is.I can not believe you are serious. Sexuality has nothing to do with the Scouting program.How could we as a national program develop programs and resources to operate by if every unit had a different definition of what scouting was. Again, do you honestly believe that being a safe haven from gays is how we define the Scouting program? Do you think that banning gay Scouts is what allows us to build great citizens of character? Gosh, you have a radically different perspective of the value of Scouting.

Quixote --

That really isn't the essential question. Much as our opinions of the underlying issue differ, so too does our perspective on the actual question at hand.

You choose to summarize the question as "Are you willing to compromise your values or morals?"... that's entirely unfair. That is maybe the question you feel like is being asked of you, but it is certainly not the question being asked of me. Or even the question that is being asked of the BSA.

In fact, I view the question being debated right now as "Can you accept that people with slightly different moral standards than your own can participate in Scouting without effecting you?" I can answer that question with a resounding yes. Can you?

It's interesting how we can't even agree on a wording for what the question is that we are debating.

I don't care what your moral standards are, and I wouldn't dream of asking you to change them. I just don't want you to hold our (yours and mine) organization (BSA) up to a standard that significant portions of its chartering partners, members and parents disagree with.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Imagine, one CO thinks gays are OK as leaders & another wants nothing but women.And another unit says no women leaders allowed, and another says they want all of their leaders to be Catholic. And one CO decides to change the age for Cub Scouts. Golly, absolute madness! You're right Ed, it's just plum craziness to think these things can be decided by the parents at the local level. How in the world would we ever teach B-P's jolly game of character building to our own Scouts? Utter chaos!

KoreaScouter

You raise a point worthy of response... in fact, it's the only legitimate point raised so far by those that oppose making this a decision for local chartering orgs and parents.

It should come as no surprise that I disagree with your assessment. Here's why:

Obviously BSA does not have child safety concerns (letting units with gay leaders attend district camporees does not endanger Scouts of any unit). So really the only concern left is whether the mere presence of gay Scouts and leaders at a camporee sends the wrong signals to Scouts in your unit. If the parents of your unit wish to believe that homosexuality is immoral, they are free to instruct their children as such.

Surely you realize that there are already gay Scouts and Scouters at your district camporee, and most likely have been at nearly every camporee you have ever been to. Because sexuality doesn't have a place in Scouting, you've not noticed, nor would you in the future.

You are certainly welcome to believe that gay Scouts and Scouters are immoral and not worthy of membership in your unit. I wonder though, do you really also believe that they're unworthy of lifeguarding a safe swim defense? Teaching a merit badge on pioneering? Going on a nature hike with other boys? Do you really have such a low opinion of homosexuals that you believe it's better for a heterosexual (all else being equal) to teach first aid to your Scouts?

littlebille, it seems like you and I are in nearly complete agreement on moral evolution (if not the exact way that it happens). I wonder why you and I still disagree then on whether homosexuality is immoral? My own position on that questions seems to be supported by a significant minority of mainstream religions (parts of the Methodist, Episcopalian, Unitarians, etc)... do you accept that God is "evolving" man's morality on this issue right now?

I'll take the know for a quick question to sst3rd:

Since it seems like you might be suggesting that your committee (or if not yours, at least some local committee) assumes local control and might be receptive if a person of good character, who happened to be gay, were to apply for membership, may I ask if this position is well known among the parents and boys of your unit? Do you think that one 14-year-old boy in your unit who right now may be secretly struggling with the realization that he may be gay knows that he would still be welcome if his secret were to come out? Is he getting your message or is he just getting the message from the papers that Scouting thinks he's unworthy?

... putting down the knot, and listening attentively.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499

This was a well written commentary on the motives behind adding "under God" to the pledge and "In God We Trust" to the money during the '50s.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Let's just say for me, I BELIEVE that God's morality is the absolute, but that He Himself inspires an evolution of moral standards as we and our world become more complex. OK, I may buy that. Just one question though... who's He updating when He's ready to evolve our moral standards? How do you know it's you and Rooster that are God's instrument, not me? (I don't suppose you can claim it is because you are so righteous or religious.)

And how in the world do we know when an evolution of moral standards is taking places? And how will we know if it is because God is inspiring the change or because heathens are just trying to make the world more liberal and politically correct?

Gosh, on second thought, your idea that morality is evolving by the hand of God because man is becoming more complex raises more questions than answers.

llwyn, you question my ability to be a "genuine" Christian, and I think you are basing that pretty much on my point that I do not believe the Bible is the literal word of God. I went back and reread my passage, and agree that I got a bit sloppy in making this point (without carefully spelling out my entire position on this specific topic as I have done in previous posts). I should not have said that I didnt believe the Bible is divine thats a bit of an oversimplification and not entirely accurate of my point of view. I do believe that the Bible is representative of God's word. I do think that it is man's evolving interpretation of God's word. But I do not believe it is infallible and the literal word of God (unless God's an editor working in the publishing industry). (I think a previous post in this thread mentioned that the Mormons rewrote their Bible as recently as 1980 to allow for blacks to be leaders in the Church... see, man's rewriting that book and bastardizing the word of God all the time).I said: I believe that God made man with minds -- spiritual minds -- for each to use in reasoning their own spirituality and relationship with God.

llwyn said: You believe that? It is false, of course, but also irrational [w/o reason]. Why do you believe that? How do you KNOW? Brother, you were given a mind to love the LORD your God with.Well, I don't understand how you KNOW my statment is false, and I can't BELIEVE it is true. I guess I would like to understand your perspective on this a bit more, which you could address to me via Private Message so as not to bore the others. But in general my response is that your point of view does not allow for ANY tolerance of ANY religion other than your own, and seems to reflect that you believe it is impossible to KNOW God unless you believe as you do. Do you really believe all other religions and even strains of your own are just lost? (I suppose the answer to that question is yes, and I suppose it is perfectly fine for you to believe that).llwyn said: Also, what IS your epistemology? How do you KNOW anything? That might help me understand what you are saying. I don't KNOW anything. I BELIEVE many things, though. I even have FAITH in some things that my BELIEF is sometimes shaky. But I certainly don't presume to KNOW anything when it comes to God. And the evolution of that belief would be as follows, I guess: I was born and raised and baptized a Baptist, then attended Methodist, Presbyterian and Christian churches as a teen. I have studied (though not formally) historical record of Christ, including the Bible and other readings. And I have observed... man relating to man. Man relating to religion. Religion relating to man. And then pondered. And formed opinion. And changed opinion. And stopped pondering because it was just too hard. And then reconsidered everything. And finally arrived where I am right at this moment, which is to say "I don't KNOW anything. I BELIEVE. And I try not to presume. Or assume. Or tell anyone that they are less holy than I.

Quixote said: The argument is that you can't have a NATIONAL organization if the membership standards are set in each local area. What you are proposing is a franchise without national membership standards which isn't going to happen. Hogwash. That was the same argument used 15 years ago over whether local units should be allowed to appoint women to be Scoutmasters. And when the Mormon Church fought that policy change (for more than ten years) it was finally only resolved by the BSA acquiescence that they could set their own membership standards for their own local unit. It was exactly the same story and outcome regarding the age of Cub Scouts, in which the Mormon Church was allowed their own membership standard. Theres plenty of other examples.What you are proposing on the surface sounds simple, but it is a slippery slope whether you recognize it or not.Slippery slope is an impossible argument for either of us. Lets just focus on the real facts and the here and now, instead of assuming things without any real causal link.Implementing such a change would split the BSA even more than we are split on this board and would highlight the differencesYou know, I doubt it seriously. Theres just not that many gays looking to stay in Scouting or join If the policy were to change, I bet the vast majority of Scouting would go completely unaffected (and really not even know anything had happened). while at the same time the BSA would be relinquishing their moral groundAh, there in is the rub. This is really a lot about face now, at least with BSA national. I was so disappointed when they affirmed their policy about four months ago after studying a 20 member task force. The absolute best scenario in my mind would have been for the BSA to come out a year or so after the Supreme Court decision and say

"Now, we were right to win that case and determine our own standards. Now were affirming that our standards are controlled by the parents of our organization at the local level. Weve carefully studied this issue of gay members and leaders for years, and were certain that their participation in our program is not a physical threat to the boys. Now that we have been empowered by the Supreme Court, we in turn are empowering the really important people in our organization, the parents and local chartering partners, to assess the character and define moral standards for each individual applicant. Should they decide that a gay man, or a woman, or any other person is a good role model for their sons, and then we will support them in their choice." (There was even a few drafts as official press releases that more eloquently stated this and shared with BSA.)

If they would have done this, the issue would have disappeared overnight. The wind would have been removed from the sails of the activists. The ultra-conservatives would have been appeased (if not begrudgingly). And the image of the BSA would have remained intact. Unfortunately, now that they have affirmed their position that the ban is based on morality and done so after a supposedly broad, long-term and careful study (by twenty people who were predisposed to vote in favor of the ban in the first place) it will be very, very difficult for the BSA to do a public about face on this without looking foolish.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

BobWhite says: I have been and am involved as a volunteer at many levels in scouting. I have a role in influencing scouting to a small degree on a national level. If I see the need for change I share it with the people responsible for affecting that change, I don't weaken the program by puffing my chest out and wailing in public or by using my methods rather than the scouting methods.Bob, I too have been a volunteer at many levels. I too have a role in influencing Scouting on a national level (I think I've said that before on this board). I have sat in national committee meetings for program, advancement and others. And while I was not in the room when the National Relationships Committee created this policy, I am friends with folks who were. (hence, Quixote, I do have some basis for my theory on the origins of this policy and its link to the Mormon Church).

I don't have this debate in "public" much, though I am very active in discussing it at other levels of Scouting. I think that there are two reasons why I chose to participate in this forum... the first is that I have witnessed this policy be created by small groups and without much real participation from the rank and file or parents. I thought that it was important to raise perspectives on this debate about why it is relevant with folks that truly represent Scouting in the field. It is a shame that BSA has never really consulted those folks, or its parents. (And before you argue that they have, remember I have already explained the exact steps this policy followed as it was being created and how the twenty member task force was appointed, so don't try to claim that BSA is just doing what its members and parents want, they have never fairly asked, and even ignored those that have objected, like the Methodist.)

Honestly, the other reason I decided to hold this debate is because I wanted to broaden my own perspective and sharpen my side of the argument in my own mind. My perspective was becoming pretty insular, and it has been very productive for me personally to learn many of the arguments my opponents will make (some quite uneducated and down right ridiculous, many others quite articulate and reasoned).

I did not decide to debate this here because I hoped such discussion on this board would actually change BSA's policy (though I can assure you that recently some folks from national levels have been reading these boards and paying particular interest, or so I have been told). I didn't really set out to change anyone's mind really (though providing a fair argument to those silent in the middle has been a nice byproduct for me). I also though that the local option solution was defensible against all arguments, and I wanted to confirm that by debating here with local leaders across the country (more on that in the next post).

As for the rest of your explanation about why we should all follow in step with whatever the policies, rules and whims of BSA are... your description of how we should interact with the world around us could probably be a quote from the Communist Manifesto. I doubt you are nearly as "I'll do whatever I am told, who am I to question" as you seem to suggest.

Your analogy about coming into someone else's house and making the rules is inapplicable. Scouting changed the house rules, and you and I were already living here. I'm not questioning the whether the house needs rules, I just don't like for some members to make up specific new rules as we go, especially when we've all previously agreed that no such rules would be made (Declaration of Religious Principles).

Rooster, my last post wasn't addressed directly to you, but the shoe does fit, so I'm glad you responded to it.

Frankly, as I have said before, I don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God. If I were you and actually believed that the Bible was divine, I would have real difficulty also saying "well what does this passage really mean, as it would seem like placing words in God's mouth. That said, any part of the Bible is circumspect in my mind. There's no hypocrisy on my part.

You have said quite bluntly on previous occasions that your firm belief that homosexuality is immoral is based on what God has taught you. I don't begrudge your right to that perspective, but let's observe those "lessons" more closely. The King James Bible has more than 2,000 chapters, each with between twenty and thirty verses. That's at least 50,000 verses in the Bible, and depending on who does the counting, seven or eight of these 50,000 verses possibly deal with homosexuality. And it's these same seven or eight verses that most fundamentalist hide behind or pound over the head of "non-believers". Yet if you do much research, you will find the same kinds of detailed and articulate arguments over those verses as you have found on the verses of slavery (articulate, well thought out arguments from both perspectives).evmori said: God destroyed an entire town because the men of the town were having sex with each other.Actually, the sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality, it was rape. There was no condemnation of consensual sex, but a condemnation that the men were planning to forcibly subjugate the strangers (the angels inside Lot's house were being "called out by the men outside so that they may know them"). (Biblical reference to the word "know" is often sexual).

The Bible says Sodom was destroyed by God because of the violence and inhospitability that was wrought there. I wonder, if the attempted rape by the men outside Lot's house was against women, do you think the world would believe the story of Sodom was condemning heterosexuality? Or would it be just about rape?

I believe that God made man with minds -- spiritual minds -- for each to use in reasoning their own spirituality and relationship with God. The dogma of religion is man made. Rooster, I suspect the reason you left the Catholic Church was because there was some part of the dogma that didn't appeal to you, and you reasoned that there was another "true" church or way to God. It was acceptable for you to pick and choose what part of the dogma you wanted to believe, why is it not acceptable for others?

As I said once before, I'm more of a "resurrection" Christian, than a "crucifixion" Christian. I believe that Jesus told us to go out and preach the Gospel -- Good News -- rather than tell the rest of the world that it's wrong. I don't see (either in practice or in the lessons of Christ) inherent evil in homosexuality.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

BubbaBear says: I assume none of you are going to disagree with my assessment of how to resolve this issue? I don't see how you can.Your assessment that this is easliy resolved by leaving the decision up to parents and chartering partners at the local level makes complete sense to me, and it's what (and only what) I've been advocating since I joined this debate. And I've suggested it many, many times to the group, and I've never heard a lucid argument against the proposition.

Funny, the first time I suggested it, the thread was titled "Now that we disagree, can we agree?". It seems that you and I are on opposing views about whether a homosexual is immoral, Bubba, but it is pleasing to me that we can still agree on a solution where we both are comfortable with the outcome.

It is remarkable how you can stake 100% of your claim that homosexuals are immoral on a verse from the Bible, and refuse any discussion about whether those versus could possibly be misinterpreted. Yet on the issue of slavery, suddenly the verses of the Bible are not to be taken so literally or specifically. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Quixote-- let me be absolutely clear... I'm not hruling conspiracy theories. Any comments I make about the Mormon Church are rooted in specific fact. I'm not hurling epithets their direction. And I do respect their right to believe anything they want.

My best friend converted to the LDS church to marry a girl he loved. I've studied the religion extensively (I had to when he was told during conversion that his friends and family might ask him to reconsider, but that was clearly the devil speaking through them). I believe, without a doubt, that about 80% of what the Mormon Church stands for is hands down the best religion on the block (in terms of their sense of strong families and communities they are second to none, in my opinion). It's the other 20% of their beliefs that make it an unacceptable religion for me. I think the fact that they sponsor so many Scout units is also fantastic, and I welcome having their units at camporees and summer camp (they are typically quite enjoyable folks). I don't object to their right to believe what they want. Or to their right to sponsors Scout units with their own set of membership rules (like not allowing women leaders and changing the age of cub scouts). The only thing I object to is a having them force me to accept their religious beliefs in order to jointly belong to an independent organization like the BSA (that claims to be absoluetly non-sectarian). And my observations to question their judgement are only for the purpose of demonstrating why I don't want them to exert so unquestioned influence over the BSA as a whole.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Hmmmm.... resist. Resist the temptation. Oh, shoot, I can't. (Since I believe so strongly that the Mormon Church is the primary driving force behind the current policy and their threat to yank 35% of our members is an abomination, you'll have to forgive my repetitive questioning of their judgment. FWIW, I think they are free to believe whatever they want, I just think it's worth pointing out how inappropriate it is for them to set standards for everyone else).

That being said, anyone want to take a guess when the Mormon Church started to accept blacks into their hierarchy?

(Hint: you don't have to go back to the 1800s... you don't even have to go back too far past Jimmy Carter. I wonder if that too was a change in morals or political pressure.)

Cubsrgr8 --- while you were falling out of your chair, you must have missed what I've written. I have affirmed (many, many times now) on this board that I personally am a Christian (though perhaps not the same kind of Christian as you). I have also said that belief in a power outside one's self (or at least the possibility of such) is a fundamental basis of Scouting (of raising children, I believe).

Scouting's fundamental lessons of service to fellow man and love of nature are all really spiritual matters. And Scouting, from its very earliest days, has maintained a consistent position that such belief is required in order to teach the other lessons of Scouting.

I believe atheism would prevent many of the other lessons of Scouting to be taught. However, any religion or other belief (including agnostics) that allows for a belief in a positive power outside one's self is all that is required of a Scouting member.

Scouting4All does not speak for me, any more than the Mormon Church does. I don't disagree with S4All's position on gays, but I don't have to accept their entire platform or all of their tactics. I think that they include atheists as acceptable because they want to be consistent in their "inclusive for all" argument. My argument is from an different perspective... I don't think Scouting has to be inclusive to all, I just don't believe that Scouting needs to exclude gays. I have ALWAYS supported Scouting's right to set its own membership standards and right to determine its association. My ONLY argument is that since homosexuality has NEVER been a universal membership standard in the past, and because so many good members and chartering partners DISAGREE on whether it is even an issue, and because it is possible to be a moral person of great character and still be gay, it makes sense for us to consider this question at the local level as close to the parents as possible.

BobWhite -- I have a few observations/questions for you...

Since I have been a clear advocate for making character and qualification of members and leaders a matter of decision/selection for the local parents and chartering partners of each Scout unit, it should come as no surprise that I disagree with your counter to OGE's very good analogy of abortion and leaving the USA. You argue that this is not a fair analogy and that there is no parallel. I disagree. Abortion became the law of the land, whether I personally like it or not. I have really only two choices leave the land or support the change to the law. I obviously value my country and consider myself a good patriot, so leaving isnt an option. Banning gays became the law of the land in Scouting, and I have the same two choices, and the same dilemma. In my mind, theres no other country as great as the USA for me to move to, and I obviously would have difficult just going and starting my own country (hmmm, Ill have to consider that). And theres no other program as great as the BSA, and I would obviously have difficulty starting my own.

See, I believe that Scouting, with 4 million active members from every corner of America, is just too big of an "association" and too divided on this particular issue to have a blanket national policy banning homosexuals. Your right to "association", in my mind, should clearly be protected as far it applies to people you actually "associate" with. I've asked several times for an argument on how allowing a Scout unit in Boston or St. Paul to include a member who is gay will possibly affect the Scouting program/experience people deliver in Oshkosh or Paduhkah. No one has ever made that argument, other than evoking slippery slopes or general compromise of principles (whose principles?).

Your argument that just a few of the 130,000,000 Scouts that have passed through our program have actually been expelled because they are gay doesn't hold any water at all. As you know, BSA did not start expelling gay members (based solely on the fact that they were gay) until just recently. In fact, I think this particular argument reinforces my original point even further... it is absurd to claim that the BSA's policy speaks for or is endorsed by or even relates to 130 million people. Or even 4 million.

You do, however, make an excellent observation contrasting the importance of traffic laws today with the fact that the libertarian founders of our country would have opposed them. I had to ponder that point for a second, until I realized that traffic laws and the BSA banning homosexuals are unfair analogies. Traffic laws exist to protect people (both the driver and other folks on the road) from harm and to provide an orderly way of navigating our roadways.

BSA makes no claim whatsoever that the ban on homosexuals exists to protect anyone from harm. Nor have I heard any argument really on how allowing another unit to have specific membership standards different from your own would disrupt your orderly way of navigating our program.

I don't understand how you reconcile your very strong opinion that women are qualified to serve as Scout leaders (since that is now the accepted policy), with your argument that gays should not (since that is not the current policy). Many, if not most, of the same arguments used today against gays were invoked 15 years ago against women.

Fifteen years ago, before Scouting accepted women leaders, what was your opinion? (I will volunteer that my own opinion has changed on that issue from my perspective of 15 years ago.) Did you work within the system to express that opinion? Did you attempt to influence your fellow Scout leaders to support your point of view at all? Regardless of what your opinion was then, you obviously support women in leadership roles today. So how are you affected by the fact that the Mormon Church (with 35% of our membership) still refuses to acknowledge women are capable of being Scout leaders? Does this cause you or your unit "harm" or disrupt the "orderly way" you deliver your program?

Finally, the other inconsistency I would like to ask you about (again) is how you possibly reconcile your very adamant disdain for embarrassing a Scout by making him sing for a lost pocket knife with your apparently complete lack of concern over the harm we cause a 14 year old gay Scout by sending him the messages we send as an organization. You obviously were very passionate about protecting all the kids and eradicating the emotional harm of forced singing in front of a group, but you appear to be saying that since "less than 1% of Scouting" has been affected by this policy we have more important things to focus on.

First, let me apologize for calling you silly. As you know, I'm usually very careful about how I choose my words, and generally attack only ideas, not people, in my debate. I would have preferred if my sentence read that the sentiment you expressed was silly, not that you are. I didn't catch that slip of tongue until it was too late to edit. most of the folks who want to open BSA's doors to homosexuals, also want to open the doors to atheistsThere's absolutely no proof of this. I have personally said that I believe it is impossible to belong to Scouting without a belief in a higher power, and that I embrace a Scout's Duty to God as a fundamental basis for his entire Scouting experience. I doubt that any person that has debated on this board in favor of my point of view would argue that Scouting should accept atheists (I can only think of one person that would be the exception to this rule, and it has often been observed that his Scouting credentials are questionable). You might be judging this based only on the "outside activists", but I don't think you can possibly back up your claim that most of us who believe homosexuals can be moral people also lack a belief in God. Certainly the statistics of participants in this debate on this board dont support that conclusion.you seem to be of the opinion that the Baden-Powell and those associated with BSA in the early 1900s were social progressivesWe've discussed it before. You'll not find any condemnation of homosexuality in any quotes from B-P or ET Seton or Dan Beard or James West of Bill Hillcourt or any of the other giants of Scouting past (at least I've never seen any). And its not because such topics were taboo ever read B-Ps Paddle Your Own Canoe or Varsity of Life... pretty frank talk in those books. To suggest that they never condemned gays is because homosexuality didn't exist in their time is a non-starter. But more to the point, let's look at more modern times. Until Scouting's very public stance on this issue came to a head, I wonder how many of our members believed Scouting had a position one way or another on this issue? Even more to the point, I would be willing to wager that a very large percentage of the parents, leaders and boys of the current membership STILL don't know any policy exists (and if they do it's because they heard it by rumor, not because BSA has ever told them forthrightly). Truth is, there were (and are still) thousands of homosexuals in Scouting. And nobody cared. (Incidentally, B-P and Dan Beard and ET Seton all had very liberal politics for their time and were very far toward the "progressive" side of life, based on just about every biographical sketch I have ever read.)So, it's not just this one issue. Truth be told, it's an assortment of issues.Ah, the slippery slope. It's just intellectually dishonest to debate this topic only by threatening a slippery slope, attacking the messengers intent or associating homosexuality with some other act. Yet this is the standard tactic used very often ("watch out, they'll want you to give up the pledge of allegiance next" and "watch out, these people are really Godless" and "watch out, if homosexuality is OK then so is bestiality").

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

I only have a moment, so I can't respond in full. But I did want to correct one of your statements...Hmmm. An organization has a very public policy on homosexuality. Despite the said policy, a group of parents voluntarily seek membership for their children. The organization is now supposed to change to accommodate their vision of the program? Yeah, rightthat's the American wayor is it?You have it backwards. The BSA is the one that recently changed their standards and implemented a new policy banning homosexuals. This was not a policy (or even a topic of discussion) prior to the last 80's and really late 90's. And I've responded many times to your general assertion that parents should not place their boys in Scouting if they disagree with this one new policy... to make that kind of a statement is silly and suggests that Scouting has no other value than being a safe haven from associating with homosexuals. It's the same silliness behind those that claim (though I don't believe) they would quit Scouting if this one policy was changed and made a matter of local decision.