BubbaBear

(This message has been edited by BubbaBear)

Here is something interesting for you...when I was going through Woodbadge, one of the staffers had us say the pledge with one very simple modification...he removed the comma in the phrase "...one nation, under God.... Say that to yourselves (both ways, with and without the comma) and tell me what you think. Jake

I spent about twenty minutes writing my premise for this argument and wiped it out in one second!! Let me try again... I have argued that compromise should be used in this issue of homosexuals in Scouting. Bob White strongly disagrees with me saying that not all things in life are open to compromise...okay here it goes... I am not implying that all things are open to compromise, I believe everything IS. In actuality, what I am proposing is States Rights versus Federal Mandate. Let's use your example of marriage, Bob White: If your wife says to you "OK Bob White, get dressed, we are going to (somewhere you really don't like)", are you going to say to her "Ain't no way!". I give you compromise in a marriage; you will go with her because 1) you really know the meaning of love, 2)you know what is good for you, 3)you respect her wishes, or 4)you signed a pre-nuptual agreement saying each of you would abide to the directions of your spouce. In the issue of morality in marriage (I take it as fidelity), just how many marriages end in divorce over participation in the Scouting movement? How many times have you witnessed or heard of indescretions between two leaders in your district. We have a case here where a scouter has been charged with attempted murder of her spouce relating to her infidelity. So these types of imoralities are OK for Scouting? What I object to is hypocrisy. In my faith, Jesus was the only perfect person. God knows that even religious leaders (of all faiths) are practicing immoral behavior daily. What I am saying is "if you are without immorality (and look at it very closely, there are many immoralities), then go ahead and throw those stones. By the way, IF you are one who qualifies to throw those stones, let me know so I can stay away from you! I have sat by many a campfire. Once in a while I get tired and just drench it. Most of the time I watch it until it burns itself out. As a side note: I am former military. If you are too, than you know what immorality can really mean as it applies to one group imposing their idea on another. Think about this parallel idea: Even religious groups trying to impose their form of belief on others are toying with the concept of dictatorship. Just a thought, not an implication. YIS, Jake

Sorry sctmom, I tried to get back to your thread here. Good time to make yet another thread... See you all there... Jake

Now you got the idea! Quiote has passed the knot...

OK People...listen up! For a very long time the pro's and cons of the homosexual debate have been posted here...we are currently a "house divided"...what I am looking for in this thread is for everyone whom has an opinion (on this subject) to express it, and express it once. I do not expect that this issue will go away, but I would like to see those of us whom have been debating this topic to "virtually shake hands", and leave this arena as friends. Dan, your last two sentnces didn't make sense to me...would you repeat?

Hey sctmom...if you like men with multiple personalities, then you ought to get to know me better...they have recorded 12 so far... :)

Hey Rooster...on the lighter side... Keep repeating this mantra... I WILL RESIST THE TEMPTATION...I WILL RESIST THE TEMPTATION...I WILL RESIST THE TEMPTATION! God's Strength to you my firend, Jake

Having the last word here means nothing people... this is about ALL the things we are supposed to be teaching the kids...if we can't practice those things here, how can we view ourselves as good examples for the boys? If it is a matter of me being the moderator (Scoutmaster) let me know, I am not afraid to step down, although my intentions are to not comment specifically, but rather provide a "Scoutmaster's Minute". Jake

Koool! (as the kids would say) Yup, you guys have stated the matter as I now understand it. Most women I have spoken to have voiced the subject in this very way. I agree that sctmom would be one of the great ones. I'm asking you folks to look at my new thread and ponder it a while. I am not asking you to give up on your stance, or even to look at it from my opinion,just to help me start a healing process. We need to begin coming to some unity as Scouters here, and to get back to the task of Scouting. As Rooster7 said... Peace! Jake

Folks, When I was Scoutmaster, I started a little ritual at the end of each meeting, campout, activity based loosely on a Roberts Rules of Order procedure called Pass the Gavel...I called it Pass the Knot. I made a Monkey's Fist Knot and told the boys (and adults) that only the person holding the knot was allowed to speak. The person speaking was allowed to say whatever they wanted so long as 1) they did not attack anyone personally 2)did not "put down" the opinions of other speakers, 3) did not interupt anyone, and 4) when they were finished, they would "pass the knot" to the next person and was not able to speak again. The Scoutmaster had the last word. I am asking you in the Spirit of Scouting to do this with me now on this topic we have been discussing...I will serve as Scoutmaster. OK, who is first??

Folks, I PROMISE, this is one subject I will not touch. :^o

Rooster...I am not a man of the cloth, as you. I cannot effectively debate the issues of religion because I am not well equipted. God has not intended me to serve in that capacity. I do believe that he has intended me to be a peacemaker, and that is what I am doing in this forum. My mom used to always tell me "It takes two to tango", which means that there are two side to every story. In order to make the "tango" both partners have to cooperate. Noone is asking you to turn your head to what God (or you) says is sin. What is being asked of you and others, is to let that be a matter between God and each member of Scouting without the BSA as an intermediary. I recognize what is a sin and what isn't. You know, there has been a great deal of redundancy in this debate. We need to get past that. I respect your argument and the fact that it is valid from your point of view. It cannot be applied to everyone though because not everyone has the same point of view as yours, or mine, or anyone's for that matter. It is simply unreasonable for either side to think that they can "dance the tango" by themselves. Guess I should have put a smiley face by the comment about being branded...I take no offense to anyone's comments here because of mutual respect. Isn't that a part of what we are trying to teach the boys? Now please, this is Mom's thread about women haters, we ought to let her have it back.

I have never met such outstanding people in all my life. That is the other reason that I cannot be pulled from Scouting. llwyn...I am humbled by yours, sctmom's and tj's acceptance of my being, BUT, once again folks, this is NOT about me or you, its about the boys and our future. Sorry to burst the bubble, llwyn, but I have accepted the District Camping Committee Chair in lieu of Commissioner status. Actually, I can do double duty from that position. Jake

Yes, but often times better behavior comes with time...sometimes not, but that doesn't stop you from continue loving those children, does it? And remember the compassion Jesus Christ had for all the sick and poor, and how He went to the exptreme of giving His Life so that we all may live. He still loves us even though we all contiue to sin.

That is a problem I see, too. No one should get short-changed. Let me try to explain my view this way...in a Boy Scout Troop, the PLC sets the rules for the rest of the troop. The SPL may say, "Fellas, when we arrive at camp, I want each patrol to begin making the evening meal. The meal needs to be nutritious, and should include the following food groups: 1) Meat 2) Vegetable and 3)a Bread. Now you plan how this meal will be prepared, and remember; if anyone gets ill from what you cook, it is your responsibility to clean up the mess!" The PLC has determined that they want a campout (loosely translated, a CO wants to sponsor a Scout unit). The SPL has laid out the rules, which the PLC has agreed to (the BSA lays out the rules and the COs agree to those rules), and the patrols implement the meals in they fashion they see fit adhering to those rules, and are willing to clean up the vomit if someone gets ill because of their choice (the COs run the troop the way they want to and agree to responsibility for their actions, i.e. bad public opinion). The COs don't own the BSA, they own the troops. The BSA owns the program and sublets it those with similar goals. I don't see that it cannot be done. In all fairness, I have not read the Policies and Regulations of the BSA. I am trying to get my hands on a copy but have been unsuccessful. If any of you people have a copy I sure would appreciate one! I guess, in essence, if BSA wrote a broader definition such as "...values that are determined to be morally acceptable at local levels" or something of that nature, it would work. BTW, what we are talking about here is nothing more than the fundamental differneces between the Republican and Democratic Parties...with the exception that the roles are reversed (the Dems are generally the liberal interpreters). How about that for irony? (This message has been edited by BubbaBear)

Rooster... I am a simple man. I choose to view the Words of Christ Jesus in a simple manner because if I try to "understand" or "know" just what he is saying, then I as a human have to use my mind to interpret the words. I choose to take his simple teachings to my heart...i.e. "Love thy neighbor as yourself". In the context of this simple statement (and please forgive me I am not a theologian) I do not see where Jesus is telling me to love my neighbor, except if has stolen or should he be deceitful or in the case before us; if he is homosexual. I believe that I can show His Love by portraying it in a fashion that can be understood without interpretation...do not judge, God will. I do perceive a lot. Things that I think I know have been changed many times over in my life. I am at that stage now where I am asking God daily to forgive me for those things which I perceived to be truth but was too faulty to "know" were not. One thing has not changed; I have never felt guilty about the fact that I try to obey His Commandment:"Love thy neighbor as thyself". Man is born with fault. He is given the chance to do what is right or wrong, and then he will be held liable for his actions in the presence of God. It is not my place to judge. So regardless of what you may think, you and I and everyone in this forum is on the same page: the brotherhood of man. By the way, thanks for yet another brand... intriguing. (This message has been edited by BubbaBear)

Quiote, That was a very concise answer, I appreciate conversation without rhetoric. Forgive me for reading between the lines...I understand that you, Ed Mori, Rooster7 and others view God as the foremost motivating factor in your ministry of Scouting. Despite what you all might think, I have a deep respect for that. Truly. Allussions have been made to a religious conspiricy in the decision we are debating and I personally don't believe that to be the case. As I said, I just think that like minds think alike. In your last reply, you added (in fine print) "for the most part", which tells me that you really believe that national (as you believe in your heart) should put Duty to God above the other three. And this is my point: If national is going to serve all the factions (religious, labor, governmental and fraternal) in equal light, it cannot overlook the fact that it has to weigh each one of the principles equally in making "national policy" which applies to all concerned. This leads to my earlier conclusion; that the only way this can be done is to allow local consensus (in terms of each CO) to dictate what they believe to be right or wrong. I believe that if this is done, public opinion will dictate what is right and wrong and who actually supports what is moral or not. Even you said in your last astatement that decisions "are likely carried out in a local way anyway". You and I are saying the same thing. Respectfully, Jake "BubbaBear" Lekan

sctmom...Thank you very much, your comments mean a great deal to me. Actually, I was hoping to get the goat of some of those who feel that we have to accept everything blindly. If that was the case, what could happen to the children we are charged with? That is the whole foundation of my arguments; how the boys will be affected is my underlying motivation. I am not concerned with other's moral beliefs, not their form of religious beliefs, nor whether it is a concession on either side's parts. What I do know to be factual is that the practice of homosexuality will not go away (once again I do not condone it) much in the same way that Viet Nam still hasn't gone away. IMHO, we have to learn a way to compromise in a way that we all win. I can tolerate anything because I had good teachers when I was young; some of which I later learned were homosexual but I never as a child had any indication of it. I am not homosexual now nor will I be in the future. We are human. We do not know anything in reality. I have no intention of leaving Scouting, it is the only hope I have for a world I believe that God had intended. I am your friend and admirer, Jake "known again as BubbaBear" Lekan

Quiote...yeh, I am hopeful too, although I choose to use the descriptive term "cynical" (these is a basic difference). OK, so the fundamental difference between you and I in this idea of the Scouting Principles is that I believe it should be an even balance (and that is how I perceive the founders as having perceived it), and you believe that the Duty to God comes first and carries more weight?

Thanks sctmom for your validation as well. In taking offense to my remarks, or at least to what you thought I was saying, you have demonstrated that good leaders come in all forms. I had hoped that my private message to you would have explained why I made that statement, but instead you chose to ignore it an take offense. Sorry, that was not my intention. It is not surprising (to me at least) that so many take offense when discussing things openly. I keep forgetting that Scouting (for one) is not a round table but appears to have definite stations around it in places. Respectfully, Jake Lekan

Thank you Rooster7... You have validated the point I was trying to bring out by making that "I don't agree with Women Scouters statement". The point is this: the decision to accept females in the traditional male roles in Scouting was a compromise. In reality, my wife and I had a terrible argument over this issue of women Scouters. It was she that enlightened me as to the need to fill positions not currently filled by willing and able men. I backed down because in that light she was right, the positions need to be filled. The way you stated the topic in much better than the way I stated it. In part, however, it was intended to bring about the point I mentioned above. And you did. Think about this, now...do male role models in Scouting portray sexual role models as well? I grant you that in the presence of his/her "mate", they do.

littlebillie- You may be right...I don't know. As far as the lawyer topic, I do not have direct knowledge of that hover I venture to say the the ACLU and others are watching this forum just as the BSA and other interested parties are. This is not the sort of discussion that goes unnoticed. I have heard references to TJ and NJCubScouter as such, but I think they are much too intelligent to be lawyers! Quiote- I am not suggesting a "religious conspiracy". I am saying, though, that like minds think alike. I am also saying this, I have found that the professionals in Scouting are not about Scouting (for the most part), they are about reaching the goal of Scouting in terms of funding and numbers. I had applied for an Executive position in Northern Virgina several years back. The Field Director told me three things: 1) Professional Scouting cause many divorces, 2)The thing he didn't like about Scouters was that too many of them treated Scouting as if it were a religion, and 3) There was one other applicant for the job and that was a crippled woman. He wasn't leaning toward her for the position. I backed out telling him that "I was one of those Scouters whom thought of Scouting as a sort of religion" That is; you have to believe in what you actively preach. Our council goes through executives like water through sieves; all on the account of money raising (I understand). You cannot convince me that National won't buckle to large factions becasue those factions are $$$ to them much as depositors to a bank. That is human (not Godly) nature. I hope that you are not comparing "the Word of God" with the "word of national". Sodomy is a sin, plain and simple. So let me get this straight ( an honest question to all of you theologians); In order for a sinner to be saved, is he cast into hell without the chance to redeem himself (excuse me, him or her...I've been branded a sexist amongst other things), and how long does God give a person to redeem his sins or does it have to be right now? My reference to the three principle spelled out is this: Are the values of Scouting determined by a person's Duty to God, his Duty to Country or Duty to Himself? Or rather is a combination of any of the two? Or is it a balance between all three?

I wonder what was going through Martin Luther's mind when he opposed the only Christian Church at the time...and since then, how many factions of the "Christian Church" do we have? All based on what the Bible says. If that is the case why are there so many different factions? This talk of religion is all fine and well but the point that needs to be discussed is whether the BSA is creating policy weighted towards one of the three principle of the Scouting program?

Bob White, I want to thank you and others for the open discussion we have had. It has been very reminescent of the "America: Love it or Leave It" days of the sixties. Having accomplished the task of my oldest son earning his Eagle Award, I guess its maybe time to move along. Jake (the person formerly known as BubbaBear) Lekan