acco40

That's the crux of the issue - who gets to define "real GOOD/MORAL character? You? The BSA? The charter organization? My wife won't eat meat during lent on Friday. I will. Some religions accept homosexuality as moral, some do not. The question is if the BSA declares itself to be nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training, why ban individuals based on the religious training of only certain sects?

Adulation of Obama? As time has marched on, I've seen less and less respect for both the presidents and the office itself - Bush II and Obama to a major degree. I don't like that trend. I guess if one has an intense dislike for Obama and/or his policies, branding anyone or any action as "adulation" if one is in agreement with our President could be a knee jerk response. Most police mottoes are along the vein of "protect and serve" and it usually is the lives and property of the people they serve which could be construed as the "government" or the "people." For example, "The mission of the XXX Police Department is to maintain order, preserve human life, protect property, and advance the quality of life issues within our community." - doesn't sound like some personal government protection unit to me. For myself, I remember 1968 - Kennedy shot & killed, King shot & killed, Tet Offensive, seeds of Watergate, 5,000 National Guardsmen and a reinforced Chicago Police Department and demonstrators saying "hello" to each other at the Democratic National Convention, Johnson's "I shall not seek and I will not accept" declaration, huge demonstrations in Paris, Mexico, Poland, Egypt, West Germany, Czechoslovakia, student unrest and dissent in the USA, Pope Paul VI encyclical, teacher strikes, racial strife (busing, riots), USS Pueblo seized, Prague Spring and resultant invasion by Warsaw Pact, etc. Now that was a time of change for all - young/old, male/female, black/white, etc. Makes today seem milquetoast.

About the only thing the BSA has stated is that one may not be "Godless" - what ever that means. By the way - Polygamy - not immoral but the burden of one wife is enough for me. If I was married, simulataneously, to two different women, would the women be considered to be in a gay marriage? Bacon eating - that action is heavenly. Gay marriage - see polygamy. Now my question, when Pope Benedict the sixteen steps down, will he now be allowed to make mistakes?

I think it is an education thing. Folks often blame the recipient for reacting negatively or being too sensitive to teasing, etc. While I feel bullying is dependent on intent, an adult leader should be aware that comments about such things as physical attributes (height, weight, hair color/length, etc.) are best not discussed in a teasing manner. Bottom line, if it makes a scout uncomfortable, don't do it. Now, if the leader doesn't realize it makes a scout uncomfortable, another adult, youth or the scout himself should respectfully point that out in a discreet fashion.

The Lone Ranger didn't shoot gold bullets nor ride his horse 'Goldie.' Traditionally, silver often depicts devine intervention, magical powers, purity, virtue, honor, etc. Gold many times simply symbolizes wealth. In the Armed Forces, silver "outranks" gold but gold "outranks" silver with medals and decorations. Also, did you know that in the Olympics, the winner of an event was orginally given a silver medal. It wasn't until 1904 ins St. Louis (at Forest Park) that the gold, silver, bronze order as we know it now was used. Even now, the first place gold medal is over 92% silver! Now, silver (grey) shoulder loops designate District/Council service (i.e. Unit Commissioners) and gold (yellow) shoulder loops designate Regional/National service. No one has said what level of service is "better." Originally, the intent of shoulder loops was to allow the same shirt to be worn by Scouters who may have held different positions (ex. a Scoutmaster who served as a Unit Commissioner to a Pack). Actually the way I understand it now, it is permissible to wear the should loop color of your primary position in Scouting regardless. So a Cubmaster acting as a Roundtable Commissioner may stick to his Cub Scout shoulder loops if desired.

Question for those who propose to "seal the border" - dig a moat and fill with alligators? Build a giant fence? To me, explaining that we should "seal the border" is about as helpful as saying we should stop illegal immigration. If life in the United States is perceived to be an order of magnitude better than a residents current location, immigration will happen.

Do companies really hold a position? I thought that only individuals held these opinions.

Okay, putting on my moderator hat - the SCOTUS has determined that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to have a firearm even if they are not in a militia. They may also use that firearm for useful purposes such as shooting an intruder (in self-defense) in their home. They've also ruled that private citizens have no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes - i.e. a "militia" is a government entity. The government may also regulate the concealment of arms and the age to which one may legally posess a gun (i.e. juveniles may be restricted the same as felons and mentally unstable folks because they pose a particular danger to the public). In summary, the 2nd Amendment does not make it a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner for any purpose. So, the debate as to what kind of weapons, types of ammunition, etc. to regulate are legitimate (i.e. constitutional) debates that may all take place without violating the 2nd Amendment. As usual, the devil is alway in the details. (This message has been edited by acco40)

Yes, SCOTUS has stated that the BSA is a private organization. Getting out of the Ft. A.P. Hill set-up for jambo should re-inforce that belief. But, keep in mind that I can see why some folks feel the BSA should be legally viewed as a public organization. But, as a private organization, there should be zero legal blow-back for barring membership based on sexual orientation. Politically, I can see very little damage in having more restrictive membership qualifications for adults but I would think the negative feedback for not allowing youth membership would be quite a bit higher.

Cowardly? The Supreme Court has stated that the BSA may set membership standards as they see fit due to the fact that they are a private organization. Charter Organizations have always had the right to pick and choose Scout leaders. They could choose to pick only left handed, Catholic females of Swedish decent under the age of 25 with a weight proportional to height for their adult troop leadership positions if they wished. I bet that would be a thriving troop!

I've slept with (actually meaning sleeping) females in the same car at the age of 16. I've slept with males in the same room and house all through college. I've slept in the same tent with the Scoutmaster (male) of my son's troop. That Scoutmaster, 10 years later, now happens to be a transgendered female. I've shared a hotel room with girls/women (19 yrs old). I've slept with adult males in a hotel room. In all cases - our sexual orientation did not come up and neither did any type of sexual situations. Now for a Scouting situation. Do you really feel the position of some folks in Irving, Texas is going to change the perception/acceptance level of pre-teen and teen boys toward gay boys their own age? I highly doubt it. Knowing boys as I do, I would guess the only aversion a straight male would have with sharing a tent with another Scout who is rumored to be or acutally has claimed to be gay is that he may be taunted regardless of any behavior. That is where the adults leaders should use judgment to minimize taunts, bullying, etc. Hey, isn't part of our job as Scout leaders to teach these boys how to "grow up" so to speak. And if we do that, we are not endorsing or condoning homosexual behavior. In order to successfully teach youth not to cave to peer pressure then we as adults must do the same. IMO, that is exactly what BSA is doing right now. This statement has me at a loss. It is my belief that a few of the core values of Scouting are that a) Scouts have an obligation or duty to God(s) and b) the BSA is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward religious training other than the home and the organizations with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to the religious life of the Scout. Ergo, it make perfect sense since not all religious training teaches that homosexuality is a sin that the BSA does not do the same. By changing their policy, as the tea leaves indicate, the BSA is moving closer to their stated core values. They are not caving into anything. To me, it would make about as much sense for the BSA to proclaim that "We believe a Scout who wears buttons is not a role model for the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law." Heck, the Amish (some sects) believe buttons (shiny ones at least) are a sign of vanity and 'worldliness' and not humility and therefore, if one does wear these devilish items they are not fit to be role models. Would such a ban make sense to you? Why not? Can't you see that just like buttons, there is not a universal agreement that homosexuality is "wrong?" Folks, the BSA did not have the ban due to practical reasons (sleeping arrangements, threat of sexual predators, etc.) - they made the ban based simply on moral grounds that homosexuality and that by being homosexual (not any particular act mind you) one was not adhering to the Scout Oath and Law and thus not a good role model for the boys. I understand that position and believe it is the correct decision for unit sponsors (i.e. charter orgainizations) that have that moral value system but the BSA should not impose that particular value system, nor the value system wrt buttons, on all units across the board. This isn't rocket science but it appears it is politics. (This message has been edited by acco40)

Red Bull all around! Seriously, give them choices. For me pizza (traditional) and chips are a no-no (I'm over weight) but for others, it may not be. Some items like pizza and hot dogs can be pure junk or quite nutritious depending on type. Unfortunately, it may cost more to eat nutritiously (why do the poor have a higher percentage of obesity?). I also agree that sugar water is not the best drink option.

Terry, very thoughtful, heartfelt and well written article. That passage of time has come, and today the Boy Scouts of America have announced theyre finally close to dropping this policy, and returning the choice of leaders and members to the local communities and parents where it always should have remained. That decision may come within a week, or certainly will come some day soon. Is this public knowledge or do you have inside information? Also, do you think that was a business decision or a ethical decision on the part of the BSA to drop the policy? Probably a coalition of both is my guess.

Oh my, God has come down from the mountain tops and has spoken to us! That was an attempt at light hearted humor - not meant to be condescending or cynical. Terry, as a moderator, sometimes I feel I shouldn't weigh in on issues as much and let others carry that torch, but usually that feeling fades after awhile. I sure you feel the same sometimes - times ten. Thanks for all you've done for this forum for so many years. Now, excuse me while I try to hunt down a Forbes article.

If a Scout has earned a rank and or merit badge but as the Scoutmaster (who is in charge of the advancement program on the troop) you feel the Scout is rusty or worse with that skill - simply assign him to teach that skill to younger Scouts in the troop. That will be a big motivation for him to get proficient real quick. Of course, offer him all the adult support he may need to obtain that proficiency too.

DeanRx - damn right. Them "revenuers" - next thing they'll take away is NASCAR!

The problem I have is the infringement "laws" that restrict that right to law-abiding citizens and with a stroke of a pen turn them into criminals with no activity on their part. Like the ownership of slaves? Like the use of LSD? Like having oral sex with a willing partner? Like drinking beer? Like texting while driving?

How about the death penalty for both the user and owner of any firearm used in a crime? That would act as an incentive for "responsible" gun owners to properly secure their weapons.

From what I gather, the anti-Hagel crowds main dislike of Hagel is his view on defense spending, Israel and Iran. Less than ardent fans of the U.S. military. - Ted Cruz (Texas) I fear that Hagel will be a staunch advocate for, or even accelerate, the continuation of this administrations misguided policies. Jim Inhofe. The misguided administration policies were determination to oversee significant reductions to the size and resourcing of our military. Also, his views on Israel and Iran are not universally endorsed. Chuck Hagel, if confirmed to be the secretary of defense, would be the most antagonistic secretary of defense toward the state of Israel in our nations history. Not only has he said you should directly negotiate with Iran, sanctions wont work, that Israel should directly negotiate with the Hamas organization, a terrorist group that lobs thousands of rockets into Israel, he also was one of 12 senators who refused to sign a letter to the European Union that Hezbollah should be designated as a terrorist organization. - Lindsey Graham. So, I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle is against waste or bloat so to speak in spending but one man's waste is another man's necessity when it come to government spending. As someone who works in the defense industry (private company), I'm biased but yes, the pentagon/government defense procurement process leaves much to be desired. What was the last major developed combat vehicle? Look at the money and resources spent on JLTV, EFV, Crusader, FCS, FSCS, A-12 and a myriad of other systems that never got fielded.

With our massive anti-bullying, everyone wins, self-esteem culture nowadays, many folks grow up not having a clue to handle conflict. A four year old may be teased and bang his head on the floor or bite, a 10 year old may throw something, a 12 year old may take a different path to school to avoid a bully or decide to fight back, etc. Now, a person may grow up sheltered and the first real conflict they experience is with a school administrator that states he doesn't qualify for financial aid so his rememdy (he has not learned any other approach) is to shoot them. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/shooter-at-st-louis-career-college-used-gun-with-serial/article_592649ae-d2ed-5627-a175-779dc8592ec0.html

Okay, everyone get this through your heads - the official BSA reason for the BSA policy on homosexuality is not youth protection, not a guard against sexual molestation - it is because homosexuals (in their eyes) don't make good role models. So, your arguments on this thread are irrelevant. If that is not the "real" reason of the BSA policy, they should state it as such and thus a healthy debate could ensue. But for now, we can only debate the morality of "being" a homosexual. That has nothing to do with molestation and youth protection.

Trouble is, politicians from both sides of the aisle can claim that they "did something" about the problem - even if what they did in actuality is exacerbate the problem.

First of all, having an armed professional (security "rent-a-gun", off or on duty police officer, etc.) will have an as yet indeterminate effect on safety. Can't have any research on that - it may be controversial. Second, if implemented, how will it be paid for? Third - I guess if you have armed guards from kindergarten on, it may not be of much psychological consequence. Having them in schools will not warp them or remove their innocence. But it reminds me when I entered the "real" workforce right after I graduated from college in the late 1970s. Britain (pre-Thatcher) was going through a very rough economic period and the defense firm where I work had hired a few Brit's who were well educated (engineers), knew the language (or a close facsimile of American English) and would work for a bit less than their American counterparts (not sure if H-1B visas were in existence yet). Anyway, being a defense firm, we had armed security in the building that occasionally walked the hallways. I thought nothing of it and thought of them sort of like a bunch of Barney Fifes. Well, one day one of the British engineers came to me and asked me how I could work is such and environment - one where I knew that an individual was actually roaming the hallways with a loaded gun! That was such a foreign concept to him that it did bother him immensely and he was flabbergasted that I didn't give it a second thought. Now, I'm not sure who had more of a irrational response.

JMHawkins - are drugs a policy issue? Yes. Should drug research continue yes. I think your argument is totally inane. So, unless we get universal agreement on something, let's continue to stick our heads in the sand? I'm not quite sure of the academic definition of disease, but the incidence of gun violence in the USA makes it a health issue. As such, it should be studied. I guess that just deep down, I have more faith in research. Yes, there are some to try and use it for political gain but by and large, I think that science wins out in the long run. Look at aids research. Talk about a politically charged topic. I remember when being Haitian was considered a risk factor for aids. Science and research helped to cut through the fog and showed that neither attending bath houses nor being Haitian led folks to being HIV positive but certain behaviors did - unprotected sex or IV drug use where the sharing of bodily fluids was a risky behavior - as was receiving blood transfusions (before the blood supply was properly screened), etc. There were folks that didn't want research done because of the politics but that's just being too much of a Luddite for me.

If guns or for that matter obesity, are major factors contributing to "ill-health" screw the controversy and study or gather the facts. I'd rather have the debate done with facts as opposed to ignorance.