DanKroh

I think first, Gunny, you'd have to provide some examples of the "any number of groups" that discriminate based on gender and race (as official policy) that you referenced in your first post, before we can say whether any of them have also been singled out by the press. Because I can't come up with any (at least, not any that haven't been castigated by the rest of society, as well). Do you have examples of any, especially ones that have as high a profile as the BSA?

Beaver predicts (tongue in cheek): "The next thing you know and we'll be wanting to ban overweight scouters!!!" Just to play devil's advocate here a minute, Beaver, but if we are going to disallow homosexuals from being scouters because they aren't "morally straight", why shouldn't we disallow overweight scouters because they aren't "physically fit"? Aren't they both part of the scout oath? Not that I'm trying to get this thread moved to Issues & Politics, but the question does beg to be asked.

Gunny asks: "That said, I throw the ball back to Dan and ask if there is an underlying principle to his statement,"I would disqualify an SM for having a smoking addiction (or any other addiction)." as quoted by Oak Tree. And if so, what is the underlying principle?" To understand how the statemetn was intended, you have to look at it in the context of the original thread, which was about "firing" a Scoutmaster for a behavior that was considered a poor role model for the youth in the troop. (Out of wedlock childbearing, in the original thread in question). My point was that smoking is hard

"So what do you think? Is it ok for a drug to have that kind of power over you? Is a caffeine addiction something you'd try to steer your kids away from? Or is it really no big deal? After all, you don't see many marriages breaking up because of the husband's constant need for a coffee fix." I think one of the guiding principles in defining an "addiction" is that the substance itself has to be harmful (drugs, smoking, etc), or the behaviors displayed in satisfying the addiction interfere with normal life (gambling, sex, etc). In the case of caffeine, while it is certainly a substance

"I wouldn't say I felt a "calling" to be a Christian. In order to go to heaven, people need to make a conscious choice to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Just "feeling called" to be a Christian isn't enough. As a human being, I struggle daily with trying to live like a Christian. It isn't easy! I have to make choices every day. If only it were so easy as to simply be a calling..." I'm trying to divorce the decision from the motivation behind the decision. Yes, you made a decision, but what was that decision based on? As I said, every person of religion that I know based tha

"The BSA and you have different morals. That is no big deal." The BSA and a lot of other people have different morals. And it is kind of a big deal when the BSA is using *its* morals to exclude people that I would like to have in the organization. "The BSA website is not the primary source for information about the organization. Ask any local professional or comissioner and they will tell you the policy." I did, and I was shown a non-discrimination policy, which has since disappeared. The point is, your claim that "we all [know] the policy says no gays" is false, at least when j

"However, not being able to be a provider of those services, does not constitute discrimination as the student made the conscious choice to not believe in God." Tell me, funscout, did you make a "conscious choice" to be a Christian, or was it a "calling" that you felt down in your soul? Most people of religion that I know feel that their "choice" of religion was not so much a conscious decision as a calling that they could not deny. Of the atheists I've spoken to, most of them describe their "decision" to be an atheist in a similar fashion, a moment of ephiphany marked by the absence of s

"Dan, I am sure you can acknowledge that there are different degrees of immorality. None of us our perfect. But the BSA realizes that there are certain lifestyles that they do not want to influence their members." Yes, I acknowledge that. However, homosexuality isn't one of them in my book. The BSA assuming that everyone should know that "morally straight" means "not gay" seems a bit of stretch. "People interpret things differently. There is no big deal though. If anybody asks, the policy is now quite clear." Yeah, the policy is clear, if you know to go look on the BSA website a

"Oh yeah, because we all [know] the policy says no gays." TheScout, when my son and I joined, I knew of no such policy. In fact, I was show a *Council* non-discrimination policy that did *explicitly* say that they didn't discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation. However, this policy has since seemed to have disappeared from Council records, surprise, surprise. "It says "morally straight." Do you really expect the BSA to list all immoral activities? Such would be a daunting task." So then, they'll be banning EVERYONE who engages in any "immoral activities", will they?

Trev asks: "To my knowledge, BSA employees are not considered "leaders" and thus are not subject to the gay litmus test. Is this incorrect?" From the BSA National Website under "Qualifications for Employment": "Believe in the BSA and subscribe to its principles and standards" Also, I notice nowhere on their website under employement do they give notification that they are an "Equal Opportunity Employer". So, I believe that means that yes, they are subject to all the same restrictions as leaders. Hunt, I agree that while it seems to be the legal right of the city to termina

ScoutNut, did you read an article that said she had food in her tent? I've looked at a couple of articles on this, and none of them stated that there was food in the tents. Just wondering where you got that from? Evidently, her's was also not the only tent the bear went after. I think it's great the girl had the presence of mind to act as she did and not panic. And yes, they are all very lucky.

So it's "selfish for a woman to choose to conceive a child without a father in the picture", but it's *not* selfish for a man to choose a job that keeps him away from his family so much that the kids comment on it? I'm not saying that your husband is selfish, Funscout, I'm just trying to understand what appears, to me at least, to be an egregious double standard. Personally, I think all child-bearing (as opposed to child-raising) is inherently a selfish act. *We* choose to bring a child into this world because *we* want one. FScouter has brought up the "child's best interest". How mu

Preface: Oops, it just occurred to me that Barry was addressing the other Dan. Oh well, I'll leave the response anyway.... Barry wrote: "Dan, I enjoyed your last reply, but Im not sure where you were going with it. I would enjoy reading your expanded thoughts there. I think scouting units run into this problem of unit leaders a lot more than we realize. I know some units who want to fire a SM simply because he smokes. Yet, I know of one Troop where the SM was caught with an ASMs wife. He didnt get kicked out until a year later when he was caught offering a scout a beer. There were plenty

We have what I think is a cool graduation ceremony for our Cubs. We have a campfire, which we invite Boy Scouts from the two troops in town to come and build, and they also help put on a little campfire program that the younger boys can participate in. But what the Cubs really look forward to is going through the "Cub-o-matic". We set up an EZ-Up, and enclose all the sides with tarps. We have a board we hang on the side with a "dial" that surrounded by the badges of each rank. When we are ready to send through a group of boys, we turn the dial to the rank they are about to beco

ASM915, Widowed, when my youngest was 13 months old. Been a single parent ever since, with no real interest in changing that. And I know many other single parents, some of them by choice, who are wonderful parents and whose children do not suffer for the lack of a second parent. However, to try to relate back to the original topic, while I do not automatically agree with removing the SM for "moral turpitude" without more information, I hope that the young mother would realize the huge commitment she has just let herself in for, and that being an SM might be an unnecessary distraction

"An adoptive mother and father will be able to provide a more nurturing environment for a child than a solitary mother." Proof, please? (From someone other than James Dobson) "Giving up a baby for adoption to provide the best home and nurturing environment for the child and is an honorable course of action." Yes, I agree that when ANY parent or parents are unable to provide a suitable home for a child, giving it up for adoption is a noble action. However, I find the assertion that a single parent automatically cannot provide such an environment, or an environment that is inheren

Sorry to return late to the discussion, but I was with my son's troop this weekend for our annual Family Campout. Me (a single parent) and my two sons. Sorry if we don't fit the definition of a family to some, but the troop seemed happy to have us. FScouter said: "It is selfish, self-centered, and morally reprehensible to intentionally bring a child into the world with no father. AND ... the right thing to do for a baby conceived and born against a woman's choice is to give it up for adoption to a family with BOTH a mother and a father. There is no honor in raising a child with onl

Beaver asked: "Let me play devil's advocate. What possible scenario would make it OK and a proper moral example for a young, single, unmarried female in the SM role to get pregnant?" I can think of two scenarios, but you would probably only see one of them as being "morally correct". Scenario one, the young woman was a victim of rape. (Hopefully not the case, but there it is.) Scenario two (and this is the one we would disagree about), she made a conscious decision to have a child (possibly involving artifical insemination) that she is physically, emotionally, financially, and i

Hey All, Just got back from our first weekend! It was awesome! I'm an Owl! "Hooo are we? Hoo? Hoo? Hoo? Hoo?" (With apologies to The Who)

"By man not ruining the earth, I mean that man can't destroy Earth. Sure, man can pollute, man can do many things, but not destroy the planet." Semantics. How about if "ruin the earth" means "destroy to ability of the environment of the earth to sustain human life". Does that clear up your semantics problem? "There are many things we can do, but man can't cause the temperature to go up." Sure we can. It's whether we have that's seems to be up for argument. But whether you believe that human activities are at the root of global warming or not to me seems a moot point. The im

Lisabob, I only have one word for the likes of you.... BRAVO!!!!

For those quick to label atheists in the Boy Scouts as liars and frauds, here is some food for thought. My son joined a pack as a Tiger at 7 years old. He qualified for all the membership requirements at that time. But at 7, he has not decided on his religious path. At some later time, he may decide to follow no religious past and be an atheist. For all I know, he may discover at some later date that he is gay. He has not lied, nor committed fraud, but if either of those things came to pass, he could be kicked out of the BSA. If his unit was chartered by a public school, they would be the

Thanks for the updates, Beaver. I'm so sorry. Will continue to light a candle of prayer for all those involved. I don't know who to attribute this quote to, but someone once said "Suicide happens when pain exceeds resources for coping with pain." Thank you for continuing to do your best by those who are struggling with the pain of being left behind.

Ah, yes, Edmund Burke. Fascinating fellow. I prefer the quote apocryphally attributed to him: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Ironic, isn't it, that conservatism saw its rise to prominence during the Age of Reason. So how old does something have to be to earn your respect? The 1950s? The 1830s? The 1650s?

"I do feel sorry for you if you ever feel demonized, but again I emphasize that it is not my problem." Nope, don't cry for me, TheScout, I'm doing just fine. However, I will give you my stock answer to the "not my problem" attitude: "First they came for the communists, I did not speak out because I was not a communist. When they came for the social democrats, I did not speak out because I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews I did not speak out