A better question

[CubsRgr8 10]

BW - you said:

 

"Remember the CO head is not a member of scouting."

 

Why, then, did my DE require the new parish priest to complete an adult application form, in his role as CO head? If this is correct procedure, it seems that BSA wants it's CO heads to agree to BSA organizational principles.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

>The PTO or other neighborhood parents group sponsors the unit, not the school.

 

Sorry, there are plenty of units chartered by the schools, not a PTA/PTO. The Dale decision noted that about 750 units in New Jersey were chartered by public schools or other government agencies.

 

Here's an example:

http://www.vikingbsa.org/Districts/Mustang/Mustang_Units.asp

 

Notice that many units are chartered by a PTO, but Pack 346 is the school.

 

here's a Pack web page that says they're chartered by the school:

http://www.cts.nu/pack330/aboutus.htm

 

[littlebillie 10]

First, I think the BSA had exactly the issue of separation in mind when it chose NOT to be identified as a religious group. (Wasn't it AA that got identified as such recently?) If it were actually religious, that might solve some things, but raise a whole bunch of extablishment problems...?

 

Anyway, now that the No Child Left Behind has passed with the Hilleary amendnment in place (Equal Access for Boy Scouts verbiage), does that make it mandatory for a school to charter a unit if approached? And prevent schools from dumping them if they wanted to, assuming they still wanted any federal funds?

[sctmom 11]

The Cub Scout pack my son was in was chartered by the public school NOT the PTO/PTA. The principal of the school signed the charter papers. The pack used the school name on T-shirts that said "Cub Scout, Pack xx; Local School Name".

 

 

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

OGE,

 

Rooster, from all the you have written exchanged I believe you have shown yourself and/or declared yourself to be a Christian whose faith in the bible is unshakable. If I am wrong about this, I apologize up front.

 

I don't know how "unshakable" my faith is, but yes, I do like to think of myself in the manner you described. Nevertheless, you've missed my point. You criticized me because I said these "parents" (two dads) shouldn't expect to "feel welcomed" in a particular troop. You indicated that we (Scouts and Scouters) should accept and respect everybody regardless of their beliefs. In my reply to you, I tried to convey two thoughts:

 

1) One's beliefs about life (and the afterlife) very much defines his/her character. When someone embraces homosexuality as natural and moral, then he/she is subscribing to a set of principles that opposes many long-standing faiths. These faiths are the basis for a moral foundation. The "two dads" in the original question, should not expect folks to ignore their own faiths and welcome two homosexual adults with open arms (as if this were a simple and common disagree about "preference"). Many, if not most (Christians, Jews, and Muslims), see homosexuality as a very ugly and depraved sin. These "two dads" represent many of the things that we don't want our children to be or to follow.

 

2) Despite your claim of acceptance and respect for everyone - regardless of belief (or as you said, "regardless of anything they believe, don't believe, sexual orientation, etc."), your first inclination was to attack my faith (or perhaps per your perception, a false faith). I found that to be a little hypocritical. If you accept me as a conservative Christian, then attack my ideas, not who I am (i.e., my particular faith).

 

When issues of punishment and discipline come up on this forum, it does seem many avowed Christians are the ones who want to do a lot of booting out of the program, setting expectations beyond BSA requirements and have no patience for a troubled boy. It seems like the more "committed" the Christian is, the less tolerance is shown.

 

I disagree with your description. I find most Christians to be extremely compassionate. Yet, that does not mean we are not practical. That is to say, we believe in consequences for one's actions. Furthermore, we believe if some hard lessons are not learned early in life, then it leads to bigger mistakes and bigger consequences later in life. So who is the less compassionate one? Is it the man who allows a boy to go down a road without consequence, which ultimately, leads to his destruction as a man? Or, is it the man who presents a boy with a consequence, which ultimately, permits that boy to alter his course in life and go down a different road? You portray conservative Christians as out-of-control disciplinarians. This is not about tolerance; it's about learning and becoming a man.

 

How do I think Christians fell if I offend them? I guess I could say that I thought they were supposed to turn the other cheek, but that would be snippy as well.

 

Again, despite your claim, your inclination is to find fault (or rather perceived fault) with my faith or the people who subscribe to it. Or in this case, you make a flippant and distorted reference to a Biblical verse, inferring that if we don't like it we should be quiet. God commands me to restrain from attacking someone, even when I may have cause to (as the world sees it). However, this does not mean I must refrain from pointing out hypocritical criticisms of my faith.

[littlebillie 10]

"You criticized me because I said these "parents" (two dads) shouldn't expect to "feel welcomed"..."

 

 

Actually, shouldn't the welcome be extended to the BOYS who are in this family, regardless of the parental structure of the family? Fine example set for these kids if otherwise. Some of you may remember the days when a kid without a dad was not truly welcomed (no, not officially - but the common wisdom was that w/out a dad, the kid couldn't participate as fully, go camping, earn the badges...sad to say). I'd thought we'd seen the last of that!

 

No matter where you stand on the exclusion issue, these boys are innocent bystanders who arguably may even need some extra consideration.

 

Well, that is unless someone really WANTS them to think that Scouts don't care about them...?

 

 

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

1) We were NOT discussing the Scout. There is an obvious distinction here. The boy would be (or at least should be) a different matter.

 

2) In regard this comment, "Some of you may remember the days when a kid without a dad was not truly welcomed". I'm 43. How old do you have to be to remember this being the norm? Somehow I find that contention difficult to believe.

[littlebillie 10]

In Arizona, around '63 or so, one of our Patrol members lost his dad. Shortly, he stopped coming to the meetings. When we boys asked him why, he kind of shrugged it off and didn't answer. It was our Pack leader who explained that w/out a dad, he really couldn't go camping with us, or do the things that those of us with dads could do...

 

no official policy, I'm sure - not even so much as a unilaterally issued position statement. Anecdotal evidence? yes. Unique? No. a stain on the badge?

 

 

Certainly

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Rooster, I admire your faith, I just have had many more incidents in my life than I care to think about where self-professed Christians behaved in a distinctly Un-Christian manner to me and my family. I am talking about regular every sunday church goers who out and out lied and cheated and stole from me. As nothing could be proved "legally" nothing could be done. From this experience I had hands on learning that jsut because something is immoral, doesnt make it illegal and just because its legal doesnt make it moral. I guess I judge Christians on a harder scale because I see so much hypocrisy in every day behavior.

 

On the other hand, I should not have exploded on you as I only know you through these posts, not by actual deed.

 

Personally I pray that you be the Christian you apsire to be.

[llwyn 10]

You know, friends, this thread is getting a little thin and If all we can do is make odd verbiage, why not change the subject?

 

Before I go find more fruitful discussions, I have to say that littlebillie's "anecdote" sounds made up. Untrue. Patrols don't have Pack leaders and I'm 52, also from Arizona, and never heard of such a thing. So even if it is true [which I doubt] it certainly IS unique, and a stain on anybody's badge?- certainly not. Most of all little brother billie, it is irrelevant. I mean, what is your point? Why is it that the Christians on this list are usually the ones who argue their positions so rationally and yet are subjected to the kind of sugary contempt that OGE lavishes on Rooster7?

Sorry, rooster it's certainly not my place to defend someone who does such an admirable job of it themselves.

Anyway, can we go to bed tonight repeating #'s 3,4,5,&6? Please?

"I must be helpful, friendly, courteous, kind."

"I must be helpful, friendly, courteous, kind."

"I must be helpful, friendly, courteous, kind."

"I must be helpful, friendly, courteous, kind."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....

 

LLWYN

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Rooster, I am sorry for what I said, it was not scoutlike.

[Rooster7 11]

OGE,

 

Our differences have been frequent and occasionally heated. Yet, I have noticed this admirable trait of yours. You have on more than one occasion offered an apology without qualification or disclaimer. That ability does not come easy for me. I appreciate and envy that quality. I offer this prayer for you (in all sincerity): Whatever damage or distrust self-proclaimed Christians may have inflicted upon your faith, I pray God heals it and gives you the ability to forgive those individuals. While I appreciate the brotherhood that we share as Scouters, the brotherhood that we share as Christians should rein supreme and be an example. Peace.

 

[littlebillie 10]

Rooster - Ah, yes - I indeed misspoke. It wasn't a Pack Leader - sorry, I was getting ready for last night's Webelos Skits, and I had that mindset in place. Troop leader, of course.

 

And yes - it did happen. I don't know you or your style well enough to know if you were calling me a liar ('untrue') or what, but it did indeed take place.

 

This happened in Ajo. And it was the only time in MY Boy Scout days that one of my fellow scouts ever lost a father - I'm sorry that you have more extensive experience with that, but glad that there was no fallout for YOUR friends.

 

As for the point of it, it means that - de facto or de jure - there are shifting views and acceptances as to what family is, and what the role of scouting is in teaming with those families.

 

We evolve and grow as individuals - and hopefully, as a society.

 

Religio, after all, used to be invoked in the name of segregation. Maybe it still is, but not around me.

 

We grow.

 

Or at least, we should...

 

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

littlebillie,

 

While I did express disbelief, I believe you are responding directly to llwyn's comments ("what is your point?"). As for whether or not your particular story was ever common to all of BSA (even prior to the 60's), I still have doubts.

 

Lastly, "growing" is good...but that does not mean every belief or value held in the past was wrong or needs to be evaluated. Racism is bad, no doubt about it. America has grown over the years. We have worked to change that stain on our society. However, please don't use that as a springboard to proclaim homosexuals as victims of unjust discrimination. I know you didn't say it, but it sure seemed to be inferred. There's a big difference between race and sexual behaviorlet's not confuse the two issues.

 

[Rooster7 11]

Oh, one other thing...as you noted, religion has been evoked to justify a lot of misdeeds over the course of history. It is a little difficult to address that statement because it has many implications. Regardless, as a Christian, I will say this. The bible (God's Word) has never justified these misdeeds. Certainly men have twisted scripture to serve their needs. I would not argue with that assertion. However, God's word has been constant. It would be inaccurate and unfair to equate the wrong doings of "religious" men with the religion itself.