More rules . . .

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Homophiles? Never heard that one. Is that like X Philes? Or the Rockford Philes?

 

(In keeping with our new forum policy of Leave Nothing to Chance, yes, I misspelled "files" on purpose.)

 

Or does it just mean people who don't think people should be discriminated against just because they're gay?

[Rooster7 11]

Actually it's just a minor annoyance. And if readers would like to evaluate which of us has had his nerves struck, I would point out that I am not the one who started his post with the word "Aargh!"

 

Yeah...I'm sure that I was the only one. Youd think I would be more tolerant.

 

BTW, do you have a professional relationship with any of these homosexual activists? Your never-ending "pursuit of justice" for "the oppressed" has made me curious, if not nauseous.

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"Homophiles? Never heard that one. Is that like X Philes? Or the Rockford Philes?"

 

I can't help it if your vocabulary sucks. It's in the dictionary, look it up.

 

"Or does it just mean people who don't think people should be discriminated against just because they're gay? "

 

You really have some strange ideas. Why would anyone discriminate against happy people?

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster says:

 

Youd think I would be more tolerant.

 

Well, no, actually, I wouldn't.

 

BTW, do you have a professional relationship with any of these homosexual activists?

 

Do I ask you about your professional relationships? And if the answer was yes, it wouldn't change anything. But to answer your question, if you mean do I have any of "these homosexual activists" as clients or co-workers or anything like that, no, I don't. I knew some gay-rights activists in law school, but then again one of my friends at the time was the local president of the Federalist Society (http://www.fed-soc.org/). I've known people who have been activists for a lot of different things. I have represented gay clients, but they were not what I would call "activists," to the contrary, they were just ordinary people with ordinary problems and opportunities for which they needed a lawyer. They didn't necessarily make a secret of their orientation, but they didn't really discuss it either, it was just what they were. The same is true for the friends I have had who were gay, they weren't "activists," just people.

 

Your never-ending "pursuit of justice" for "the oppressed" has made me curious, if not nauseous.

 

You make me sound pretty impressive. I am not sure I would describe a few posts on an Internet forum as a never-ending pursuit of justice for the oppressed, but I'll take it. My mother would be proud. The way I was brought up, pursuing justice for the oppressed would be a good thing.

 

However, I think you miss the point of why I do what little (in the greater scheme of things) that I do on this issue. If I was just a free-floating do-gooder advocating for the oppressed and downtrodden, there are other groups I could choose to advocate for. I do what I do because I find myself, and my son, in an organization that has strayed from its own real values. I know you don't agree with that, but I have said it and explained it countless times before and I don't think I need to again. I want the organization to regain its focus on what it is supposed to be doing, and not be known as a "hate group." That's not something I made up, at one point I had a boss who (while not an "activist") referred to the BSA as a "hate group," putting me in the position of defending the BSA and explaining how it isn't a hate group. Then I come onto this forum and see people expressing what I would call "hatred," even though they wouldn't acknowledge it and try to disguise with the rhetoric of "love the sinner, hate the sin" or however it goes. I have stuck with the BSA, but on this issue, the BSA has not stuck with me. Eventually it will, because the values of the organization demand it. I still hold out hope that things will change -- not for the sake of some activists somewhere, but for the sake of an organization that I consider as much mine as anyone else's, and the people in it, most importantly my son.

 

As for your nausea, try Alka Seltzer.

[Bob White 20]

"But if one can't follow effectivly, how can you be an one lead effectivly?"

 

I am curious about the logic of this statement. I cannot think of any other proficiency where this correlation exists.

 

Does a Quarter back first have to be a good a good reciever?

 

Does a hunter have to first be a good target?

 

Does a lawyer first have to be a good criminal? OKAY, never mind that last one.

 

Why does a leader first have to be a good folower. Where does it say or whaere has it been proven so? My training and experience says that a good leader needs good leadership skills and needs to understand the people he is leading. But I know of no evidence that says he or she must first have learned to be a follower.

 

"The goal of good leadership is not to create followers, but rather more leaders." (Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower)

 

He who seeks to lead, should not cease to learn.

(Trainer Development/BSA 500)

 

Bob White

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

NJ,

 

You're priceless.

 

Yes, I have real heartburn when I see homosexual activists going after the BSA. I also get a little irritated when they attack the Catholic Church, Christians in general, Republicans, and a myriad of other conservative groups. However, despite your implication - we dont hate gays. Were just tired of the never-ending drivel. Your discernment about members of this board being hateful, is just another example of an aspiring activist whos willing to say anything - about anyone - no matter how untrue - no matter how insulting - just to gain sympathy and/or to garner support from naive wannabe tree huggers. Sadly, youre probably having an effect. Stay the course bro. Attica! Attica! Attica! Youll do your mommy proud. In a few years, maybe theyll name a library after you. Personally, Id rather not have that kind of a legacy.

 

Id be happy if I could simply raise my kids as I see fit, associate with the groups of my choosing, and embrace the values that God guides me to, without harassment from outsiders who want to reform the world to their own liking.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[SR540Beaver 116]

BW,

 

There is another old saying, "leaders are not born, they are made" or something to that effect. One becomes a good leader thru learning. Learning is a form of following. To gain the skills of leadership, you must follow the instructions and examples taught to you by another leader. Simple.

[Bob White 20]

I think we both agree Beaver that to lead you have to learn the skills of leadership. But that was not the context of the post. The poster was suggesting that before you could be a leader of a group you had to be to have been a follower in the group. I don't see that as a requirement to learn leadership skills. But I agree with what you say.

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"Why does a leader first have to be a good folower. Where does it say or whaere has it been proven so? "

 

Call the Marine Corps Basic School in Quantico and ask them.

 

As for Ike, he was a product of the Military Academy where they teach leadership and followership.(This message has been edited by Fat Old Guy)

[evmori 11]

SR540Beaver,

Excellent post!

 

Bob,

You analogies are a little off base. You can't compare job descriptions to leadership. A wide receiver can be a leader as well as a quarterback. A criminal can even be a leader.

 

Try this. You want to learn to type. A skill. To do so, you must follow the instructions of a teacher and/or a typing manual. If you follow correctly, you will learn to type!

 

And if you agree with SR540Beaver's post, then you agree with me!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Proud Eagle 13]

Woow, what a relief. I felt like a moth being drawn into a candlelight for a minute. Then the thread returned to a far less dangerous and more productive topic.

 

Yes, you must undertand something abouting following before you can be a good leader. You can be a leader without knowing how to be a follower. However, you can never reach your full potential without also knowing how to follow.

 

Consider this example. It is crude and not entirely correct, but it is the best I can do at the moment.

 

If you are a shift manager at a fast food place you need to know the basics about your subordinates jobs to be really effective at managing them. If you don't understand what they do, and how they do it, you will have a hard time making the most effective use of the personel assigned to you.

 

It is the same with leaders/followers. It is applicable both in technical aspects (you will not be a good Philmont crew leader without orienteering skills) and in the more general leadership aspects (you can't effectively make requests or give instructions if you don't know what it is like to be on the recieving end of those same requests/instructions.)

 

These are all very basic things embraced by all parts of the military in training their leaders. Also, don't forget that every leader is a follower of someone or something. Most leaders exist somewhere between the bottom and the top and so need to know how to both give and take orders, so to speak. (Though orders are not generally the preffered method in Scouting, I use that to encompasse the entire up/down relationship of the chain of command.)

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster says:

 

NJ,

 

You're priceless.

 

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that...

 

Yes, I have real heartburn when I see homosexual activists going after the BSA. I also get a little irritated when they attack the Catholic Church, Christians in general, Republicans, and a myriad of other conservative groups. However, despite your implication - we dont hate gays. Were just tired of the never-ending drivel. Your discernment about members of this board being hateful, is just another example of an aspiring activist whos willing to say anything - about anyone - no matter how untrue - no matter how insulting - just to gain sympathy and/or to garner support from naive wannabe tree huggers. Sadly, youre probably having an effect. Stay the course bro. Attica! Attica! Attica! Youll do your mommy proud. In a few years, maybe theyll name a library after you. Personally, Id rather not have that kind of a legacy.

 

Rooster, you're ranting. Maybe you can explain how the "wannabe tree huggers" or "Attica!" got into this. Actually, it's not necessary.

 

Rooster, I do not question your right to express your opinion on this subject, but you question mine. You also try in vain to link me with groups with which I have no involvement. All I have is a particular opinion on the issue of whether the BSA should exclude openly gay leaders. I think I have a good basis for my opinion and one that could persuade some other people to agree with me. So I express my opinion on here, when I have the time and inclination to do so. Now, there are other people who share my opinion on this issue, whose tactics I may not agree with, or whose opinions on other subjects I may not agree with. But that does not change what my opinion is, or the way I express it.

 

As for the "hate" issue, I cannot prove what is in your brain or your heart. All I can do is read what you write. I do not think that calling someone's orientation a "perversion" is a term of endearment. If you'd like me to pull out examples of your use of that and other terms, I can, but I don't think it's necessary. I can also find the posts where you endorse the views of another poster, long departed from this forum, who condemned gays and their orientation in much stronger terms than you tend to use yourself. Again, I'm not going to bother doing that. The posts are there, and people can draw their own conclusions from them. I've drawn mine.

 

Id be happy if I could simply raise my kids as I see fit, associate with the groups of my choosing, and embrace the values that God guides me to, without harassment from outsiders who want to reform the world to their own liking.

 

Nobody's stopping you. And if the BSA allowed units to decide for themselves whether to exclude gays, nobody would still be stopping you. The difficulty arises when you and/or others try to impose one of your values on others in a group that is not "about" that particular value. The BSA is not your church or your home, and it isn't mine either. I don't want to impose my values on you, but you want to impose yours on me. (The value in this case being whether it's acceptable to exclude gays.)

[Fat Old Guy 11]

" The BSA is not your church or your home, and it isn't mine either. I don't want to impose my values on you, but you want to impose yours on me. (The value in this case being whether it's acceptable to exclude gays.) "

 

So what you are saying is that BSA isn't allowed to express its values and exclude people that it believes lead a lifestyle that is contrary to its message?

 

I'm really surprised that you waste your time with BSA since you seem to feel strongly about this issue. Evidently the core values and the message of BSA is less important than the need for you son to have something to do for a couple hours each week. Why not take him out of Cub Scouts and join the Unicorn Scouts, Campfire, or any of a thousand other youth groups?

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

FOG says:

 

So what you are saying is that BSA isn't allowed to express its values and exclude people that it believes lead a lifestyle that is contrary to its message?

 

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the exclusion of gays is incompatible with the BSA's true values. The "message" is not that of the BSA, but rather is the message of groups who control a temporary majority of the decision-making bodies in the BSA and are, on this issue, using the BSA as a vehicle for their political/religious agenda.

 

I'm really surprised that you waste your time with BSA since you seem to feel strongly about this issue.

 

Now you sound like BobWhite. He has said basically the same thing several times. It's good to know that you guys share some common ground, and I am sure that Bob is happy to have you on his side on this issue.

 

Evidently the core values and the message of BSA is less important than the need for you son to have something to do for a couple hours each week.

 

See above. The values he is actually exposed to in Scouting are just fine with me. They are the values he recites at troop meetings every week (we have "graduated" from CubScouts, but my scouter.com name has not.) They are the same values I recited when I was a Boy Scout. None of them have anything to do with excluding gays as leaders. I have explained my decision to remain in Scouting in greater detail previously, but that will do for now. FOG, you are only about the 15th person to suggest in this forum that I leave Scouting, but you aren't any more persuasive than any of the others, including your comrade mentioned above.

[Proud Eagle 13]

well, it seems my relief was short lived....

 

 

Here is an article I ran across today. It is from the Roman Catholic publication Crisis. It is published by Deal Hudson.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Good News, Bad News

 

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter

 

November 14, 2003

 

**********************************************

 

Dear Friend,

 

I've got two things I want to bring to your attention... I'll start

with the bad news.

 

As you probably already know, the Episcopal church in America

(ECUSA) recently appointed an openly practicing homosexual as the

bishop of New Hampshire. Bishop V. Gene Robinson has been the center

of a firestorm in the ECUSA and the greater Anglican church around

the world -- some communities are officially severing ties with the

ECUSA because of this decision, and many people are wondering if full

schism isn't far down the road.

 

Still, Bishop Robinson and his supporters have defended the

decision, saying that the church needs to be open to everyone, not

just a select few who accept "outdated" teachings about

homosexuality. Bishop Robinson feels that this is a sign of God's

work in the church, helping people feel welcomed and free to speak

their mind about their personal beliefs.

 

This is all pretty ironic, given what happened last week in

England...

 

Apparently, the Right Rev. Dr. Peter Forster, Anglican bishop of

Chester, said in an interview with a local newspaper, "Some people

who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would

encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set

myself up as a medical specialist on the subject -- that's in the

area of psychiatric health."

 

For daring to express his quite reasonable views, Forster has been

accused by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) of making

"offensive" and "scandalous" remarks that others feel could incite

violence against homosexuals. Martin Reynolds, the communications

director of the LGCM, said, "These are irresponsible remarks that

could inflame latent homophobia."

 

But it gets worse.

 

You see, the local police are now investigating Forster to determine

if his comments amount to a criminal offense under England's hate

crime laws.

 

Even if one disagrees with the bishop's analysis of treating

homosexuality, it's his position -- and the position of historic

Christianity -- that homosexual acts are disordered. Should he be

denied his right to say so publicly? And what about the LGCM and

other groups who push so hard for "equality" and "inclusion" in the

Anglican church? If Bishop Robinson is allowed his say, why isn't

Bishop Forster?

 

Look, honest efforts to ensure that homosexuals are protected

equally under the law is one thing; encroaching on the rights of

others -- where now even disagreement could be made a criminal

offense -- is quite another. "Equality for me but not for thee" now

seems to be the rallying cry for gay activists.

 

It's small comfort that this blatant disregard of civil rights is

occurring in the UK and not in the U.S. (not yet, anyway). But with

the continuing success of gay activists in this country, we're not

far behind.

 

As sobering a thought as that is, I do want to give you some good

news to balance it out. Last week, while I was speaking at my alma

mater, the University of Texas, Austin, several students alerted me

to the following...

 

Planned Parenthood recently began construction on a new abortion

facility in Austin, making it the fourth licensed abortion provider

in the city. When local pro-lifers got wind of the plan, they flooded

the contractor's office with calls and complaints about the project,

saying that working with Planned Parenthood would hurt Browning

Construction's business with pro-life companies.

 

The result? Browning pulled out of the project and construction came

to a halt. Predictably, some were furious. Former mayor of Austin,

Bruce Todd, called it "economic blackmail." Actually, Mr. Todd, it's

called freedom in action. Browning is free to work for Planned

Parenthood, and pro-lifers are free to take their business elsewhere.

Insisting that the contractor has the right to work for Planned

Parenthood but should be spared from any backlash or criticism is

rank hypocrisy... The same kind of hypocrisy that demands "tolerance"

for homosexuality while showing only intolerance for those who object

to it.

 

It seems that if you're a faithful Christian these days, you need to

get used to the double standard.

 

I hope you have a restful weekend. I'll talk to you next week.

 

Deal

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That out to throw some fuel on the fire. Now if you express an opinion, even if it is in the context of religion, it is a hate crime. The world has been turned upside down. We are now more worried about people's feeling than rights to speech, and more worried about perceptions of bias by judges than either history or freedom or religion. What is next?

 

 

 

 

Now, I am personally opposed to ANY "avowed homosexual" or practicing homosexual from being an adult leader in BSA. It simply creates far too many problems. Perhpas someday if society has reached a more complete understanding of such issues, and comes to a conclusion favorable to homosexuals, it could be reconsidered.

 

However, allowing youth to be members is another story. If a youth has let it be known that they are attracted to members of the same sex, should they be removed for that alone?

There are obvious issues for either a yes or no.

Reasons for yes:

rejection by other parents

rejection by other scouts

charter org related problems

general community standards problems

increased likely hood of a incident involving other youth (percevied or real)

difficulty with such things as camp or events staff

Reasons for no:

this is who BSA is serving, the youth, they should try to shape his values in a positive way, not get rid of him for being deviant

 

I know in my community there would be a great unease attached to any situtation involving a homosexual youth. The charter org might or might not allow it. The community at large would have mixed feeling at best. Many parents would worry about their children being exposed to a deviant, or risk or some sort of inapropriate activity. Many scouts would be unwilling to share tents, latrines, showers or other situations with minimal privacy/supervision with such a scout.

 

The accomodations issue is the greatest one involving admitting homosexual youth from a practical standpoint. Aren't men's and women's facilities seperate for reasons beyond just the anatomy being different? It seem feeling "secure" in your surroundings is a significant issue. How secure would other scouts be if they had to share a shower with a homosexual scout?

 

There can be no good answer to the homosexual issue in scouting. There are many imperfect answers. BSA chose one of them.