littlebillie

Rooster7 " Or, do I play it safe, and refer him to someone else?" Yeah, the tough questions... I always have to remind myself that "playing it safe" isn't necessariy a cop-out, especially when it's also playing according to the rules. But even there, with no family permission made explicit, I guess I can always offer to talk with the family with or for the boy, or even to ask them if it's ok to talk about it WITH the boy in the future. If the boy's approached you in confidence, tho', but it's something big'n'ugly - do you tell the parents? Probably good to have a Troop policy on just this issue made explicit as the boys enter. "Crimes will be reported to the proper authorities, and great big personal problems will be relayed to your parents or the proper agency." That way, there's no betrayal.

Hi, bakatya, Bob, "That is my point, that while you have a right as a citizen to disagree with the BSA, you do not have the "right" to membership in a private organization." Well, I'll meet you half way here. I - as an adult participant - have no specific rights at all. It's up to the organization to decide if I can participate as a volunteer (or get hired as a pro, for that matter - and we probably disagree on the range of criteria that should be applied here). but as far as it being up to the BSA to accept or reject its adult members, I figure that's where we agree. After that, we may part ways. :-) See, as far as the real target member - the boy - well, I think there are probably interpretive issues in looking at the Charter. "Sec. 30902. Purposes The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." It just says 'boys'. Not heterosexual religious boys - just boys. So as far as atheist boys go, I think letting them and exposting them to a healthy dose of reverence goes along with the teaching part of the charter. And gay? I have trouble reading where - in the Charter - the BSA is called upon to exclude ANY boy. Anyway, keeping faith with that Charter should be a real goal, I think. Just a perspective.

sorry - too many things happening at once - kicked THAT one too early. Bob, when you say "You have a constitutional right to voice your displeasure with the BSA, however your protection ends when you choose to be a member of a private organization," I don't think that's quite on the money. I still have the right to free speech, to write letters, etc. Now, the private organization may indeed - or may not - have the right to kick me out, but that's really another issue entirely. While BSA policy precludes wearing the uniform in pursuing certain activities (political, for example), they do NOT ask me to refrain from writing letters to the editor, letters to Irving, whatever. I'm sure a lot of folks in this thread HAVE done so. And if I do wear the uniform at a rally - well, that's an issue that I'm not aware has been tested in SCOTUS. Regardless of my membership, I still have a right to free speech. And as far as kicking me out for the exercise thereof, I note that Cozza's still active...

Bob, when you say "You have a constitutional right to voice your displeasure with the BSA, however your protection ends when you choose to be a member of a private organization," I don't think that's quite on the money. I still have the right to free speech, to right letters, etc. Now, the private organization may or may not have the right to kick me out, but that's another issue.

Rooster7, Well, we're still a hugging family, and a quick public kiss (no tongue!) is socially appropriate. Once you get past that - flirting so that the boys notice WILL distract from the primary mission, and responsibly should be discouraged in the best of all possible worlds. Would it? Well, that SO depends on the individuals and the Troop's own standards, I suppose. Whatever - it's gonna get in the way, and if one thing leads to another, it could be quite an issue. Still, human nature, eh? Anyway. " However, if given permission, he said it was the Scoutmaster's duty to guide a boy in this area. littlebillie and OGE, what's your opinion on this matter?" Well, I don't know the official policy. But I would start with these basics. The SM would need to really cover the area with the parents (and religious leader if possible and apprpriate - more on this later) ahead of time, to make sure they're all on the same page at least in theory (yeah, you can read a lot into this, and it's intended. some gay families may recognize that their kid is straight, and want to give him a good model - so here, the SM may very well be at odds with the family, but all agree on the SM as model in theory. Some single moms may have issues to add as well. Anyway, a pre-qual discussion with the family is all to the good). Next. 2 deep comes in - at least, it really should - and I'd suggest that in any discussion, the second party could/should be the boy's family or family member. This covers the 2 deep thing and makes sure that the family has a chance to step in at any time to expand, redirect, whatever. thinking about it, 3 deep might be better, with another Scouter involved just to help protect against any kind of entrapment issue. (Not saying it's going to happen, but you might as well cover all the bases). Now the foregoing addresses organized sit-down stuff. Realistically, it's possible for the kid to address the SM out on a hike about something that's been bothering him. So the question becomes, address it then and there (some advantages, some risks) or tell the boy you'll talk to him about it later when his family's available? And if the kid doesn't want the family involved? Does the SM tell them about discussions after the fact, and risk violating the boy's trust? And what about 2 deep if the kid's already feeling awkward or embarrassed? I guess this is where it gets sticky enough for me to want to say NO discussions of this kind at all..? Not sure. If the issue is the regular "well, how do you talk to a girl" thing, it's pretty general and pretty safe. But if it gets really sticky, maybe it's got to go to "Sorry Bobby, I'm not the one to talk aabout this with you. If you can't discuss it with your folks, maybe I could talk to them for you - or with you - cause they need to know about this. Or I think you can talk to Reverend Appleton about it." The good Reverend is in a slightly different position than the SM, and the boy MAY not be offput by the ball getting passed this way. So some key points. SM and family need to meet and discuss. 2- or even 3- deep really need to be part of it. SM should have a stand-in and/or a hand-off for certain situations, possibly to be id'd in the initial family discussion. Just some thoughts. So - now tell me what's policy? :-)

evmori, I would suggest this statment as maybe a little more accurate... "sexuality of any kind is behavior that has no place in Scouting".

Rooster7 "Leaving it out would offend and misrepresent the tens of millions of religious folks (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.) that believe it should be there." Offend? Well, that's why I said we needed to get past this whole hot button period. And it's certainly been brought out that folks were offended when the "under God" was put in in the first place. offense per se doesn't seem to really be germane, at least not judging by the tone and words I see in some of these posts! :-) When the atheist was offended, everyone told him to get past it. we all need to be able to get make certain things that 'offend' us. Misrepresent? now, this may be a tad more interesting. Let's start with - do you think that the Christians, Jews, and Muslims that took the OLDER pledge were misrepresented? That Americans were misrepresented by the words "one Nation, indivisible"? I think MORE folks were represented. It's adding "under God" that actually moved the borders in, the way I see it. Up until then, it was a patriotic pledge, no more. Adding those words was almost like saying, we don't want any atheists or Hindus taking our pledge - draw yer own conclusions! Of course now most folks only know it this way - and for many the value is as much - or even more - sentimental as religious. As far as the rest of the post - pleasant and amusing exercise in hyperbole. Is it yours?

Rooster7 - "Of course, no pledge can fully represent every person in a 250 million plus nation" Wouldn't the pledge represent MORE folks without "under God"? It would still be valid for everyone it's valid for now (or would be, if we get past all the hot buttons, sniping and politicization), AND it would be valid for everyone it isn't valid for now. Or is that your point? Make it more applicable to more people by making it appropriate to every American regardless of religious status..?

relative morality may be like thinking it's ok to take advantage of a tax loophole, or take a questionable deduction. some otherwise stringently honest folks see paying taxes as outside the bounds of ethical behavior. the white lie IS a lie - absolute morality would have us tell our wives, yes, honey, that DOES make you look fat. relative morality says, that would SO hurt her feelings and to no especially good end... should we nevertheless tell that absolute truth? and was the theft of a 'legally' owned slave immoral? To some it was, and to others, not. We may say we have a different perspective and can declare what the absolute morality of the issue was from our present-day vantage point - but what will another couple of centuries bring to the perception of our own current beliefs? Double the current population and we may see a Papal pronouncement advocating birth control. kneejerk declarations that PC is flatline drivel are just as ridiculous as absolute PC-ism. there are some PC positions that ordinary folks can buy into without striving to be PC. A LOT of very religious people are against the death penalty not for purposes of PC, but for deeply held religious beliefs. just some observations.

the word Heaven as a place for God and his angels, sure; the word heaven, lowercase, is still just the firmament. But you're almost certainly right - there are many who would not see that distinction. and of course I should know about pleasing all of the people, all of the time, by now, too. as far as the rest, I personally still prefer not to put a American Hindu or American atheist or American Wiccan or WHATEVER into the position of taking a patriotic pledge that they don't mean fully 100% - doesn't seem right, to me, somehow. Now, that's just my opinion. So out of curiosity, let's say your parents are Hindu from India, and you're still Hindu, and you're raising your children - natural born American citizens - as good American Hindus. When your kids come home and start asking you about this 'under God' thing, 'cause they're learning the pledge at school, do you say it's Ganesha, and ignore the rest? Or do you say it doesn't matter, just say the words? I kinda see this as a serious question. How do you tell your children to take a pledge like that without - well, y'all see where I'm going with this. I can't tell anyone else how to parent, but I'm not going to teach something like that to my kid...

on a lighter note, does anyone else remember that Porky Pig cartoon where he recites the pre-"under God" pledge?

Quixote, So you prefer a pledge to the flag that encourages some persons of conscience NOT to take it? See, I go the other way - I'd rather as many folks, *especially* of conscience, to be able to take the pledge. I don't think the pledge should just be for certain monotheists, but rather all Americans. And I think they should all be able to take such a pledge without reservation, fully and sincerely, buying into EVERY word. As far as lower case heaven goes, well, my dictionary lists sky as the first definition, so I still think it opens it up, and if Newdow still has a problem, then he's been keeping something back! (I figure that's probably true anyway, but law is law and intent is frequently something else, and this is a whole different can of worms, anyway!) And as far as the National Anthem goes, you wouldn't want to hear ME singing it in the first place. :-) Regardless, you have my respect for knowing all the verses - I'd certainly need to look up the lyrics, so I'm not one to be citing them in the first place!

Quixote, Would you want to go somewhere and be called upon to make a pledge that _disaffirmed_ your belief in God? Or would you want to make a pledge of allegiance that acknowledged Vishnu or Isis? I'm guessing not (or I wouldn't have posed the rhetorical question :-) This is rendering unto Caesar, no more and no less. The American flag flies over ALL of us - and a pledge should be serviceable for all who take it. Now, if you don't REALLY want everyone to take it, that's a whole 'nother issue! I still say "under heaven" - note the lowercase - does service for all, without stepping off any slippery slope.

tjhammer, you ask a fair question in a courteous way - my appreciation for that. complex, multifaceted issue, so I'll probably leave out a lot... but, Ok. Where to begin...? 1) Let's just put aside any of the translation arguments. Until more scrolls or 'glyphics or whatever get found and translated, I figure that's pretty moot. But let's just say that WAY back when the order of business was to go forth and multiply and enlarge the numbers of the group, there may have been a reason to spend less time supporting a gay population than today, when there's just too many of us humans on this poor old rock. So if dietary laws can change as food prep learns to beat trichinosis, and the mixing of fabrics is done not to cheat anyone but for developing new features, well - the tribes have gotten as big as they need to be, so maybe it's time to revisit this whole 'populate the planet' thing. 2) In nature, there are plenty of models of childless members of the flock, tribe, pack, whatever, providing assistance in raising the youth of these different species. Well, today, there are children who need homes that just ain't getting them - the straight yuppie couple wants (understandably, I'm not faulting them) a young bouncy happy baby right out of the oven, and a lot of those couples get those picks of the litter. And a lot of other kids, just because they're older, maybe never get a traditional home. Add crack and AIDS and God knows what-all to the mix, blend in numerous local and regional wars adding to the orphan population, well - you see where I'm going with this. Better a stable gay home than no home at all IN MY OPINION. I know a lot of folks disagree disagree with this, but recent studies suggest that it really doesn't matter of the parents are gay OR straight, a kid's gonna be what a kid's gonna be. There is a parenting and care opportunity here that can be - must be - filled. 3) Animal studies suggest that overpopulation and stress leads to an increase in the incidence of homosexuality - now that's GOT to make you think! 4) When you take certain people and tell them that they are evil, immoral and reprehensible, and tell them they are not worthy of belonging to this group or that church or to perform this kind of community service - well, we all know human nature and expectations. I think that if you allow some kind of acknowledged union among gays and lesbians - even if you don't want to call it marriage - you will see a large part of the that community "marrying" and settling down. Add to the chance to marry the liability of divorce - community property, etc. J and I think you'll see an even bigger change. Again, we no longer need to increase our numbers. And even if you're vehemently anti-gay, you can look at it this way - letting 'em get married gets them 'off the street' - I don't look at it this way myself, but it seems like perspective for those who do. 5) The GLBT community pays taxes like the rest of us - that at least means they're paying the same membership dues as anyone else, and should enjoy the same privileges in the club. Leaving any morality, religious, or sociological aspect out of it, the tax and services issue needs to played on a totally level field. 6) As far as Scouts go, I really HATE the idea that we have sought and received protection under the same umbrella that has been used to defend and allow racists and bigots. 7) As Americans, we've always extended our hands to others - let's NOT start giving the back of our hands to some of our own. And since we're all crewmembers on Lifeboat Earth, every oar in the water counts! A couple of side points. I think anyone who says there's a single reason for homosexuality is wrong. I believe that some are born gay, some become gay because of early childhood and how they were raised, and some choose to become gay - and if there are meaningful combinations of those, those combinations are certainly happening, too. I don't think God gives any of His children a trait or feature with the intent that the rest of us should treat them meanly, abuse them, revile them we need a new paradigm for how straight and gay interact. Now, let me add this - pedophiles of either persuasion are monsters. And frankly, I don't cut gay America any extra slack on this. AND - since our population is SO big, and since this kind of evil doesn't seem redeemable to me, I say we should consider the death penalty for any kind of abuse of this nature. IF there is any possibility of a genetic component to this behavior, I want it out of the breeding stock! (another issue, I know - and kind of ugly, admittedly) That SM in the news recently - wasn't he married with kids? Ok, this is the broad overview. We're all in this together, and there's a place for each of us in the Grand Design - there's no reason so shut out anyone anymore. And for those who are NOT religious, I think there's even LESS cause to condemn ANYone a priori. Whew. Ok, I DO go on, don't I?!

"And how in the world do we know when an evolution of moral standards is taking places?" Well we have Martin Luther and Gandhi and Meher Baba; we have papal infallibility and the word that comes from Rome (Galileo was finally exonerated!). We have Jewish scholars constantly looking at science and the ancient writings and helping the two to work together (they never called Galileo wrong to begin with). And the Mormon church is VERY new as these things go. Unitarians too embrace a "new path" in that context, and Sufis expect change and build its place into their core system. And I like to think that some Power quietly inspires at least some of these different entities in the right direction! How does moral evolution happen? It seems to be happening all the time...

to build upon "why do you have to have everyone say it in the Pledge?" Since God is NOT Vishnu (for example), or something a Wiccan subscribes to, and since some are not allowed to write or speak the name of G*d, reverting to the pre-1954 version allows MORE Americans to honestly and sincerely take the pledge. How is that a bad thing? I still think "...one Nation, under heaven..." is a way to go. You want heaven to mean God? It can. You want it just to mean the sky? It can. You're a pantheist? No problem. At the least it's a possible interim pledge til this thing gets properly ironed out.

BubbaBear is smarter than I am... there are no 'winners' in an argument (excuse me, discussion)like this. If one person ever shows another person that their absolute faith is wrong or misdirected, IN ANY WAY, both come away poorer - both lose. Let's just say for me, I BELIEVE that God's morality is the absolute, but that He Himself inspires an evolution of moral standards as we and our world become more complex. We are grown beyond a literal eye for an eye - no its an money and anger management classes for an eye. As we have grown, so have God's expectations of us. So - perspective. Now I shut up! :-)

Rooster7, it still seems like you're saying morality HAS evolved. And once you start talking about symbolism - and the concordant interpretation thereof - why then, a mortal mind is wide open to misstep amd meandeing! I've read too many reasons why pork is now clean - and just as many why it remains unclean - to be convinced by anything short of divine revelation in ANY human interpretation. There are post-Mosaics that still abstain from pork, after all. So who's right? I recognize your faith, so I assume you know the problems and pitfalls of blind faith. And indeed, faith can be misled, as you know. From Aramaic, to Latin, to English, not once, but severally, with issues such as homosexuality open to huge debate based on the interpretation of a few very key words. Man with man, or man with male temple prostitute? We've all seen the translation arguments, and I'm guessing it's been replayed here more than enough. Again - human translation and human transcription have ultimately given us a document that can allow nearly anyone to justify too many things - dietary laws or no, the whole slavery thing that's gone thru the mill here lately, divorce... I repsect your faith, but please respect that others need a different kind of evidence to even begin to consider walking thru that door...

So morality as defined by the Bible has changed from Old to New Testament? Is this your point? Followers of Islam believe that the Koran is the next installment in the series. Is that the next step in moral evolution? And if not, will there be one?

"The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom" another interpretation of this is as the symbolic of the rending of clothing to signify mourning, only on a grander scale. far less latitude is taken in making this interpretation. regardless, I take it that based in the Old and New Testament, some belive that morality DOES evolve? or...?

OGE - "So littlebillie, Do you think reading the Declaration of Independece on public land is unconstitutional, yes or no? I wasnt sure what your reply means" Actually, I was simply pointing out the difference between the 2 documents, and saying that the Declaration, despite its wording, does NOT establish the US as a nation with a "house religion" or any religion, and maybe should not be cited to seem so As far as reading the Declaration on public lands - this could be some interesting law. As a lead-in to some historical discussion or something similar - not a problem, I wound't think, because then you're discussing source documents and language, or whatever. But as an invocation using selected words - well, that WOULD be precluded. Unless the public grounds were something involving a religious leader - maybe. Would a prayer be ok at some place dedicated to Martin Luther King, Jr? Probably not strictly under the law, but.... very complex issue. Anyway - this opens up the whole 'intent' or 'context' can of worms - certainly an problem that the right to bear arms is familiar with! As far as the pledge goes, 'under God' has pretty plain intent. 'under heaven' (lower case) leaves it open for a lot more folk to apply what interpretation they'd like. don't know if that answers your question, but in a nutshell - it depends!

The Declaration of Independence did not establish te Law of the Land - it was up to the Constitution to do that. "endowed...by...Creator" and "Nature's God" are from the Declaration, which was written under the old rules (if you will) and was basically the document saying, hey, we're tired of your game, we're now gonna make up our own. But it was the Constitution that _defined_ that new game, and one of the first of the new rules was the Establishment clause.

It is not easy living by an absolute morality. Leviticus 19 "You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff." ...nor shall those among you speaking of absolute morality wear that which is called cotton blend, nor shalt thou abide perma-press, or woolens which are not purely wool. :-) nor shall farmers mix the nitrogen fixing seed with that which craveth nitrogen, keeping the crops separate. Whew! And frankly, folks, 19 is some of the easier stuff in there. The skin inspections are killer, and of course plenty of people can provide sound arguments as to why the old dietary laws can be abandoned. As far as for avoiding a woman when she is unclean, my place of employment and my home make no accomodation for this kind of observance. So my hat is off to all of you who even attempt to live by the full commandment and law... it is a difficult and challenging thing to do in 21st century America, and your courage, dedication and reverence are to be deeply respected.

"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?" Maybe the point that needs to be discussed before any other is if the current policies find support in the BSA's Congressional Charter? Is that just symbolic verbiage, or does it carry real weight in any discussion like this? I keep seeing references to lawyers, and I hope someone can clarify this..?

"I can't recall God destroying an entire town because of slavery." Or visiting 10 plagues upon a people because of homosexuality?