Rooster7

Trevorum, Apparently, you either do not understand the Scout Oath or you choose to ignore it. If a Buddhist Scout says, God does not exist (which you claim is a valid view for the Buddhist faith), he cannot fulfill his duty to God. Regardless of how you define God, you cannot fulfill your duty to God if you dont even believe that God exists. Its that simple. Assuming your understanding of the Buddhist faith is correct, then I think the BSA needs to modify their membership standards or the Scout Oath. As I stated, I prefer that they leave the Scout Oath intact.

Trevorum, I really hope I am just misinterpreting what Rooster said - it sure seemed that he implied that Buddhists were not qualified to be members of the BSA. I'll let Kahuna or another Buddhist member of our forum answer that charge. I have no intimate knowledge of Kahunas faith. I presume since he is a member of the BSA that he believes in God. As you said, he can comment on that if he so wishes. I never made a charge against Buddhistsyou did. You informed us that the Buddhist faith does not require one to believe in God. For membership, Scout and Scouters are required to believe in God. Given your revelation and the BSA membership standards, I have to presume that Kahuna and other Buddhist in Scouting, are of a subset of Buddhists that do believe in God. It seems to me as if Rooster disagrees with the BSA position statement that says "BSA does not define what constitutes belief in God", preferring to use his own, rather narrow definition. If your statement about the Buddhist faith is correct (no belief in God is required), then the BSA membership standards need to be clarified so to remain consistent with the Scout Oath. If any Buddhist is allowed to join (belief in God or not, which per your claim is acceptable by the Buddhist faith), then I see a glaring inconsistency. Either the BSA membership standard or the Scout Oath should be altered. I like the Scout Oath as it stands. If you feel that is too narrow, then I will have to live with your disapproval. Hunt, Can you say strawman? You should, because youre making some extraordinary efforts to build one. Do you ask him if he's a boy? After all, he could be a girl masquerading as a boy. He (or rather she) may not have read that part of the membership application either. This question doesnt exactly solicit a Scout-like response. Lets just say, a 10- or 11- year old boy doesnt need to read the application to understand that the Boy Scouts is for boys only. The same is not necessarily true for other aspects of the organization and its expectations for its members. OGE, I think there's a wide area between offensively challenging questions and creampuff questions. I don't consider, "Tell us how you do your duty to God" a creampuff question. Its a creampuff question if - any reference to a higher power suffices as a definition for God, and/or duty to God becomes so personalized that no one is qualified to challenge the answer. This attitude that a BOR is an inquisition leads to this kind of offensively challenging question, as well as leaders who "fail" boys who can't perform some minor skill on command. Youre presuming that those folks who ask a direct question are somehow hoping to fail a boy. This is not only presumptuous, its pretty insulting. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some tough questions--if it's a troop-level BOR, the tough questions should probably arise from the BOR members' knowledge about the scout--what his weaknesses are, what he hasn't done so well since his last BOR, etc. We've had some VERY tough BORs. Okay, so lets say youre on a BOR for little Johnny. You have never seen Johnny display anything remotely considered as reverence towards God. He goofs around during prayers. Hes never referenced God in any conversation that you can recall. In fact, you have never even overheard him make mention of a church, a synagogue, or any other place of worship. Given this background, and frankly its not untypical, I see nothing wrong with the common sense approach i.e. asking the direct question. Were supposed to be mentoring boys to become men. Hopefully, when we think of what a man is: Its not a timid unapproachable creature that caves when the slightest amount of pressure is applied. I see no agreeable rationale to treat an Eagle Scout candidate as such. For an Eagle BOR, you might want to know (for example) why a senior Scout was never SPL of his troop, and you might want to probe deeply into the quality of some of his activities and his Eagle project. Or you might want to know if hes committed to his family and how hes shown that commitment. Likewise, you might want to ask how he has shown the same commitment to God and country. No matter how we make inquiries, direct or indirect, the Scouts character should be examined. I dont see that as an inquisition. I see it as confirming that the boy has met good standards for all areas of his life, making him worthy of the Eagle rank. We DO want this achievement to mean something - right? We DO want the boy to feel as if the rank was an honor that he's worthy of - right? So, let's stop treating these boys as babies. If we've done a good job of mentoring them into becoming young men, then they will understand why certain questions are asked and respond with a thoughtful and respectful answer. That's not what a BOR is for--it's supposed to review the boy's achievements for rank, find out how he's doing in Scouting, and encourage him to continue to grow and advance. Arent you conveniently forgetting a few things, such as: the Ideas of Scouting, or the Scouts attitude, or his demonstration of Scout spirit, or whether or not standards have been met in all phases of the Scouts life? (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Trevorum, If being Buddhist means its followers do not necessarily have to believe in God, then I think the BSA needs to reassess their membership requirements. Clearly, the Scout Oath requires a Scout to carry out his duty to God. If a Scout does not believe in God, then he cannot be faithful to this part of the Scout Oath. My grandmothers are not alive today. But tagging this question as "offensive" belies logic.

Judging by some of these posts, I get the feeling that we should never challenge a Scout to rise above the lowest known threshold that a previous Scout might have exhibited. Or put another way, if one Scout loses his composure when given a particular question, we should take that as a clue that weve pushed him beyond his intellectual and emotional limits. Ask a Scout about his beliefs in God? What fiends we are, for being such insensitive cads! What next! Ask the boy if hes willing to defend his country? Ask him if he respects and obeys his elders? How dare we? I see the public school system at work here. Relative questions are not important. Its not even necessary for the ones answer to be well thought out. What does matter? Apparently, right or wrong, ones effort is paramount. And then, we should be careful to judge ones level of effort, because that may be merely a matter of perception. If we keep this up, Eagle will be a meaningless achievement in a few more years. Not unlike some high school diplomas which are being dispensed in various parts of the country.

I agree with Ed. I think the question is straight forward (Do you believe in God?) and does not have the implication that other folks have voiced (i.e. Are you lying to us?). If the BOR is to judge the Scouts attitude and his acceptance of Scouting Ideas, I think its perfectly reasonable for them to ask a few pointed questions. I doubt my grandmother would even find this question offensive...and shes not attempting to advance to the highest rank in Scouting. And frankly, while I happily accept the judgment of the BOR (those who actually see and hear the boy directly as he answers each question). Im not convinced Im not sure is a good enough answer, even with the expository remarks. But thats another debate, which requires more energy that I want to expend at this moment. In short, I think duty to God should not be glossed over. Its just as important as any other idea of Scouting some would say its the most important. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Merlyn, While I still don't appreciate your stand against the BSA, I am beginning...(well let's not get carried away here) Driving on the righthand side of the road. Some countries drive on the left side, but that doesn't make it immoral. It's just a convention so driving "works". No religious motivation for that law. But what's the underlying reason...what "works"? The law is establishing guidelines so that citizens cannot inadvertently cause one another physical harm or to lose property. The moral judgment being made is this: One's freedom is secondary when one's choices can cause the harm of another person or his property. Thus, all drivers in a particular area must stay to one side of the road. Europe just happened to choose the opposite side, but their reasoning was the same. As I said, every law makes a moral judgment of some kind. Explain to me why you would argue against the reversal of Roe V. Wade. Do you agree with the pretence that the beginning of life is debatable? If so, it seems to me that you'd have no motivation to take either side. Can you give me a valid law that only has religious reasons for existing? No. Can you provide an example of one? Or of one that was proposed? I'm afraid that we will go back to butting heads when you reply on this one.

Fuzzy Bear, I challenge you to identify a single law, any law that does not have a moral premise. Eventually, all laws come down to beliefs in "right and wrong", a.k.a. morality. In this country, where one gets those beliefs should not matter. What should matter is - what moral truth does the majority want to embrace. BadenP, You claim to embrace Christ, but you are very quick to make venomous statements, especially against fellow believers. While Christ was quick to rebuke the Pharisees and the Sadducees, He knew their hearts. That is to say, it was not their strict adherence to the law that angered Jesus, but the attitude in their hearts and minds towards others. You do not know the hearts of others only God can make that discernment with any kind of certainty. So please refrain from labeling folks as having a holier than thou attitude. In the end, you are right. God will hold us accountable for whatever misdeeds or misrepresentations we make in His name. However, in the meantime, I plan to follow His teachings as His Word and Spirit directs my heart, mind, and spirit. I am confident that abortion is a practice that He detests and I intend to use my talents and time to help others see the same. Hunt, Again, I find myself agreeing with your post. However, I would argue that the same moral convictions that some have against abortion, could be extended to homosexuality. Obviously the sexual practice of others is not murder, but such practices affect the moral standards of a community. For example, if we had no laws against animal cruelty and people were allowed to freely abuse animals even if one did not object on behalf of the animal, one could argue that its unhindered open practice will contribute to the unraveling of the communitys moral fabric.

Paddlesack, We sometimes discuss our beliefs openly and without fear of criticism or accusation. But I guess if someone were to join and then try to convince the rest of us that their knowledge was absolute, they might come to think we were prejudiced against them. Especially if we didn't say we agreed with them. 'Victim stance' is the thinking error that comes to mind. I dont consider myself to be a victim. Yet, I cant help but believe that you have come to some rather unflattering conclusions merely because you find the beliefs of my faith to be harsh, and/or you are unsettled by the fervor and confidence which I might display in my faith as being absolute truth. Why, Im not sure. If you believe the beliefs of my faith (i.e. mans fallen nature, Gods judgment, homosexuality as being a sin, harsh teachings like the existence of hell, whatever.) are bogus, then you are free to reject them without ceremony. But, I would think that my fervor and confidence in such a fairy tale would be reason to pity me not resent me. Or, if you have concern for all of humanity including my own, then you might want to reason with me. And if in the end, I continued to grasp onto a fairly tale for which you politely had no respect, why not simply dismiss me as deluded? Maybe that is your position, but I get the impression that there is more. If not, then consider this post as yet one more in a series of bogus beliefs. If there is more, then I think you should ask yourself why?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I dreamed of Jeannie...Mary Ann and Ginger didn't stand a chance. Barbara Eden is holding up so well, I'll bet she can still make adolescent boys dream.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Prairie_Scouter, Generally, I don't like the idea of abortion as a method of birth control, but I think that in the bigger picture, the woman has to retain control over her body. I agree that a woman should have control over her body. But then again, the abortion argument does not concern the body of the woman as much as it does the body of the baby in her. I think the babys right to life is greater than that womans right to choice.

Merlyn, By having the attorneys arguing in favor of the law explain what secular purpose the law serves. If they can't come up with ANY non-religious reasons for a law, it deserves to be struck down. What if the law served two masters? That is, suppose there was a valid secular reason for the law, but the law was also agreeable to others for religious reasons. For example, many Americans believe that the fetus is a life. There is no real medical evidence to say differently. Of course, there are doctors that claim certain fetuses, those not viable outside of the womb, should not be considered a human life. Some others believe that no fetus should be considered a viable life. Still there are others who believe all fetuses should be treated as human life. Regardless, these medical professionals do not have any special insight as to when one comes to consciousness. And even if you give them more credence than they deserve, there is no consensus agreement as to when life begins. That being casewhat if, elected representatives passed a law banning abortion Or, better yet, what if the Supreme Court throws out Roe v. Wade Would you view these possibilities as the state establishing a religion? Would you argue against the law or the courts decision? But Id like to take this debate one step further. Give me a law any law, and I bet I can show a religious motivation and a secular argument for its existence - or why it shouldnt exist, as the case may be. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

stlscouter, I think we're in agreement. Merlyn, "What if" - the majority of Americans voted (or rather elected representatives) to outlaw murder because God's law and/or spirit inspired them to do so. Would you argue before the Supreme Court that the law should be overturned because it was "religiously inspired"? And frankly, how could you prove such a claim? Polls? Prairie_Scouter, "What if" - the majority of Americans felt that abortion was murder and voted (elected representatives) to ban its practice? Does it really matter why they feel its wrong? I think not. If we as a nation decide that abortion is wrong and elect folks to ban the practice - then WE (as in the We the People) should be able to do just that. It's not right for the government or anyone else to demand that we reveal our motives. It's our country and we are entitled to embrace the moral standards of our choice. Personally, for the vast majority of the cases, I feel abortion is wrong. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Hunt, Excellent points. Prairie_Scouter, Concerning "religiously inspired" movements to create laws, if the purpose of the proposed law is to make others ("non-believers", "non-followers", whatever) to conform to a particular faith, then I would certainly agree with you. However, most proposed laws usually concern one's behavior which purportedly violates the moral standards of a community. For example, we as a society believe that underage drinking is wrong, so we've created laws to penalize individuals who contribute to that end. It shouldnt matter if you think its wrong because teenagers arent ready to drink at that age or if someone else believes its always wrong to drink, especially children. What matters is, the majority has decided that its wrong. Its difficult enough to get consensus on most laws much less factoring peoples moral rationalization for the same. Where one obtains his/her moral foundation, should remain a personal matter. Thus, it should be of no consequence if ones moral foundation is religiously based or not. In other words, if we as a country decide to create a law, then it shouldn't matter why the majority voted as they did. So long as the law is designed to uphold a moral standard and not the practice of a religion. I have no problem with religious folks voicing their opinions and trying to create a law to uphold that standard. I think the day we as a nation start to consider ones religious background as a basis to determine whether or not a law is valid we are truly walking a thin line if not a nonexistent one. All laws have a moral premise. If we nullify all laws which may have been inspired by ones deeply held faith-based beliefs, then perhaps only atheists are qualified for the bench. I find that to be a scary prospect. Those who have no agreeable or common moral foundation to reference are the only ones qualified to determine if a law is valid. God help us should that day arrive.

Rooster, I think the problem here is that nobody really is portraying ALL "Bible-believing Christians" as being hateful or arrogant or anything else. I never said "ALL Bible-believing Christians". There are some people (including me) who believe that SOME members of many different religions are hateful, arrogant, etc. If some people have a particular concern about those Christians who are hateful and bigoted, it is simply because they are the overwhelming majority religion in this country. Women are the majority in this country. Should they fear them too? And I just can't resist this, Rooster: You think you are a messenger of God, but you're not arrogant? Im not claiming to be Moses. Although, I dont consider him arrogant perhaps you do? I simply claim to be a disciple. As such, we are taught to spread the Gospel.

Why care? By that I mean, why even trouble yourself with the question of why do people dislike you for your Christian beliefs? We are not the first generation of Christians to be insulted for our faith, and we will surely not be the last. From the standpoint of my personal feelings, I am not troubled that some choose to portray us as hateful or arrogant. My hope (by asking the question) was to get non-believers to think about itto produce a little introspection. Its my belief that if folks understood Christians a little better, they might be more incline to listen to the message. If non-believers are convinced that we arrogant or hateful, I doubt that they will ever listen to what we have to say. Do you choose to be Christian because of what others will think of you, or do you choose to be Christian because of what you as an individual think of Christ? Frankly, I've never felt as if I chose to be Christian. Ive always felt as if Christ chose me. Why? To answer that question Id have start a separate thread to discuss Calvinism and Arminianism. In short, I feel that God saves those who respond to Him.

arrowman168, Have you considered the possibility that your experiences are not mine? Second, I did not start this thread. I responded to the question.

Foxwhisker8, I appreciate your story and understand your point of view. Just to let you know...not everyone on this forum thinks you're an elitist. I think realist might be more appropriate. I think the original intent behind the program was for boys to be mentored into men, by men. It made sense back then. It makes sense today. However, I am grateful for the many women who have stepped up to fill the void left by uninvolved dads.

I rarely disagree with Ed, but I dont understand the ban on hotdogs. If every camping trip was all about the food, I could understand the ban. That is to say, if the boys are being taught how to prepare a real meal out in the woods, its a good idea. However, some trips are about the hiking or something else. Hotdogs are relatively light weight, preserve fairly well, dont require a lot of cooking (if any), and are definitely easy to makean idea food for a short backpacking trip. We allow other foods such as chips, gorpe, MREs, oodles of noodles, and the like why not hotdogs? At the end of a long day of backpacking, who wants to prove how talented they are at camp cooking?

Hunt, I'm happy we are not in opposite corners, but I have to disagree about dad's input being mere hearsay. He, and presumably the kid's mother are the boy's guardians. They should know better than anyone else how he behaves when he's not around the troop. Still, I do agree that if the boy is going to confronted with this issue that mom and dad should be present. However, unlike a criminal court, I would place more credence in what the parents have to say. In third party arbitration, the arbitrator is allowed to make his own judgment based upon the preponderance of the evidence including hearsay. If were not going to trust the parents, I think we should have a good reason not to other than whats acceptable protocol in a criminal court of law. They are adults, not children, who should have their son's best interests at heart.

If someone claimed the sky to be a color other than blue or the world to be flat, I would not begrudge him. Would I try to convince him otherwise? Yes. Would I resent his apparent self-deception? No. I would simply try to show him why he is wrong. Faith is not believing when you are not sure of what you believe. Faith is believing. Its that gift from God that allows one to believe in Him; not in the potential of Him, but in God as He truly is. I dont see my faith as a religion that will carry me through life. I see my faith as truth (i.e. the sky is blue). Faith by definition is what youre confident in your heart to be true. I dont post my opinions about God or morality to insult other posters. I post my thoughts because I think they reflect reality - truth. So, if youre confident that I am wrong, then argue your points and I will argue mine. However, the strength of ones belief should not be construed as blind ignorance or arrogance.

If Christians chose their beliefs as if they were choosing vegetables in a grocery store, then I can understand why someone might view a Christian as arrogant. However, my brothers and sisters in Christ dont want anyone to be barred from the kingdom of Heaven. Its not as if weve done something which entitles us to Gods graceit is an unmerited gift. No believer sees himself as more deserving of Gods love than others. So, again, while I understand some of the teachings which Christians understand and impart to others are harsh. We are simply messengers.

I agree with OGE, KoreaScouter, emori, Kahuna, and others. There seems to be a strong consensus across the board. Have a meeting. Discuss future possible consequences. Above all, try to show this kid the error of his ways but don't embarrass him further. Also I would try to find a gentle way of showing the committee their place. They are over stepping their bounds.

The following post is not intended to single out any particular individual. It is a general observation. Why is it, whenever Bible-believing Christians share their beliefs about homosexuality or other contentious issues of the day, inevitably said Christians are portrayed as ignorant, arrogant, hateful, bigoted, or combination of the all of these? I am keenly aware that there are self-proclaimed Christians that deserve these labels. Ive seen so-called pastors lead their parishioners to protest rallies where hatred seemed to be the theme of the day. However, relatively speaking these people are few. They are not typical of the millions that fill churches each Sunday. It seems to me, rather than giving any possible credence to an interpretation of Gods Word which exposes homosexuality as a sin, many folks would rather point to these poor examples and portray Bible-believing Christians as ignorant or hateful. Is it not possible, that we are simply relaying the truth of the Gospel as we know it? You know God loving people, people who would love nothing more than to see you in their church next to them, can believe that homosexuality is a sin. This belief does not force one to hate homosexuals. In short, we are messengers.

I see two issues: 1) Is he indeed breaking the law? As has been pointed out previously, depending on the circumstances (i.e. at home under parent supervision and in moderation), no law may have been broken by this youth. If he has broken a law, then clearly the board has every right to hold up the process. 2) Is he abusing himself or acting dishonorably by consuming alcohol? I realize that some folks believe, due to his age, any usage is abuse. I'm not thoroughly convinced that is true. I personally believe that its acceptable for young teenagers to have a small glass of wine - if there its a special occasion. Some folks believe it's always okay with dinner. Regardless, I think the subject needs to be broached and explored with the Scout and his parents. Given the public nature of this kid's usage, I don't see such an inquiry as being intrusive - especially since he is an Eagle candidate. If hes not breaking a state law, and the board does not agree that it is abuse, then I would not hold up the process. An explanation I might accept Eagle candidate claims that he had three beers in the past 12 months. One during the Super Bowl after my dad gave me permission to have one. One at my uncles wedding after my dad gave me permission to have one. And a third on my birthday after my dad gave me permission to have one. Now, I might personally question dads judgment And I might still feel compelled to warn the Scout about the dangers of alcohol. However, I could see this happening in various homes of folks I know and I would not consider it to be abusive. Something that bothers me What bothers me most about this story is not the alcohol use in and of itself. What bothers me is dads very vague and cavalier attitude about the issue. He doesnt feel compelled to clarify the circumstances and extent of his sons usage. In fact, it appears that hes not certain himself. To me this is a serious red flag. Given another year or two, it sounds as if this boy will be totally unfettered from mom and dads discerning eye. Even today, it sounds if hes making decisions on his own that he is not ready to make. A Scoutmasters conference is definitely called for and may be an unpleasant meeting, particularly if the parents are brought into the picture. But personally, I really feel thats the right thing to do. Disclaimer: Obviously I'm not privy to these discussions. That being the case, I feel compelled to say that "dad" may be a very concerned parent. It just doesn't appear to be true, given the posts in this thread.

Perhaps - as the Bible says, The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9