Rooster7

We are Christian BTW but pretty liberal, and prefer to teach love-and-tolerance together. That statement clearly infers that Christian conservatives do not teach "love-and-tolerance". I'm not sure how it can be interpreted any other way. However, I will take you at your word. At some point, I feel that civil individuals must retreat to a stance of "THIS is how I experience God" This is much easier for a liberal to say and believe. Contrary to most Christian conservatives, most liberals believe "all paths" (all faiths) lead to God. Many more believe that the bible is not clear and is not the infallible word of God. Conservatives do not believe that they are blind to God or his teachings. We have our eyes open and can clearly see Him via his Word and the Holy Spirit. While others are arguing about whether or not it's a "snake or a tree trunk", we feel compelled to shout, "It's an elephant!" On appearances, I suppose that makes conservatives seem intolerant. I would argue that conservatives are intolerant when they believe the truth is being circumvented. Judgment belongs to God and I fully believe S/HE is up to the task. I'm sorry but that statement does not reflect Christianity (although, it may reflect some so-called Christian churches of the day).

I submit that the jury is still out on the Girl Scout policy. Give it a few more years. Hopefully your claim will prove to be true. Regardless, I do not like the Girl Scout policy because it tacitly condones homosexuality. Which in fact, is why BSA has their policy. They believe that a homosexual is not the proper role model for boys.

Absolutely, go to the police! Depending on how this kid (I'm assuming) is going about his cyber stalking, there are methods to track him down. Also, these kinds of threats are felonies, not misdemeanors. I think the police will respond in a very serious manner. If not, try the FBI. They might at least point you to the right agency. I have been praying for your situation and your family and will continue to do so.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/coulter/2002/ac03-21-02.htm Nicely written article. Disclaimer: Don't read it if you're offended by conservative commentary on liberal thinking, in particular, regarding the gay issue.

SagerScout, You said - We are Christian BTW but pretty liberal, and prefer to teach love-and-tolerance together. How much tolerance do you have for your Christian brethren that are not "pretty liberal"? Some Christians "prefer" to teach their children about God's love and righteousness? Does that make them hateful and intolerant? I was nodding my head throughout your post until you closed it out with that wonderfully derisive conclusion. From where I am standing, it's a little difficult to feel that "love-and-tolerance" thang that you're teaching your kids.

I suspect too, since BSA is a boys program, some people feel that our standards may not be as stringent (even though the opposite is true). Additionally, I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of pool managers were certified by Red Cross or YMCA and have a bias towards those affiliations.

It would also seem fair to say that you might not believe either one of these folks if they told you the earth was round. Now that's just not fair...I would double-check my geography and science books, but I would believe them eventually! You and I have seen the world through very different glasses. But, such is life. And without that variety, we'd be rather boring. You know, I think we are in agreement on this point. I thank you for recognizing our differences without portraying me as a redneck, Klansman, or some other unintelligent bigot. Typically, that is the response by the gay community and many of their supporters. JM, I've read many of your posts. I don't think we are as different as you might think. I pray God will reveal himself to you (You can do the same for me)...Either way, neither one of us can lose. Peace.

JM, Your "100 fold" statement isn't very factual. You're absolutely correct, it's merely a guess on my part. Which was merely my point. It's purely based on your impression via the news. And that news contains far more crimes against children and adults by heterosexuals than gays. Lately it even contains more crimes against children by priests than by gays. So, we are to assume that a pedophile priest is a heterosexual? If we were going to assume anything about his "orientation", it seems to me it would be he is a homosexual. These guys are molesting boys not girls. Regardless, if my presumption is unfair, your presumption is doubly unfair. I only said that certain studies were referred to in the program to support the position that children growing up in a home where the parental adults are gay do not show a propensity for becoming gay themselves. Which television program was that, the Rosie O'Donnell show (self professed homosexual and champion of liberal causes) or the Diane Sawyer news special (another champion of liberal causes). You don't see the bias in their "reporting"? Alas, maybe I am in a minority, but I see a strong bias by these two. If every example provided was conclusive evidence regarding a particular person or trait, then nearly all things can be proven as good or bad (depending one's perspective). As TJ would surely point out, all of morality becomes relative. --- You lost me there...huh? More simply said, one can find a good or bad example for almost every political cause. Finding supposed good examples of parents, does not prove anything about the morality of homosexuality. I'm not the same God-fearing individual that you are. And I respect you for who and what you appear to be. I also expect that you will respect me for the same. I can appreciate that. We'll leave the other guy out of this, as he's history. Gone, but not forgotten. While many did not appreciate his bluntness, his graphic statements made a point. Unfortunately, it was so graphic; nobody really addressed the point he made. Their sexual behavior, which is appalling and perverted, is glossed over with words such as "choice", "lifestyle", "alternative", and the like. He simply made folks look beyond those glossy words and see the behavior for what it is. There's a mutual respect there, but we still don't totally agree on things. No offense intended, but I find it difficult to believe that God (omnipotent and all knowing) would have a "mutual respect" with a created being. Obviously, we do not share the same understanding of who God is, and what our relationship with Him should be. Fearing a righteous God does not mean one cannot love him. As to your question about what God wants, I'd rather hear from you what you think God wants for the kids who lie dying and orphaned from HIV of their heterosexual parents designs, or all the others for whom heterosexual parents can't or won't appear. Interesting example. I wonder how many of these heterosexual parents pursued a homosexual relationship outside of their marriage? Of course, no matter how they contracted it, the child is still a victim and I will answer your question. Do we just leave them? Were there sufficient heterosexual adults willing to take these children and raise them, there would be no orphanages, or foster children. I'd rather that some willing and able adult take them and raise them. So, am I to presume that the homosexual community is filling this void? Some how, as selfish and depraved their behavior is, I don't envision them seeking out the sickly and infected. Nevertheless, even if this were true, I don't see how putting them under their care is a good answer. If given enough time, perhaps I could come up with some plausible solutions. Still, I'm sure a new set of facts and circumstances could be created to nullify any answer I might offer. I don't mean to insinuate that you would do so purposefully to be stubborn. The fact is I am admitting that there are many difficult circumstances and sometimes there doesn't seem to be any good answers. Yet, as you observed, I do believe in a righteous God and I would never do anything knowingly against his will and teachings. I don't fear the gay community as do some, perhaps yourself included. But that aside, what would you do for these kids? Our God leaves us to our own devices to solve the problem. He will not provide parents, only we will. No. I don't fear the gay community. This is, as many should know by now, the mantra used by the gay community whenever folks challenge their agenda. BTW, I am NOT accusing you of being gayI am accusing you of echoing their mantra. What would you propose for all the children without parents otherwise? There are solutions. I'm not claiming to know themI just know that there are plenty of organizations that are seeking to place these children into loving homes. It's not like the homosexual community provided the answer to this question. Yes, they're willing to take some of these kids. But I maintain, to what end? Based on your exposure to the gay community, you're willing to "take that risk". Based on my exposure to the gay community, I would not be willing to take that risk (and I would say that without my religious convictions). You claim to see a lot in the news about heterosexual adults doing harm to children. I'm not denying your observation. However, certainly that same news source has shown many examples of the decadent behavior of homosexuals. By the way, when you're comparing heterosexual and homosexual adult wrongdoings, I hope you take into account their numbers. Homosexuals only account for about 2 percent of the U.S. population. Although, I imagine this will only become another point of contention. Did Diane Sawyer provide examples of child molestation in this story? I really can't remember, but I think it was discussed. I'm sure it was brief, incomplete, and to some degree inaccurate (having never seen the special myself). You can beat me up on that one, but I'm fairly confident I know how Diane Sawyer portrayed the story. I also think that for every example of child molestation one could dig up where a member of the gay community was held accountable, one would be able to find two where a heterosexual pervert was held accountable. The news is sadly full of those stories...witness the terrible news from Texas recently. There was no homosexuality in that house that we know of, yet the deeds were horrible. Are the motives of the folks interviewed in the story pure? I'd be more than willing to bet they are. I have no doubt that this story is true. Nevertheless, I refer you back to a previous statement - when you're comparing heterosexual and homosexual adult wrongdoings, I hope you take into account their numbers. Homosexuals only account for about 2 percent of the U.S. population. If the only people to come forward were gay and had the interest and desire and where with all to do the job? Yes. Sorry to hear that, but it is consistent with your stance. Afterwards, would I ask God to search my heart and judge me on my efforts? No. I wouldn't look for his blessings or a pat on the back. I'd know whether or not I did my level best for the children. Here is where we have a serious disagreement. I wouldn't mind a pat on the back from God. My ultimate goal in life is to do his will. I want his approval. I often fail, but I like to think that I'm still striving. Perhaps you are frustrated by the limitations placed on us. Mankind cannot provide the answers for all of our problems. We think we have solved one, then we turn around and another pops up. Of course, the next question is, then "Where is God?" God can fix whatever he so chooses. Why he allows some things to happen I don't know. The fact is we won't know all of the answers unless God reveals them. I accept that. For others, that is extremely difficult to accept. This is especially true when those folks experience the harshest realities that this world can inflict. I've been more fortunate then some. I stand by faith, and I pray God will not allow me to wander from it. Okay, I didn't mean to preachI'm just giving you my perspective.

My own take is that, while there are bad examples out there, there are probably 100 fold heterosexual bad examples for every gay bad example. We don't discuss those, do we? No, we don't. 1) Your "100 fold" statement isn't very factual. 2) While you and others can point to various case studies and make claims about the homosexual community, only those specific families know what is going on in their own homes. We can only guess. 3) If every example provided was conclusive evidence regarding a particular person or trait, then nearly all things can be proven as good or bad (depending one's perspective). As TJ would surely point out, all of morality becomes relative. 4) The debate is not about parenting skills; it's about the morality of being homosexual. While I will not make graphic statements about homosexuals (as Dedicated Dad so aptly did), I do encourage you to think about their behavior. Do you really believe this what God wants? 5) I don't place much stock in the opinion of Rosie O'Donnell. Nice face. Nice personality. Can't say too much about her beyond that. I know she doesn't claim to be a journalist so I guess we shouldn't judge her by that standard. Know this though: She invited Tom Selleck to be a celebrity guest on her show and then attacked him on the air for being a member of the NRA. I never heard her apologize for that so I must assume she feels pretty righteous about her causes. Would it be assuming too much to think she views homosexual rights as one of her causes? 6) I don't place much stock in Diane Sawyer as a journalist. She has all the appearances of being impartial (initially), but she will never ask the tough follow up question unless she's interviewing a conservative. How many examples of child molestation was she able to provide in this story? Maybe, zero. I guess that doesn't happen with homosexual couples? All of their motives are pure, right? How many Scouters really believe that is reflective of the reality? If God asked you to make sure a particular child was given a loving and protective home, would you place that child in the care of two homosexuals? Afterwards, would you ask God to search your heart and judge you on your efforts?

I hear and understand OGE's point of view on this derisive issue. Ed, sst3rd, and some others have wondered why so much time is wasted on these topics. Even though I am a very active participant, I tend to agree with their assessment. However, just so you will know where I coming from, let me explain why I continue to join these debates. I must admit; I have my mother's blood. When it comes to my children and their future, I am very paranoid. As a teenager, when I went to the beach with my friends, my mother would always exclaim as I was going out the door "Don't go out too far in the water!" Very embarrassing, but her heart was in the right place. Hey, she's a mom. Any way, I have a fear. While we are running the program, others will work to change the program. While we are concentrating on the boys, others will quietly mold BSA into an organization that embraces their values. Believe it or not, I don't particularly enjoy repeating the same arguments over and over. It is tiresome. However, I feel compelled. I don't want people to take BSA for granted. Sure, today BSA is pretty much the same organization it was 92 years ago. But don't think that can't change in a heartbeat. 35 years ago, how many churches spoke out for the "rights" of the homosexual? Back then, how many churches believed a homosexual should have the right to teach your children or be a minister? Today, while I believe TJ has exaggerated the numbers, there are quite a fewtoo many. This is what happens when "non-believers" join your organization and are allowed to pontificate unchallenged. If the people in the pews spoke up 35 years ago, those churches would not have changed so easily. As it were, the minority grew until they became a majority. Now, those churches no longer worship Christ. They prefer to embrace the politics of the day. BSA is a great organization, but it can fall just as easily. So, yes, my constant ramblings on the "Issue & Politics" threads can be very embarrassing (even to myself), but I hope you know where my heart is.

Does this "reaching out" mean the boy is always more important than any principle that BSA hold dear? I think not. "Reaching out" to all boys, does not mean accepting all behavior. TJ, either you are misusing the word "secular", or we're in agreement. BSA is "a decidedly non-secular institution." Secular means "not regarded as religious or spiritual". That being the case, you are claiming that BSAis a spiritual organization (i.e., decidedly non-secular institution). I do agree with this thought. After all, one of BSA's main tenants is - "Duty to God". I am surprised that we are in agreement or was my presumption correct (you misused the word). By the way, why has NWScouter and others singled out Christian conservatives as having a moral agenda? Why haven't they included Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and all of the other faiths that disapprove of homosexuality? Perhaps Christians (being a majority in this country) have spoken up more than others. Regardless, their views on this issue among faiths are hardly that of a minority. Most of the world's major faiths disapprove of homosexuality. For the record, I already know the answers to my questions. Promoters of the gay agenda want to make it appear as if Christians only represent themselves. They want to make all of the other faiths think that Christians are "taking over and pushing them out". All so they (the promoters of the gay agenda) can gain allies and push God out of BSA. Once they do that, they can establish a foundation to change everything else. First and foremost of course, would be to open membership to gays.

I agree with the troop policy (no parents as MB counselor for one's son if others are available). However, I only agree with one of the rationals presented...to encourage the boy to work with other adults (this is a good reason). If a troop employs it for the reason of "avoiding unfairness", I think it sends the wrong message. We tell a Scout he is trustworthy, then we employ a policy that says he or his parents cannot be trusted. This is a contradiction. If a particular parent proves to be untrustworthy in this regard, then we should remove the parent from the position. Otherwise we should practice what we preach.

Bob, We're on a roll. I agree with your assessment. Although, I would add one item to your description of BSA - This program is about leadership and citizenship development, character building, and not politics. It's nice to find some common ground.

Hmm. If I defend my faith here, will I be accused as being unScoutlike? And, just how am I suppose to defend it against such an accusation? Let's try this...It's not true! What is this so-called agenda? Is this another pretence to the homosexual debate? Will it never end?

Wow Bob! I can't believe you caved! Whoa! WAIT. ..I was just joking! I appreciate the fact that we can agree on something. I feel vindicated. Now I can bring this discussion full circle. I want to take back something I said about 8 or 9 pages ago. In reference to men with tattoos, I said, "for the most part, I see it as a character flaw". I was wrong. I have thought about this lately. I realize there are many good reasons why one might want a tattoo. The most noble of which, I feel, is to show one's pride in having served one's country. Some want to express love for people close to them. I'm sure there are other reasons as well. My perspective prior to this was focused on the individuals striving to draw attention to themselves. This, I still perceive as a character flaw. However, to everyone else, I sincerely apologize if I offended you.

As DD noted in his last post, the tactic used by TJ and NJ, is one of character assignation. They do not argue for or against any specific statements using logic. Instead, they paint a very ugly picture of the author, their opposition. This is a much easier, and sometimes a very effective way to counter an opposing argument that has intellectual merit. Personally, I would shy away from some of the graphic depictions and/or giving light to the apparent thought processes of the individuals participating in the same. However, DD does successfully convey the depravity of which he speaks. He is the messenger, not the participant. Perhaps, some folks will not make the distinction. Nevertheless, I think the brainpower of most in this country, especially among Scouters, is sufficient enough to see his point and separate the two. While DD has a very blunt debating style, I have not seen him lash out at any individual unless he felt he was unfairly treated. When that has been the case, he clearly specifies the offense for which he is responding to and why. He is, if nothing else, honest in his approach...by some folks reaction, brutally so...but honest nonetheless. Conversely, I don't think TJ and NJ can make the same claim. Time and time again, they prefer to attack the person than address the question. They rather make inferences about a person's character than state facts. When they do use logic, it is usually employed to counter a straw man argument. Misrepresenting DD's position is apparently one of their favorite pastimes. Arguing their position based on the merits of reasoning must not be winnable, because I rarely see examples of that reasoning. Guilt by association is more likely to be brought into play than any valid argument. Of course, it has all the honesty of a wooden nickel, but it can be effective. Apparently, TJ thinks all Christian conservatives support the Reverend Fred Phelps. Here's a tip for you guys. Ask DD if he is has any German ancestry. Perhaps you can link him to Hitler. NJ, you said, Those of us who choose to debate here should be able to handle what goes on, or we can leave. I submit this: DD's debates are well thought out, employs sound reasoning, uses imagery that can be offensive, but above all else - is honest. I don't think you or TJ can say the same, because above all else - I find your debating style to be dishonest. But hey, morality is relative, right? In a few more years, maybe your dishonesty will be viewed as virtuous.

Bob, What? No teenaged Scout ever got his teenaged girl friend pregnant? I agree that it's not common, but I've bet its happened more than a couple of times. Statutory rape? Do you always have to muddy the waters with something? Let's assume the boy and girl are the same age. Use the BOR for membership removal? You keep adding things that I never said. I simply said that the BOR should be suspended or postponed upon making such a discovery. The Chartering Organization should be advised before proceeding with the BOR. The values of the chartering organization do count.

NJCubScouter, It's only my opinion, but I see this thread as serving no other purpose but to attack DD. It's no secret that tjhammer and yourself have opinions that are diametrically opposed to him. Perhaps there is a nobler purpose to this thread, but I'm having difficulty seeing it. The goal appears to be to mock DD. I'm sure he can defend himself, but what's the point here.

I thank you for your patience. Those are the choices that young girls should be thinking about and I absolutely agree with your statements. Unfortunately, another movement has claimed the word "choice" and it has tainted me. So, I meant no offense, and it comforts me to know that we share some of the same thoughts on this topic. I'm not certain I agree with what you may have meant by "ALL" options, but I'll let it rest.

He is the Scoutmaster. The Scoutmaster should advise the CO if a Scout does not reflect their values. If the CO has no problem, than there is no problem. Example: A Catholic Scoutmaster of a Catholic church discovers an older Scout has impregnated his girlfriend. Does he sign the Scout off for Scout Spirit ("...duty to God", "A Scout is Reverent")? Or, does the Scoutmaster advise the Scout that his actions do not reflect the values of the organization. In this case, what do you think the CO will say?

TJ, Do you think this thread has any more merit than Dr BS's thread "Adult leaders Taking Over" (under Open Discussion)? His thread was in essence a personal attack on Bob White. Likewise, this thread seems to have been created as a personal attack on Dedicated Dad. I will respectfully ask the Forum Moderator to close this thread.

No, upon making the discovery, it is reasonable to expect the BOR to be postponed until the issue is resolved. Furthermore, a BOR can be conducted for purposes other than rank advancement. Also, if the SM made the discovery, it would be reasonable for him to delay signing off Scout Spirit until such issue was resolved. He is suppose to represent the values of the chartering organization.

What do you define as a "choice"? You seem to be dancing around a subject that's near and dear to many of us. I advise you to not go there. It's not going to get solve on this forum, and I don't think it's going to be productive. I have strong feelings on this subject, but I think we are on the very fringes of a "Scouting" debate.

One word - Semantics Once the CO has discovered a conflict in values (perhaps at a BOR), they can simply give him the ultimatum. Change or leave.

Originally, our troop collected dues on a monthly basis ($3). This became a logistical nightmare for the Dues Scribe and the Patrol Leaders. As hard as the boys (PL's) tried, it was a real struggle getting all of the boys to remember their money and to pay their dues promptly (we have roughly 60 boys in our troop). Furthermore, the troop policy, which forbids Scouts who has dues in arrears from participating in troop outings, was often forgotten or overlooked intentionally by Patrol Leaders. The boys (PLC) opted to go to an annual collection, but kept the troop policy. This simplified their task significantly. With the monthly collection of dues, it was a difficult task to keep track of the boys and their status for outings. Now that they collect the dues annually, the "NO outings" list is much shorter and easier to track. The policy is enforced and eventually all of the dues are collected. The one big draw back to this system (annual verse monthly) is that the boys lose the learning experience of having a regular financial commitment. It seems to me, this is why the dues system was created for the boysto teach them about finances, commitment, and responsibility. In particular, the annual collection policy significantly reduces the responsibilities of the Dues Scribe. Although, having seen it done on a monthly basis, and knowing the problems that it can create for a Dues Scribe, I'm not sure that is such a bad thing. I agree with the other posts though. If the boys are making the decisions, and the system is fair, I see no harm. I see no purpose in forcing a system upon the boys (not that anyone has suggested this), which they might resent and/or would not follow. FScouter, I think you've done what you should have done. I'm not sure you can do anything more. Perhaps, you could explain your position more thoroughly at the next PLC and ask them to reconsider.