Rooster7

Thanks for giving my son a warm welcome. OGE, despite our sometimes heated exchanges, I find you to be pretty affable. By the way, I realize that DD has a rather blunt debating style, that doesn't always goes well with you, but my guess isyou'd probably find him to be a good friend too. My son is pretty conservative. I'm not sure we agree on everything, but it's probably close to it. I feel his presence gives me an unfair advantage (another supporter to echo my conservative sentiments). Regardless, he speaks his own mind. Now I will have to be even more watchful of my postings

OGE, You can point to all sorts of Old Testament law and ritualistic practices. You are not going to get a quick and easy answer for each one. They have explanations, but I don't have the energy, or always the proper knowledge, to give you a good education. There are answers to these questions, you know. The simple answer is this - We are unable to please God on our own. We cannot meet the requirements of the law to be acceptable as his children. Christ freed us from judgment. He makes us acceptable before God the Father. There is a difference between ritualistic and moral laws. We are still bound by moral laws (although freed from judgment if we accept Christ). We are no longer bound by ritualistic law, which prohibited the eating of animals with hoofs.

By plurality and relative perspective on mores. And by mutual respect for each other, tolerance and standing on common ground. Ironically, that's the same argument some use to kick gays out of Scouting. According to your own statement, BSA is acting morally by doing so. Why should you find it ironic? This is not my logic. It's yours. If "plurality and relative perspective on mores" drives these decisions, why add the other stuff - "mutual respect for each other, tolerance and standing on common ground"? Suppose the "plurality and relative perspective on mores" decided that they did not want to respect a certain group, have tolerance for them, or stand on common ground. By your logic, who's to say they're wrong. So, if BSA is do the "right thing", they should conduct a poll to determine what is morally acceptable behavior? Now, should they poll BSA or should they poll the United States to find that plurality? Just out of curiosity... So if a nation, like somewhere in the Middle East wanted to treat their women like second-class citizens. That would be morally acceptable if 51% of nation agreed. Does that plurality thing still work everywhere? OR, at some point, do you just say something is wrong because it IS? What do you think the "plurality and relative perspective of mores" is in some prison populations? The point being, you're assuming that the majority of the people will always gravitate to the same high ground. From what I've read of history, that's a very bad assumption. Additionally, it assumes that there is a common high ground. If it's always up to the will of the people, why even have standards? What's the point of being moral, if the mores are bound by time? What I do today could be construde as improper tomorrow and vice versa.

OGE, Sometimes a translation, from Hebrew to English, may be less than perfect. Rather then wasting a lot space on this board, I am providing this link. It says it better than I could. http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/feeasm1851.htm#p30-alif

I never said it was a Christian organization. I said it was founded on Christian principles, just like this country. It's not the same. You do know the difference? As DD has exclaimed occasionally - Please read my previous post. Regardless, by detracting this discussion to a non-existent statement, you have avoided my question. One that I am confident that you cannot answer...Please prove me wrong. If morality is based on one's faith, Nearly everyone who takes a strong position bases it upon their understanding of morality as defined by their religious convictions. and no one faith can drive BSA's definition of morality, It encompasses many views of God, including the full range of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Eastern religions, and Islam, to name a few. then what immoral behavior can BSA deem as unacceptable? Please be specific.

I live less than 20 miles from Severna Park! I hope to visit this troop someday soon...Although, I'm afraid that these guys just might make me shed a tear or two...It could be embarassing. DD, thanks for the story.

Okay...TJ now you're starting to get me irritated. I know you've heard this line of reasoning presented, but you have yet to respond to it using logic. Here it is: If morality is based on one's faith, Nearly everyone who takes a strong position bases it upon their understanding of morality as defined by their religious convictions. and no one faith can drive BSA's definition of morality, It encompasses many views of God, including the full range of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Eastern religions, and Islam, to name a few. then what immoral behavior can BSA deem as unacceptable? It can't be done. Your logic does not allow BSA to deem anything immoral. Name one thing. How about prostitution? What if it was discovered that an ASM was working as a prostitute? You find this acceptable? Should BSA find it acceptable? According to your pretence/logic, it cannot be deemed immoral. So you can not use God's Word as the basis to exclude members from Scouting. Agreed? Actually, I disagree. It is my belief that BSA was founded upon Christian principles. All major religions are accepted, but I'm confident that the founders never intended to sacrifice those principles. Until recently (the past 30 years), those principles or their origin were not questioned. It was understood. Whether you agree with me or not, I want to know - per your definition of morality - or rather the definition that BSA is suppose to subscribe to (according to tjhammer), how would they claim any behavior to be immoral? Give me some specific examples. Unless you utilize some very strange reasoning, I don't think you can make a case.

Mike, My last post addressed the links you provided, but my comments were directed at le Voyageur. Regardless, my comment was not meant to imply that the events did not happen. Rather, I was merely indicating that I have no firsthand knowledge. Nor do the links provide enough history to understand the testimonies. As to blame or guilt...I addressed that in my previous post. It may well be true that American Indians suffered at the hands of a person or organization claiming to be Christian. In fact, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of this throughout history. Nevertheless, it is wrong to say Christianity is evil. By that definition, one can claim all religions, all races, all nationalities, etc. are evil.

There's isn't enough information at these links for me determine exactly what the federal government and/or the boarding schools were guilty of doing to American Indians. There are some tragic stories here. By the way, not all of the blame is directed at the federal government and the boarding schools. Also, I read at least one positive testimony. Regardless, for the sake of discussion, I will concede that the federal government had dishonorable intentions, forced American Indians to attend these schools, and all of the boarding schools were horrible places. I don't know this for a fact, but I will accept it as a pretence. This story gives me reason to believe that American Indians have a very serious grievance against the United States government. They should be able to tell their story in court (and else where). If this atrocity is true, they should seek and receive reparations. Still, one cannot justify hate for a religious faith. If you accept that as a fair justification, then you have no leg to stand on when you encounter a white bigot who claims a black man mugged him. It's the same kind of nonsense.

My wife and I had our first child six months after we were married (you do the math). Do I consider ourselves to be immoral people? No more than most. Do I consider what we did to be immoral? YES. We were wrong. I wouldn't teach my children differently. If I were to join BSA and say otherwise to boys in the troop, I would expect BSA to seek my removal. Not because of I was previously guilty of this immoral behavior, but because I was endorsing it. Allowing active and unrepentant homosexuals to join BSA would in affect be an endorsement of the behavior. Additionally, although many argue until their blue in the face, I see them as a risk to children (even if others do not). Some folks will submit that BSA does not see them as a risk...I think this claim is false. BSA may not put it in print, but if you believe the behavior is a perversion then its natural to assume the boys would be at risk.

Absolutes? The usual (murder, rape, pedophilia, etc.) plus what you term as relative "choices". I'm not suggesting that anyone guilty of a moral wrong be booted out of Scouting. If that were the case, the organization would have no members. However, I'm not going to pretend that certain behaviors are not perverse so that some others can feel good about themselves. So far, BSA seems to agree with me. Could it be that morality is not relative? Perhaps...is it not possible...people (segments of society) given enough time (decades...sometimes centuries) will find ways to rationalize and justify their behavior to others. This permits them to do as they please without disapproval from others. In fact, ultimately, because we all want to be liked for who we are (i.e., self-esteem), these same folks will not relent until they get approval for their behavior. Sound familiar? It is all very human. We are fallible, yet we do not want to admit to fallibility. We'd rather seek acceptance. Alcohol a problem? Nah...Legalize it. Drugs a problem? Nah...Won't be long now. Prostitution? Who does it hurt? Gambling? Hey, look how much money we make for the state. Homosexuality? Who says it's perverse...your God? Pedophilia? If the child is consenting, why are you objecting? Given enough time, I have no doubt that very few things (if any) will be called immoral. Obviously, if we want to be a free society, we cannot legislate everything in life. As free people, we should be able to make some choices. Yet, as a healthy society, we need to recognize vice and perversion when we see it. Calling it something else is not only dishonest; it will eventually lead to even uglier distortions. Are you aware that pedophiles have their own lobby? These people are actually given the time of the day on Capital Hill. You probably feel I'm being unreasonable comparing this group to homosexuals. I think there are two groups out there arguing that homosexuality is normal. One, who honestly believes it to be so, but has no other agenda. The other group has a much larger agenda. They will not be happy until they live in a completely amoral society. They want their behavior to be accepted regardless of its nature. Personally, I believe both groups are wrong. The first group, IMHO, is simply misguided/misinformed. No offenseit's just an opinion (it is not said with venom). The second group has given themselves over to something much more sinister.

WHEN vice IF - Are we optimistic or pessimistic? Sadly, you're probably right. Until then, I intend to fight that proposed policy change with all my might. Should I see the day when the policy is changed, I intend to leave Scouting. BSA would simply become another organization crushed by political correctness and moral relativism. I only hope that an organization as honorable as BSA is today, will take its place. On the other hand, they have withstood the pressure this longperhaps your WHEN statement is way off the mark. That will be my prayer.

Dedicated Dad, All valid points. I'm trying to stay out of this thread. You're doing an excellent job though. I don't know what part of the country you're from...Or perhaps I just forgot. One day, I wouldn't mind meeting you and some of the other guys posting to this site. Any way, good luck with "tj"...

tjhammer, Absolute morality is more fundamental, and reserved for very few moral issues... those things we deem basic human rights. Hmmm. Interesting, but how do you intellectually determine these matters? What are the criteria for an absolute "wrong"? Who made the rules? What is the baseline? I'm not arguing against absolutes. In fact, I completely agree. It is your foundation for those absolutes that confuses me. You stake claim to absolutes, but your foundation seems to be the very same culture that defines "moral relativism".

sctmom, I agree with your assertions concerning pedophilia and rape. In my mind, your statements ring true. However, your statements do not demonstrate how morality can be relative. You see, if morality is relative, then one can even argue that forcing oneself on another is acceptable. If there is no baseline to establish right or wrong, who is to judge? If it is intuitive, then why do some disagree? I presented these questions for tjhammer, but you've some how gotten into mix. I don't mind, but are you agreeing with him? Because moral relativism proclaims that there are no absolute rights or wrongs. Which is why I brought up pedophilia and rape. I wanted to see how he could justify his view juxtaposed with these obvious "wrongs".

Does the bible mention slavery? Yes. Does it endorse it? No. If my son told me he was gay. I would pray for him - a lot, just as if he came to me and confessed any other sin. If homosexuality is not a behavior, then what is it? Is it a religion? Is it a physical trait? I think one has to agree that is a behavior. "Who deems rape or pedophiles as NOT immoral? Who other than the ones committing the crime think it is okay? Even some of them know it's wrong." sctmom, I'm not the one that claimed morality to be relative. If you agree that morality is relative (such as tjhammer proclaimed), then you should be able to provide a logical answer to that question. Your answer infers that one should know intuitively that that these behaviors are immoral. Problem is, that answer is inconsistent with the claim that morality is relative.

le Voyageur, How old are you? I didn't know there were any federal laws that forced Christianity on anyone. And if so, I can't imagine any recent enough that they could possibly affect people living today. As to how bad of an example these individuals were, I couldn't say. I wasn't there. In fact, my ancestors weren't there either. My great grandfather came to this country around 1900. He wasn't a missionary. Nor did he make any laws (local, state, federal, or otherwise). He simply worked hard to feed his family. Why do you assume ancestors of anyone posting to this board had anything to do with your family's history? Because we are Christian, we are to be accountable for every sin committed by a Christian? Are you accountable for all of the acts committed by your tribe? Every Indian nation? I think not. Nor should anyone try to make it so. Yet, it appears this standard does not apply to me. Why? My faith hasn't done you harm. People, claiming to have the same faith, may have done you harm. Nevertheless, if this was the case, then the guilt belongs to those people, not the faith. I make no apologies for believing in Christ. If you've suffered because of someone's misguided beliefs, then I am sorry. However, I am not apologizing for belonging to any group. You may feel you have a right to be bitter. Perhaps you do. But I think you're presuming an awful lot about the rest of us. I assume that your code of ethics would have you judge people as individuals, and not by groups (race, color, greed, religion, etc.)? If not, then you're guilty of the same crime that you claim you are a victim of - bigotry.

tjhammer, In regard to your comparision, there are two major differences that you are not mentioning. 1) Homosexuality is a behavior, not a physical trait. 2) There never was a basis to the claim that blacks were immoral (Biblical or otherwise). You may be interested to know, that many African-Americans find this comparison insulting for the exact reasons I just listed. You said - Morality is completely relative. If this pretence is true, explain to me how rape or pedophilia is deemed immoral? Is it completely subjective?

Out of curiosity, who are the two authors - Michael F. Bowman and James Bryant? What is their affiliation with BSA? While I agree with the sentiment (we should never try to make any boy feel unwanted or as if he is in the wrong place) I do not agree with the idea that every prayer must be "generic". In my mind, to deny Christ in name would be wrong (if I was saying a prayer). On the other hand, I can tolerate someone else praying to whomever they want. That is to say, I can pray to whomever I need to recognize, and they can do likewise. To me, this is real tolerance. I shouldn't have to deny my god or perform my prayers differently because someone else has a different faith. If we're building character, then this is something that they, the boys, should be able to understand.

Eman, You said - I would stay! And so would most of the people that say they wouldn't. Wow! That's a pretty good gift you have there. Are those people willing to stay because you proclaim it to be so, or because you're the only one who is willing to stand on principle?

It is pretty incredible how much is being said and /or inferred in response to what never was said. Perhaps we should read each other's posts more closely before commenting. le Voyageur, I respect your knowledge concerning a wide range of Scouting activities. You obviously have a lot of expertise on such matters like rock climbing, whitewater rafting, etc. However, you said - "I'm looking forward to the day when there are no more religions, where the myths, legends, and superstitions that separate and conflict us are buried in the past." This insults the faiths of just about everyone in Scouting. Furthermore, your comments concerning Christianity shows no understanding of the faith, and is highly offensive to me. For me, the concept of a Christian God is an oxymoron. Within the tenets of the Christian faith, the only way to be a true Christian is to confess your sins, and accept baptism and Jesus Christ as your lord and savior. Thus to be a Christian, "God" would of had to confess his sins, and be baptized and accept Christ as his savior. Therefore, "God" is not only sinful, but also inferior to the Christ! While I agree you do not have to respect my faith, you should have enough courtesy to refrain from these highly inflammatory comments.

What is disingenuous? To me disingenuous is when people scream for change, get their day in court (so to speak), and then proclaim if - "if they had a different committee", "if they polled all the councils", "if they polled all the adult Scouters", etc., to cast dispersions on the process because the outcome did not go their way. There will always be an "if" - Hey, if all of the committee members were homosexuals then perhaps it would have been fair? BSA did much more than in should have to satisfy a few disgruntled councils. And as cjmiam noted, morality should not be determined by votes. As an organization, BSA does stand alone, but millions still support them.

The writings of our founding fathers seem to support your belief. Unfortunately, many folks like to pretend that they weren't.

I would leave.

When you refer to BSA and 'they' who do you mean? I am in BSA as well as all the executives who 'make policy'. If 'they' do not spell out policy changes made 'more or less restrictive anytime they choose' then how can 'they' expect us grass roots people to follow them? There is a danger of policy being made at the whim of whoever is in the upper ranks, with no kind of open process whatsoever. You missed the point. I don't believe BSA does change the policies willy-nilly. The point is - BSA can legally promote the values it so chooses. You seem to think that they are bound by "your interpretation" of the Scout Oath and some other Scout reference material. 'most in BSA would subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is immoral. Its BSA's free right to agree and to deny membership to homosexuals. This does not have to be printed in black and white as you contend. 'How can you possibly know what most in BSA subscribe to or feel is immoral? It's just my opinion based on many years of being around Scouts and Scouters. I could be wrong. I pray I am not. 'Does that mean BSA should allow pedophiles into the organization too? ' Homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia. Missed the point again. You claim that BSA does not have the right to look at sexual behavior. Pedophilia and a large number of others deviations (such as those listed by DD) are examples of sexual behavior that BSA and others should be concerned about. Homosexuality, in my opinion, fits in with the rest of them. It's flat out wrong. In fact, most pedophiles live a 'straight' lifestyle. Of course known pedophiles should not be allowed in the organization - there is Youth Protection Training to prevent this and protect the boys. MomScouter, please do a little research here. If you contend that there more heterosexual pedophiles that homosexual, then certainly you are correct. Considering the heterosexual population outnumbers the homosexual population by about 20 to 1, this should be no surprise to anyone. Now, let's do a fair comparison. It's not even close. From the studies I have read, over half the homosexual population has had sex with a minor. They prey on our youth. Homosexuals are no more inclined to molest boys in the troop than women leaders. This last comment is simply not within the bounds of reality. I don't believe that you believe this statement. Repeat it all you want, but it's silly 'it is BSA's legal right to be the arbitrator of that subjectivity and determine what they are willing to accept or not accept. Why can't you accept that? ' I do accept that to a certain degree, but I am not willing to blindly accept policies made by a handful of people at the top who choose not to communicate what basis upon the policy is made, nor the specifics of the policy and how it is to be executed. I think those "handful of people at the top" represent most of BSA pretty well. Just look at most of the posts on these boards. Do they reflect a grass roots effort to change that policy or maintain it? I would be shocked to hear anyone express your views around a Scouters campfire. If you chose to do so, don't be surprised if you encounter a strong negative reaction. 'Funny, I feel the same way about folks who twist God's word. You brought the bible into this. Do you honestly believe that the God of the bible would shake his head in agreement with this sentiment? ' Rooster, my God (my personal beliefs which I do not impose on anyone) tells me there are different paths to Truth. My God wants his children to love and respect one another above all else. Well, first God doesn't belong to one person. He is our God (not my God) whether you like it or not. Second, I can love homosexuals as much as another flawed being (as we all are). This is not about my willingness (or your willingness) to love others. It's about accepting God's word and condemning sin when we see it. These few cities are large cities wouldn't you say? This is not just a handful of people. My motivation is to provide a good program to all boys who choose to be in it and not let a vague policy prevent them from participating. As for my religion, suffice it to say that it is one that advises me to listen to God within my own heart. Again, I could be wrong. Perhaps I am in the minority. Regardless, numbers will not change what is right. It may change BSA policy one day. It won't change God's word. As to you listening to your heart, how is it that so many others differ with your heart? For the sake of argument, say the country and/or BSA is split down the middle, each side listening to their heart. So, does that mean your GodI mean our God will be please with us both? One of us is wrong. I suggest reading the bible (and more than a few select verses), pray about it, and then listen - but not to your heart, but God. 'Homosexuality (among other deviations) has the potential to harm my son directly (by unwanted contact) and/or indirectly (by corrupting his moral beliefs).' Rooster, no one in Scouts should be promoting any kind of sexual agenda. A Scouter's or scout's sexual orientation is no ones business and should not come up anywhere in the program. A homosexual leader can no more corrupt your son's moral beliefs than a hetero leader; it is simply not a topic for discussion in the program. Well, I guess we disagree again. Homosexuality is wrong. Accepting one as a leader would be endorsing the behavior. Like any other sin or vice, if one renounces the behavior, I am open to that person. Otherwise, we have no common ground. Furthermore, I know men (I am one after all)I agree we're not all intent on evil. In fact, I admire a great number of men. Nevertheless, I wouldn't trust an avowed homosexual man with my son for one minute. Well, lets be reasonableI wouldn't trust an avowed homosexual woman with my daughter either. sctmom, If you don't want to join the debate, fine. But please do not proclaim yourself to be a victim. I'm willing to listen to you just like MomScouter. If I weren't, I wouldn't be spending this much time writing out these thoughts.