Rooster7

OGE, You said, "Any Organization with humans in it will display human characteristics. They may be noble, sincere, and helpful and they may also be base and cruel and sometimes at the same time. How an organization deals with inevitable scandal tells us about the character of the organization. Christianity, IMHO (woo hoo) has a pretty good track record, but I wouldn't call it flawless." No offense intended, but I don't think you're viewing your faith from the right perspective. Christianity is not about a system or organization that promotes values or promises higher standards. It's about finding redemption and salvation through Christ. What sets Christianity apart from all other faiths is Jesus and His free will sacrifice. Unlike other faiths, one does not earn, grow, or develop his way to "salvation". One merely has to accept the gift and follow Him in action and spirit. Upon accepting the gift, the Bible does not promise a sinless life. It does promise redemption. My point being, while God does give us the capacity to resist sin, accepting his gift does not mean we will be "flawless" beings...just forgiven. Sctmom, You said, "I do believe also that the Boy Scout handbook and the Scoutmaster handbook refer to respecting other's beliefs, even if you disagree with them." I respect everyone's right to believe in whatever they chose to. However, I do not respect every belief, and especially pagan religions. Doing so would be contradictory to my own faith. I'm fairly confident that BSA understands that concept. I'm sure that they do not expect me to respect a faith that is contradictory to my own. However, I can respect people of all faiths. Do you see the difference?

Yes

I am interested too, but alas (like others) Thursday night is our Troop meeting night. Sorry, I'll have to miss the fun

Immoral

KoreaScouter, "This is a provocative and emotional issue, because it goes to the very foundation of what we INDIVIDUALLY believe, Scouting aside. But let's face it, we live, work, play, study, shop, etc., next to athiests and others who don't share our value systems. The fact that we're able to maintain these value systems in our own lives and our own families is a testament to their strength." While I believe your intentions are honorable, your proposal would open Pandora's box. One of the reasons we are able to teach and maintain these value systems is the existence of groups like BSA. I, like you, believe one's family is key to establishing those value systems. However, let's not make their job more difficult by removing all other influences. Furthermore, once you change the standards for membership, BSA will rapidly become a different organization. In this forum, we can debate folks like Merlyn. The day we change the membership standards, the debate is over. Atheists will win. They will change the program (as others have suggested). Prayers will drop to the wayside, the Oath will be changed, the Scout Law will be changedBSA will become just another morally sterile organization. In fact, given a little more time, Atheists and others will argue that morals are relative. After all, without the major faiths of world, who's to say what is right or wrong. In this country, right and wrong changes will each new generation of Supreme Court justices. Let's do ourselves a favor. Let's keep BSA just the way it is!

Yes, we're all aware that being a Scout, or even an Eagle Scout, does not exempt one from evil doings. But...please, lets not call DUI small stuff. It's this kind of "small stuff" that kills small children everyday.

Unfortunately, Jerry is correct in his post...only the square knot.

I am not an Eagle. However, I have strong feelings regarding this subject. Adults should not only be allowed to wear the Eagle badge (assuming they earned it as a boy), it should be the SAME Eagle badge. I say this for two reasons: 1) Once an Eagle, always an Eagle [Marines may be able to relate to this]. 2) It serves notice to every boy, that men take this honor seriously. As a boy, if saw men wearing this badge, wouldn't it inspire you to aim for it as well? That's my two cents.

Once again, I echo Dedicated Dad's sentiments. If you read some of my previous posts, you'll notice I said, "I realize there are some great men (and boys) out there (in the world) that wear earrings and have tattoos." I never claimed that a tattoo made you a "bad" person. Does it enhance your greatness or make you a "good" person? I don't see how. As DD indicated, I'm not going to pursue and insult an adult for having a tattoo. On the other hand, if I heard him encouraging the boys in the troop to get one, then I might have a beef (even if he was the great guy that you described). Past deeds do not entitle you to future infringements. I'd have respect for him, but I wouldn't condone or stand aside if I thought he was promoting something that he ought not to. Again, I wouldn't say a word (or even think much about it) unless he was trying to influence the boys to get one.

Merlyn, First, I'd like to point out (in fact, concede) that you seem to have excellent knowledge of Constitutional law, a command of the English language, and good debating technique, certainly above my capacity. Still, I believe you are wrong. While I'm not the most equipped person to counter your arguments, I stand convinced that our forefather's did not write the Constitution to be interpreted as you and others (even some Supreme Court justices) have. I appreciate your intellect, but I think in this particular forum, it may be your own worse enemy. Your responses have tempted me many times to respond in kind. However, I have not been compelled to do so because you have riled so many of my compatriots and they have promptly return "fire". It's fairly apparent, that even though you have some well-reasoned arguments, your vision for our country differs greatly from many of the posters on this board. Yes, we want religious freedom. Yes, we want a government that allows everyone to have their say. IMHO (and obviously many others) that does not mean that every public community, every governmental entity, must ensure that all traces of religious identity and influence are removed. I have no doubt that you will counter my post with more well thought out arguments. To that, I can only say that I have heard many arguments made on both sides of the issue. I see no point in playing this game of "point and counter-point" It appears to be an endless circle. Your passions and beliefs do not agree with most BSA supporters (I think that is a fair statement). There are powerful arguments on both sides. If this were not true, no one would be arguing with you. It comes down to this, "What vision do you think George Washington and the like had for our country?" I am convinced that BSA (and the public schools that charter them) is standing on solid groundthe same ground our forefathers defended and established.

KoreaScouter, I'm not sure my boys would have responded as quickly as the one in your example (although I'd like to think so)... This story serves to remind us, BSA is abouting building character, not campfires. I understand the purpose of badge requirements and I'm not suggesting that they be changed. But give me a kid who knows, believes in, and follows the Scout Law and I'll show you a true Eagle.

"There's even a section in the manual for Satanists!" This just goes to demonstrate how far we have strayed from our founding fathers' true intentions and vision for our country. It's another example of how political correctness is corrupting our institutions. "You see, the government can't solicit for or against religion; that's why the judge ruled the way she did." I disagree with this interpretation of our Constitution. The government cannot establish a State church. This is a given. However, the Constitution does not explicitly state or imply that the government cannot endorse religion or the existing of God in general. The interpretation that this judge is evoking is one that I don't subscribe to, at least not willingly.

Merlyn LeRoy, Some battles are worth fighting, even ones that may not seem winnable. Personally, I don't see it as a losing battle. I don't buy your interpretation of our Constitution. An Atheist who screams religious discrimination is paramount to a vegetarian complaining about the menu options at a steakhouse. If you want vegetables, don't go to a steakhouse. If you want Godlessness, then don't join BSA. Bottom Line: If BSA loses God, it's not the same organization anymore. As an old cigarette ad once exclaimed: "I'd rather fight than switch!"

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water... This is a great conversation and I agree with jmcquillan. Looking at the bigger picture, just how much of the outside world (boy's behavior outside of Scouts) should we hold the boys accountable to within the troop? IMHO (that's for you OGE), every boy should meet the standard of the Scout Oath, no matter the place or time. I have a story too. Several years ago, before the current set of adults/boys oversaw our troop, a boy in our troop was "jumped" by three boys as he was coming home from school. He was not seriously injured (physically), but needless to say it was upsetting to him. Two of these three boys were Scouts in the same troop. The parents handled the issue and the troop leadership was never brought into the picture. While this is all water under the bridge, if I could go back in time, I would have pressed for some form of discipline from the troop. In fact, I believe a second event (regardless of place and time) would warrant an expulsion from the troop. At some point, we should think about the boys who are behaving correctly and let the ill-behaved ones go. I say this out of two concerns - 1) the expected standards established for Scouts, and 2) the safety for the well behaved Scouts.

Am I smiling? YES, I AM!

Chippewa29, well said.

Hey, what happen to my smiley face? :-( I thought :+)= a smiley face

This was merely a test... :+)

I agree. I'm NOT claiming that a tattoo stains your character for life (although my previous posts may have inferred that). However, I would submit to my Scouts and others: Why do you feel a need to have a tattoo (or earring, or purple hair, etc.)? If we preach/believe that the individual should be judged by what's inside, why do these Scouts (and other children) feel so compelled to be so different on the outside? Please don't say "individual expression". That can be accomplished on paper or canvas or through a hundred other avenues. It seems clear to me that they are seeking attention. If my presumption is right (and I'm convinced it is), then one must ask why is there a need for attention? Yes, I do believe that character should be the yardstick. In fact, I tell my Scouts that if they want attention (the good kind), they should work on their character as opposed to how they physically appear (fitness aside). As one can see, this argument works both ways. We say that character is important. We want to de-emphasize externals (such as earrings, tattoos, long or short hair, etc.). So, if these things are truly extraneous, then we should question why a boy seeks to have those things. Especially when we know that a large portion of society will be repelled by their appearance. Perhaps it's unfair, but it is a reality. It's not my job to change the conceptions or misconceptions of millions of Americans. It is my job to help develop the character of boys in my troop. If a boy rightly realizes the importance of character vice appearance, these kinds of external things should have no appeal. Furthermore, very often the way one presents himself is a reflection of what's inside. If I have a "skull and cross bones" tattooed on my arm, I should not be surprised when others are intimidated as I approach them. If I go out of my way to look tough, to look like a stereotypical biker (just an example), should I expect others not to have a preconceived notion as to how I might behave? Perhaps, in a perfect world, we should expect this. However, in a perfect world, no one would feel the need to be cautious about approaching strangers. Shouldn't we challenge our boys to ask themselves how others might perceive them? What is more Scout-like? To assume others have "a problem" and therefore discount their concerns? Or, consider the concerns of others, and to take actions to avoid the problem? Eman, despite the fact that we may be on opposite sides of this argument, I don't want to lose you either. I believe there is room for disagreement on this forum, which permits discussion without hard feelings. At least, I always hope there is Understand, I'm not suggesting that any of these things makes you or anyone else a "bad" person. I am proposing that they are extraneous, and as such, should be viewed upon with disapproval amongst Scouts. By the way, go with the knee socks.

OGE, I know we've had our disagreements, but I must admit you're a likeable character. Any friend of Pooh is friend of mine (or at least my two-old-daughter). ;-)

No problem. Like I said, I like Jimmy...I just don't agree with his politics. While I like Jimmy as a person...Do you remember what it was like to be an American prior to Reagan's election? Does "Day 432" sound familiar? Since we're sliding down to politics, I just want to say - I never saw the economic downslide that the media seemed to invent prior to the Reagan/Clinton race. My household was doing just fine. Also, if Reagan's only accomplishment was to end the Cold War, he should be trumpeted as the greatest president of the 20th century. As to why girls can and boys can't. At the risk of being label a sexist, girls are different than boys. Same reason why they can wear dresses and use makeup. Personally, I like it this way. I hope the day does not come that we're debating why Boy Scouts should or shouldn't be in dresses and makeup. ;-)

I have several character flaws, but I still consider myself to be a fairly upstanding person. Also, please view this criticism in proportion to the subject matter...You'll be pleased to know that I don't view tattoo recipients as criminals. Seriously, some of my best friends have tattoos. I don't judge them anymore than they judge me for having a few extra pounds. Lastly, in regard to this issue, I truly view servicemen differently...You have every right to be proud of your service. Yet, if you didn't have the tattoo, I'd be just as appreciative.

My opinion comes pretty close to Dedicated Dad's. I realize there are some great men (and boys) out there (in the world) that wear earrings and have tattoos. However, for the most part, I see it as a character flaw. I believe tattoos and piercing are inappropriate, and especially so for Scouts. I believe this to be true for three reasons: 1) It's fair to say that BSA "believes in the individual". Still, IMHO, the individual distinguishes himself by developing his character and the subsequent actions he takes as a result of that character. Someone once said, "A man's true character is measured by what he does when no one else is looking". Conversely, I believe that a man (or boy) who wears tattoos and earrings (and other piercings) is seeking attention. A man of character does not intentionally seek attention, especially not this kind. It's the cheap kind that you get for merely being different. While seeking attention may be human, it's not a trait that we should celebrate. We should celebrate the individual that humbly distinguishes himself through his character and by his service to others. * [see footnote below] 2) It distracts from the uniformity of the troop. Again, it's a cheap and selfish way of attracting attention to oneself vice the accomplishments of the group. * [see footnote below] 3) Any parent who would allows their son to get tattooed or pierced while a minor, is doing their child no favor. When I was 17, I was as liberal as they came. Today, I think President Reagan is our country's greatest living hero. Given an opportunity to get a tattoo at 17, who knows what I would have stuck on my chest (maybe Jimmy Carter's smiling face). By the way, I like Jimmy (just don't agree with him any more). I put purple hair in the same category as tattoos and piercing, at least for my first two points. Just so there's no mistakeI do believe that an Eagle Scout can have tattoos and an earring. However, I would respect his status as an Eagle Scout in spite of his tattoos and earring, not because of them. * I must admit I feel differently about servicemen (throw policemen and firefighters in that group as well). Somehow, I feel they deserve the attention that their tattoos attract. I still see it as a character flaw, but it's one that pales considerably when one views it against the sacrifices that they make on our behalf. Having said all of the above, I have about two inches of flab that hangs over my belt. I see this too as a character flaw (also doesn't look very good with the uniform). And to be honest, I'd rather have a tattoo than two inches of flab. My point is this: While I would discourage boys from getting tattoos and earrings (and over eating), I wouldn't make a major issue of it either. We all have our vices. Just my two cents.

"Unfortunately, there have been enough of those people to make the BSA (with its basically conservative views) seem like an exclusionary organization, even when it has been one of the most progressive and exclusionary service groups over the past century." Just to offer another view...In ten plus years as a BSA leader, I have never seen this behavior in my pack or troop. Not to say it doesn't happen elsewhere, but I'm betting it's a pretty rare occurrence in BSA from coast to coast. But then again, I only live where I live.

I hate it when that happens - CHANGE Perhaps I just know the history of the group. TO Perhaps I just don't know the history of the group.