SaintCad

Ed, I see you didn't answer my challenge. In the story of the women visiting the empty tomb in the Gospels, how many people/angels are in the tomb? How do you explain this contradiction? Second, the Qu'ran is also the word of God as given to Mohammed, so should we also follow those precepts? Third, (and in this thread more importantly), do you believe that the Bible should be used to determine BSA policy at a national level?

I love this idea. As the Wolf Den leader, I am going to run a Bobcat class for ALL of the new boys over the summer so that they can start in Sept on their Wolf, Bear, and now Tiger achievements. We will even have a small ceremony at the first pack meeting where the boys "earn" their Bobcat badge then "join" their den.

"Do you believe in God? is a rude and improper question?" I wouldn't call it rude, but wouldn't it be awkward if the scout replies, "I don't believe in God. I'm a Buddist."

My den is planning to do a lot of conservation work this year. Is it possible that a Cubby can win this award or is it limited to Boy Scouts or Venturers?

"Those who don't believe the Bible is God's word 100% true always point out these so-called contradictions but they never have any facts to back them up." Look up the stories when the women find the empty tomb and count how many people are there in each Gospel. But the point of this discussion was never "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" or "Should we allow menstruating women into a scout house?" or anything else we can look to the Bible for. The BSA does not use the Bible to set policy so (once again) is there any consistent non-Biblical rationale for the current BSA policy on homosexual that would demonstrate why homosexual can not represent family values while unwed parents, divorced parents, or infertile adults can. Since the only rationales I've seen is: The Bible says so. If you don't like it - LEAVE. and Homosexuals cannot have children. (neither can sterile people) I'll assume the answer is no.

I was not accusing the Bible to be inconsistant, but rather people who only follow certain moral rules of the Bible and not others on equal footing. Did you know Joan of Arc was only found guilty of one crime? Wearing men's clothing in battle (Deut 22:5). Yet I assume you have no problem letting female scout leaders wear the men's khaki shirt as per BSA regulations. Read the Epistles of St. Paul. According to him, women are second-class citizens. Do you advocate this position as well or do you merely pull out the parts in which he condemns homosexuality? As for your comment about studying the Bible - I did for four years in a religious high school.

>SaintCad, What are you going to change - the 1st Amendment? As the Supreme Court has confirmed, the BSA is not doing anything "wrong." So unless you wish to change the 1st Amendment, you can either follow your convictions and leave, or decide the BSA program, even in its terrible state (according to you), is more valuable than your convictions on this issue. Why should the BSA change the policy just because you think it is wrong? First of all, I never used a 1st Amendment argument, youre thinking of some other posters. The First Amendment does not apply to private organizations that do not accept Federal funds and sexual orientation is not a protected class anyways. Second, I never said scouting was in a terrible state so dont purposely misrepresent what I said. My point is that this love it or leave it attitude some posters have shows intolerance for any sort of discussion over BSA policy. Do you support ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about the U.S.? No?! Then why dont you leave and renounce your citizenship? Kind of drastic dont you think? Third, the Supreme Court never said that BSA policy was not wrong, they said it was not illegal. As others have pointed out, legal and right are two completely different issues. >SaintCad - from some of your earlier posts: "I never demeaned, ridiculed, or berated the policy." Sounds like you are doing so now. Really? All I've ever done is ask for the rationale for the policy that is consistent with other BSA policy. Ed points out that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Fine, but the Bible does not determine BSA policy. Others have pointed out that being a homosexual is inconsistent with "family values" by the BSA's interpretation. However, the only "family value" expressed by BSA seems to be to not be a homosexual. All Ive asked for is a (non-Biblical) explanation of why homosexuals do not represent family values while divorced parents, unwed parents, or infertile adults do. Do you have an explanation that does this? >"I don't have an agenda, I merely want to know the reasoning behind this BSA policy." Sounds to me live you have an agenda now - changing the policy - no? No. I was merely pointing out that if someone disagrees with a policy, there is an option other than quitting - that is one can work to change the system. I never said that my agenda was to change the policy. OK, technically I have. I've said that I'm all for having this policy implemented at the Pack/Troop level, which means if Ed's Troop or your troop wants to be all-hetero, go for it. >What is the point of your scriptural reference 2 Samuel 1:26? Are you inferring the Bible is endorsing homosexuality? Some liberal Christians using the connotations of some of the Hebrew phrasing in 2 Sam 1 do believe that David & Jonathan were romantically linked. Actually, as Ive asked in a few other threads Im curious about some things the Bible interprets as immoral such at women in public without hats (Corinthians) and women leaders (Romans) are accepted by BSA Scouters yet homosexuality is not by those same Scouters. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

But I thought a fluglehorn was simply a bugle with valves. I would prefer a cornet for my son (more practical and easier to learn) but I don't want him to make bugle calls that sound like calling to horses to the gate like a trumpet tends to sound.

"The policy is not going to change, so I'm not sure why we are going through this verbal excercise." Why not? Didn't the policy change once to exclude homosexuals when the LDS/Catholic Church demanded that BSA national policy reflect THEIR beliefs? "If the policy goes against your morals and your ethics, then you should have the convictions of your morals and ethics to leave the organization." So if something is wrong, either condone it or ignore it? What about working from the inside to CHANGE it? What you're advocating is that we should give up the a wonderful program like scouting because of one policy that should be determined at a Pack/Troop level rather than National level? "Isn't that what we should be teaching our youth - stick to your convictions, even if the cost is high?" How about "Change an unjust system"? I like that better.

"My morality comes from my upbringing and the Bible. To me, homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle. Why? The Bible, which is the Word of God, tells me so." While no one would dispute that the Bible is an admirable moral guide - even the BSA itself states that the Bible does not determine official BSA policy. But even if the Bible were the guide, BSA allows a lot of immoral behavior (as per Leviticus). Even if you simply go off of St. Paul's epistles and ignore the Old Testament, there is a lot of immoral behavior such as women going hatless in public (Corinthians). So why is homosexuality not morally straight but other practices condemned in the Bible are? By the way, the three criteria I set up for rationalizing the BSA's position was not just for Ed. I opened it up for anyone to see if there was a point to the argument I'm missing. 2 Sam 1:26

Can a flugelhorn or cornet substitute for the bugle in the Merit Badge requirement? What about for BSA events such as pack meetings, campouts, etc.?

Ed, While reviewing the thread, I noticed you asked me a question that I missed before, i.e. how homosexuals represent family values. Let's see: Be in a monogomous relationship. Support a child physically and emotionally. Help children grow spiritually. Support the child's education in school and teach the child through life experiences. etc. In fact, I can't think of one thing a homosexual can't do with their "spouse" or (adopted) children that heterosexual couples can except procreate, but that is also true for people UNABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN! So again I challenge you to give a rationale for excluding homosexuals from BSA in the name of "family values" meeting the 3 criteria: 1) Not using the Bible since BSA does not prefer one spiritual system over another. 2) It cannot apply to any other group such as (in your case) infertile people, divorced people, etc. 3) If you claim that a family MUST contain a mother and a father, then can you account for divorced, widowed, single parents AND homosexuals that are/were married and have children? 2 Sam 1:26

bobanon, please do not confuse lack of a spiritual guide with atheism. Buddists (I believe) would be technically atheists but they have spiritual guidance. I'm sure all of those people you mentioned have a belief in something higher than themselves whether it's God, the Great Spirit, ancestor kami, or kismet. 2 Sam 1:26

I understand the ban on atheists. Can a person truly develop a moral code without a spiritual guide? I don't think so. However, I still can't wrap my head around this homosexuality issue. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm thinking someone may have a viewpoint I'm just not seeing. My question is: why do homosexuals exclusively not represent "family values"? First, note that the answer cannot include Judeo-Christian ideals since BSA policy does not prefer one religion's views over another's. So no running to Leviticus 18:22 or the Epistles of St. Paul. Second, the answer must not apply to any other non-traditional group. For example, if you claim that families must include a father and mother married to each other, that is invalid because that would mean that BSA must exclude divorced parents and those with children out of wedlock. Third, the claim that a family consists of a mother and a father (the biology argument) must be elaborated on to account for people who choose to be celebate AND account for homosexuals that are married and have children. Are there any justifications that meet all three criteria?

"So here's that unsolicited advice: please enjoy being a den leader. Please don't politicize your den by trying to introduce these issues to the parents, unless they themselves have a burning need to bring these things up (and even then, some controversial issues are better handled in one-on-one discussions rather than public pronouncements). Please focus the vast majority of your dedication and energy on the actual program and all those energetic, fun-loving, boys (and their families) whom you have chosen to serve." I would never politicalize in front of my students (and I consider my Cubbies as students). I was using this opportunity to get an insider view of BSA policy on homosexuality for my own knowledge.(This message has been edited by SaintCad)

I don't see any problems with a few boys working ahead. I have 2 Tigers (technically Bobcats) coming into my Wolf Den in September and I expect them to take on leadership roles helping the new boys get through Bobcat and then any activities they've done over the summer.

"SaintCad, its hard to compose a thoughtful and complete answer to someone who asks a quesition about a policy and then in the midst of the question starts to demean, ridicule and otherwise berate the policy. I already know you don't really want an answer you just want to pick a fight with forum members who agree with the policy." I never demeaned, ridiculed, or berated the policy. I did use sarcasm at the beginning to show how homosexuality seems to be singled out as particularly odious to scouting. I thought this was hypocrasy based on favoring one religion's beliefs over another's despite the BSA's claim that it does not support a certain religions ideals in particular. Obviously I was confusing BSA rationale with those of the chartering bodies and I acknowledged this in my previous post. Others have explained that the rationale as put forward by BSA policy is that homosexuals do not represent "family values" according to BSA determination. OK, so I YET AGAIN retract the charge of hypocrasy. My question is: do divorce or children out of wedlock also violate BSA's interpretation of family values? It is not an idle question - one reason I decided not to become a minister after my divorce was that same reason viz. many churches would not accept a pastor that had been divorced even though I had broken no church law. The only time I "picked an argument" was when you claimed: "If the BSA wants to adopt their own policies and stick by them, good for them." My question to you was is this really a justification if the same argument could be used to exclude ANY group (black, white, non-Christian, Gentile, etc.) So far, I think ohadam has given the best analysis. I personally disagree with the NATIONAL policy for this reason: any rationale for the ban on homosexuals could be applied to other groups but is not. Thus this "rationale" is merely used to give validity to single out homosexuals in accordance with the demands of some chartering organizations. Notice I said NATIONAL policy. I completely agree with bans at the Troop/Pack level, but don't think the LDS/Catholic Church should be setting policy for EVERYONE, just their scouts. On a further note, I now have the info I asked for - why the policy and who sets it. As a scouter, I must respect it but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. OK, blast away.

Like I said, I've been a teacher for ten years and a Den Leader for a week so I guess I look at things like this as "teaching moments". I would think the main thing would be to talk to the Scouts to find out who needs be taught - and this doesn't have to be confrontational. Instead of saying, "Take off that illegal patch!" The conversation could start out, Wow! You have 3 religious knots? Good Job! Has your Scoutmaster seen those?" If the answer is yes, the it's a trip to the SM. If not, "You know usually you only need to wear one knot and two stars (or whatever the correct insignia is). It save room for more knots. Keep up the good work Scout." Then a trip to the SM to have uniform details worked out. See - not embarassing and the Scout (and maybe SM) learns something. Then again, it's probably a horrible breach of protocol.

"Sounds like someone wants to pick a fight! I ain't gonna pick back! Ya won't get anywhere cause this poster has an agenda & nothing else!" I don't know who this was direct to, but as the OP I'll assume you meant me. I don't have an agenda, I merely want to know the reasoning behind this BSA policy. To me this policy was hypocritical - we don't favor one religion over another but national policy is based on Judeo-Christian values? Apparently BSA says that this is not the case so I'm willing to retract my judgement of hypocrasy. Instead they claim that it is about family values. OK, I did not know that (that's why I asked), so do I as a divorced Den Leader need to worry that I will be kicked out of Cub Scouting since divorce does not fit in with "traditional family values"? Is there a list of "family values" that the National Council uses to determine who fits in and who doesn't? Would a parent who has a child out of wedlock be barred from scouting? Actually, I think Eamonn has it right. It has nothing to do with Duty to God or "Family Values". Instead it is all about pragmatics of losing chartering partners. I have a personal opinion on this (which I will keep to myself), but couldn't this be done at a Pack/Troop level? There are chartering partners that form all Muslim, all Jewish, etc. Packs/Troops. Why not have a national policy that opens up scouting to homosexual but allow all heterosexual Packs/Troops? If the answer is that the chartering partners will leave unless BSA implements THEIR policies at a national level, then is BSA truly independent?

Having been a Cub Denmaster for a whole week, I know that I do not know how the hierarchy works for Boy Scouts. I know that in the military the Chain-of-Command is sacred and there is a system for getting information to a soldier/sailor that you are not in direct command of. That being said, let me take the teacher angle on this (That I've done for 10 years). Every adult on a campus is a teacher from Principal to Janitor. If something is wrong (like a uniform violation), any teacher can (and should) quickly and respectfully help the student (e.g. explain the uniform policy) and then go through appropriate channels for more in-depth help. In this case, it is entirely appropriate for ANY adult scouter to talk to the scout about the uniform (first ask them if there is a reason they are wearing the uniform incorrectly. maybe the scoutmaster doesn't know, etc.). If the scout is wearing the patch incorrectly from lack of knowledge, then give them that knowledge (i.e. teach them the proper uniform usage). If they were given incorrect information or simply don't know, make a judgement call as to if the error is SO egregious that it needs to be corrected immediately. Whether it does or doesn't need immediate correction, find the source of the misinformation and correct it there.

Fold the pocket from the button to the point of the pocket plus a little further. Iron a crease. Place the Tiger badge along the crease so that the top corner is at the bottom of the pocket flap. (This is where the Bobcat badge goes) Mark the bottom of the badge with a straight pin. This marks the top of the tiger badge. Just line up the badge so that the top and bottom corners are on the crease. It will fall a little below the pocket.

"As one poster read on a previous thread I read, here or on a different website, "there is no place for sexuality in scouting." I cannot believe this topic is still being discussed. If the BSA wants to adopt their own policies and stick by them, good for them. They should be free to say that one cannot advance their sexuality and serve in a leadership role because it is their policy and they are a private organization." If there is no place for sexuality in scouting, then why does BSA make it an issue? No one is disputing that BSA can ban whoever they want from scouting, but just because they can do something doesn't mean it's right. What if BSA wants to ban Blacks? Would you still say "If the BSA wants to adopt their own policies and stick by them, good for them."? What I want to know is the "why" of it. I don't think the family values argument holds water because we allow divorced parents, single parents, and unmarried people without children to all be scouters. Also, who exactly sets the policy? One person, a committee, a vote of the members?

I am a new den leader but since all of the councils in my area are dark during summer, I need to wait to be trained. Strangly enough, I'd rather be trained BEFORE starting to work with the boys. Does anyone know why training is put on haitus during the summer and is anywhere I can get this training before September?

Clearly, Boy Scouts promise to follow Gods law (Im assuming the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God) and as such we exclude homosexuals (Lev 18:22). My question is why do we allow other violations of Gods Laws such as: Allowing people with tattoos as Scouters (Lev 19:28) Eating hot dogs with pork at campouts (Lev 11:7) Allowing menstruating women into the Scout House (Lev 15:19) Sarcasm aside, what is the current rationale for eliminating homosexuals from BSA. If it is a violation of a moral code, then why is that violation in particular being singled out and why now? Who sets the policy at the national level? Is there discussion about a "don't ask. don't tell" policy as a compromise? Secondly, what about people of other faiths that do not have a ban on homosexuality? For example, would a homosexual Shintoist or Zoroasterianist be allow to be in BSA since they are not violating their Divine Laws?

I am new to scouting and just sewed the patches on to my den leader's uniform. Technically my uniform (and my son's) violated the rule that on the left sleeve that everything is touching (council patch, pack number, den leader patch) I did this because I saw how other den leaders would space out the patches so that the "trained" patch would be on the hem of the sleeve. But on the other hand, our leadership is so lacksidasical in their uniforms that the cubbies are to. When I saw my son as a tiger last year (other leader in charge) playing with his neckerchief, I told him that it was a part of his uniform and should be proud to wear a Scout uniform properly. Every boy passed uniform inspection despite missing patches, incorrect socks, incorrect hats, etc. So what is the middle ground? Do I have to move my Pack numbers up to remove a 1/2 inch gap? Sound pretty anal, but then if that is allowed, how much leeway should I give the boys?