DanKroh

I think first, Gunny, you'd have to provide some examples of the "any number of groups" that discriminate based on gender and race (as official policy) that you referenced in your first post, before we can say whether any of them have also been singled out by the press. Because I can't come up with any (at least, not any that haven't been castigated by the rest of society, as well). Do you have examples of any, especially ones that have as high a profile as the BSA?

Beaver predicts (tongue in cheek): "The next thing you know and we'll be wanting to ban overweight scouters!!!" Just to play devil's advocate here a minute, Beaver, but if we are going to disallow homosexuals from being scouters because they aren't "morally straight", why shouldn't we disallow overweight scouters because they aren't "physically fit"? Aren't they both part of the scout oath? Not that I'm trying to get this thread moved to Issues & Politics, but the question does beg to be asked.

Gunny asks: "That said, I throw the ball back to Dan and ask if there is an underlying principle to his statement,"I would disqualify an SM for having a smoking addiction (or any other addiction)." as quoted by Oak Tree. And if so, what is the underlying principle?" To understand how the statemetn was intended, you have to look at it in the context of the original thread, which was about "firing" a Scoutmaster for a behavior that was considered a poor role model for the youth in the troop. (Out of wedlock childbearing, in the original thread in question). My point was that smoking is hardly what I could call a "positive behavior", yet is something that a lot of scouters engage in, and even though they may not do it in view of the youth, the youth know they are doing it. It isn't exactly going to discourage the youth from trying tobacco when they know that Mr. Scoutmaster does it, so it must be ok, right? And any Scoutmaster who gives a lecture to a youth about not smoking, while sneaking off at camp for a butt, is a complete hypocrite, another negative behavior to model, IMO. And yes, smoking is an addiction for the vast majority of people engage in it, and addictive behavior is also not something that should be modelled to youth. If you want to see the actual context, I would recommend reading the original thread. Like many things, my original statement makes a lot more sense when taken in its original context.

"So what do you think? Is it ok for a drug to have that kind of power over you? Is a caffeine addiction something you'd try to steer your kids away from? Or is it really no big deal? After all, you don't see many marriages breaking up because of the husband's constant need for a coffee fix." I think one of the guiding principles in defining an "addiction" is that the substance itself has to be harmful (drugs, smoking, etc), or the behaviors displayed in satisfying the addiction interfere with normal life (gambling, sex, etc). In the case of caffeine, while it is certainly a substance that the body can become physically dependent on, for most people, I don't think it fits the above guideline for an "addiction". Unless someone has a heart or kidney condition, caffeine is usually not harmful (assuming amounts are not excessive, like mainlining NoDoz). Most people don't engage in behaviors like stealing or spending the rent money to get their next fix (although at Starbuck's prices...). I suppose there are people out there who misspend their money on caffeine sources when they could really spend it other more necessary things, but does that make it an addiction? I don't think physical dependency itself is enough to qualify something as an addiction. After all, we are physically dependent on a lot of things, but few people would label most of them as addictions.

"I wouldn't say I felt a "calling" to be a Christian. In order to go to heaven, people need to make a conscious choice to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Just "feeling called" to be a Christian isn't enough. As a human being, I struggle daily with trying to live like a Christian. It isn't easy! I have to make choices every day. If only it were so easy as to simply be a calling..." I'm trying to divorce the decision from the motivation behind the decision. Yes, you made a decision, but what was that decision based on? As I said, every person of religion that I know based that decision on a belief, a feeling, that the deity (or deities) of that religion were real, and were "calling" them to follow. Personally, I think if anyone tried to follow any religion without that deep down in their soul belief, then they are probably just fooling themselves with a "fake it 'til you make it" philosophy. "I don't know very many atheists, but the few that I do know would laugh if any one supposed they felt "called" to be an atheist. They have explained to me in a factual way, not a "feeling" way, why they don't believe in God." Yes, which is why I said that the atheists' "epiphany" involves recognizing a *lack* of calling. Yes, there are many facts that they feel support their belief (in a lack of deity), but it still all comes down to a belief, a feeling that the universe is a certain way. "Dan, I understand what you mean by the majority not really "getting" what it's like to be discriminated against. I know I don't have very many situations at all, where I am left out, so it is harder for me to "get it." The only situation that comes to mind is when I was in High School, and didn't believe in under age drinking. ALL of my friends went to the drinking parties, while I stayed at home. That was my choice." Sorry, but I don't see the situations as being analogous.

"The BSA and you have different morals. That is no big deal." The BSA and a lot of other people have different morals. And it is kind of a big deal when the BSA is using *its* morals to exclude people that I would like to have in the organization. "The BSA website is not the primary source for information about the organization. Ask any local professional or comissioner and they will tell you the policy." I did, and I was shown a non-discrimination policy, which has since disappeared. The point is, your claim that "we all [know] the policy says no gays" is false, at least when joining, when it would be a rather important thing to know, both for people who are gay and for people who might not join because of that exclusion.

"However, not being able to be a provider of those services, does not constitute discrimination as the student made the conscious choice to not believe in God." Tell me, funscout, did you make a "conscious choice" to be a Christian, or was it a "calling" that you felt down in your soul? Most people of religion that I know feel that their "choice" of religion was not so much a conscious decision as a calling that they could not deny. Of the atheists I've spoken to, most of them describe their "decision" to be an atheist in a similar fashion, a moment of ephiphany marked by the absence of such a calling, and a knowing that there was no mysterious force called "God" at work in the universe. Is that a conscious choice? "I wonder why an atheist would want to join an organization which believes in something so completely against his own beliefs. As a Christian, I would not want to join an organization that insisted that I denounce my belief in God. I wouldn't cry "discrimination!", I just wouldn't join." You know, I think it is awfully easy when one belongs to the majority to sit back and say "I just wouldn't join". Because realistically, when you are in the majority, if that majority is excluded, they are going to go off and form their own organization to do the same thing. And they will probably have enough people to do that because they are, well, the *majority*. But if a minority says "I just won't join", then they are probably going to miss out on the only game in town. Is it really so hard to walk in another person's shoes to understand what discrimination feels like? As far as the importance of the service; if it was so important (and I think it is), then wouldn't it have been important enough to put aside petty differences to continue the work? It seem to me the only people demeaning the imporance of the service are the ones who would rather shut it down than allow an atheist to help out.

"Dan, I am sure you can acknowledge that there are different degrees of immorality. None of us our perfect. But the BSA realizes that there are certain lifestyles that they do not want to influence their members." Yes, I acknowledge that. However, homosexuality isn't one of them in my book. The BSA assuming that everyone should know that "morally straight" means "not gay" seems a bit of stretch. "People interpret things differently. There is no big deal though. If anybody asks, the policy is now quite clear." Yeah, the policy is clear, if you know to go look on the BSA website and hunt it down among the press releases and legal documents. However, the "quite clear" policy exists no where on the BSA membership application. I wonder why that is?

"Oh yeah, because we all [know] the policy says no gays." TheScout, when my son and I joined, I knew of no such policy. In fact, I was show a *Council* non-discrimination policy that did *explicitly* say that they didn't discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation. However, this policy has since seemed to have disappeared from Council records, surprise, surprise. "It says "morally straight." Do you really expect the BSA to list all immoral activities? Such would be a daunting task." So then, they'll be banning EVERYONE who engages in any "immoral activities", will they? That would be a daunting task. Let's break out Leviticus (and then the holy writings of a bunch of other religions; we're non-sectarian, after all) and start making that list, because I doubt there will be any leaders left after that.

Trev asks: "To my knowledge, BSA employees are not considered "leaders" and thus are not subject to the gay litmus test. Is this incorrect?" From the BSA National Website under "Qualifications for Employment": "Believe in the BSA and subscribe to its principles and standards" Also, I notice nowhere on their website under employement do they give notification that they are an "Equal Opportunity Employer". So, I believe that means that yes, they are subject to all the same restrictions as leaders. Hunt, I agree that while it seems to be the legal right of the city to terminate the lease, that it also seems right for the Cradle of Liberty Council to seek compensation for what they have put into the building over the years.

ScoutNut, did you read an article that said she had food in her tent? I've looked at a couple of articles on this, and none of them stated that there was food in the tents. Just wondering where you got that from? Evidently, her's was also not the only tent the bear went after. I think it's great the girl had the presence of mind to act as she did and not panic. And yes, they are all very lucky.

So it's "selfish for a woman to choose to conceive a child without a father in the picture", but it's *not* selfish for a man to choose a job that keeps him away from his family so much that the kids comment on it? I'm not saying that your husband is selfish, Funscout, I'm just trying to understand what appears, to me at least, to be an egregious double standard. Personally, I think all child-bearing (as opposed to child-raising) is inherently a selfish act. *We* choose to bring a child into this world because *we* want one. FScouter has brought up the "child's best interest". How much of the "child's best interest" (not to mention time and attention) does a parent have for the sixth or seventh or eighth child in a large family? Should we label those people as selfish and self-centered, too? I have seen single-parent households (from birth, by choice) where the child received more time, attention, and love than the kids in some two-parent households. If we feel we must judge others' parenting, how about we do it on the actual, you know, *job* they do, and not how many people are present or their marital status?

Preface: Oops, it just occurred to me that Barry was addressing the other Dan. Oh well, I'll leave the response anyway.... Barry wrote: "Dan, I enjoyed your last reply, but Im not sure where you were going with it. I would enjoy reading your expanded thoughts there. I think scouting units run into this problem of unit leaders a lot more than we realize. I know some units who want to fire a SM simply because he smokes. Yet, I know of one Troop where the SM was caught with an ASMs wife. He didnt get kicked out until a year later when he was caught offering a scout a beer. There were plenty of warning signs before that event, why did they wait until a scout became a victim? We shouldnt judge? Problem is we are too afraid to judge and more often than not, it comes back at us later. How many have regrets that we could have prevented something bad against our youth had we just reacted the first time we saw the adult behave badly. I admit it is hard to know when the line is crossed, but we don't hessitate to ride ourselves of a smoking SM and hold our judgement for one who openly commits adultry." Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe that an SM (or any Scout leader) should be held to a higher standard of behavior. But I think the guiding principle in establishing that standard can be summed up by a single question "Is this person modeling good behavior?" If it were up to me, personally, I would disqualify an SM for having a smoking addiction (or any other addiction). Similary, I would also boot an SM who committed adultery, because he/she broke a vow. An SM who had or caused an unintended pregancy is being sexually irresponsible, also not a good thing. But in all these cases, I think blanket condemnations are bad, because there can always be mitigating circumstances (which is what spurred this whole side discussion, anyway). The place where my view would probably differ greatest from some others is around sexual relations by unmarried leaders. I'm sure there are some who would want to boot out an unmarried leader who was living with someone, or who had a (planned, or at least desired) child outside of marriage. To me, those behaviors are neither immoral or irresponsible. One might argue that they are modeling "sexual promiscuity", but if they are in a committed relationship that just doesn't happen to be marriage, I would disagree. Again, it all depends on circumstances. I think there are plenty of behaviors that make for poor leaders. Not all of them are "immoral" (lack of patience, for instance, or poor mentoring skills, or lack of organization), and they don't make those people *bad people*, just poor leader material.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

We have what I think is a cool graduation ceremony for our Cubs. We have a campfire, which we invite Boy Scouts from the two troops in town to come and build, and they also help put on a little campfire program that the younger boys can participate in. But what the Cubs really look forward to is going through the "Cub-o-matic". We set up an EZ-Up, and enclose all the sides with tarps. We have a board we hang on the side with a "dial" that surrounded by the badges of each rank. When we are ready to send through a group of boys, we turn the dial to the rank they are about to become. Inside the Cub-o-matic, parents wait to change out the boys' neckers and slides, and present them with their books for their new ranks. Outside, behind the whole thing, we have Boy Scouts banging bells and pots, blowing whistles and horns, throwing things in the air (going for the "mad-scientist-machine" effect here) while the boys are processed inside. Once the change is complete, the Cubmaster (that's me) introduces the boys as their new rank. For the boys going from Webelos 1 to Webelos 2, this is when they choose a den name, get their den patch, and are introduced by that new name (this year, it will be the "Flying Pigs"). The Cubs really seem to like this little ceremony, which has become quite the tradition now. The best part is watching the new Cubs, wide-eyed and mystified, as they are about to go into the Cub-o-matic for the first time. This year, we are going to add a new element; before each den goes through to move up in rank, the den that just finished that rank are going to tell them about all the cool things they will do in the coming year. Good luck with your ceremony, I hope it is memorable for everyone.

ASM915, Widowed, when my youngest was 13 months old. Been a single parent ever since, with no real interest in changing that. And I know many other single parents, some of them by choice, who are wonderful parents and whose children do not suffer for the lack of a second parent. However, to try to relate back to the original topic, while I do not automatically agree with removing the SM for "moral turpitude" without more information, I hope that the young mother would realize the huge commitment she has just let herself in for, and that being an SM might be an unnecessary distraction from her new charge.

"An adoptive mother and father will be able to provide a more nurturing environment for a child than a solitary mother." Proof, please? (From someone other than James Dobson) "Giving up a baby for adoption to provide the best home and nurturing environment for the child and is an honorable course of action." Yes, I agree that when ANY parent or parents are unable to provide a suitable home for a child, giving it up for adoption is a noble action. However, I find the assertion that a single parent automatically cannot provide such an environment, or an environment that is inherently inferior to that of two parents, to be unsupported personal opinion. Which you are, of course, welcome to have, but perhaps would be better to label it as such instead of trying to state it as fact. You do know that there are agencies that will allow single parents to adopt, don't you?

Sorry to return late to the discussion, but I was with my son's troop this weekend for our annual Family Campout. Me (a single parent) and my two sons. Sorry if we don't fit the definition of a family to some, but the troop seemed happy to have us. FScouter said: "It is selfish, self-centered, and morally reprehensible to intentionally bring a child into the world with no father. AND ... the right thing to do for a baby conceived and born against a woman's choice is to give it up for adoption to a family with BOTH a mother and a father. There is no honor in raising a child with only one parent." You know, this argument would be a lot more convincing if there was ANY INCONTROVERTABLE evidence that children prosper better in any measurable category in two-parent homes than single-parent homes. The same argument is used against children in same-sexed parent homes, despite evidence to the contrary. So, FScouter, where exactly is the cutoff for when it is acceptable to be a single parent? You say that a child should not be born into a single-parent home. What if one parent dies when the child is a year old? Should that child be put up for adoption? What about a month old? Does that one month of having a second parent make all the difference? The honor in being a parent is to be loving, nuturing, and supportive. How many people (or their gender) who are doing the parenting is irrelevant. Sorry for continuing the derailing of this thread (I really just thought I was answering Beaver's question), but as a single parent, I really felt the need to respond to these outrageous statements. Because my only other response, like Trev (and Ed, even!) was just, "Wow".

Beaver asked: "Let me play devil's advocate. What possible scenario would make it OK and a proper moral example for a young, single, unmarried female in the SM role to get pregnant?" I can think of two scenarios, but you would probably only see one of them as being "morally correct". Scenario one, the young woman was a victim of rape. (Hopefully not the case, but there it is.) Scenario two (and this is the one we would disagree about), she made a conscious decision to have a child (possibly involving artifical insemination) that she is physically, emotionally, financially, and in all other ways, able to support. The reason I find the second scenario "morally correct" is that the potential bad example I see here is irresponsibility. I have no problem (but I suspect others do) with a woman making a decision to have a child on her own, when she is ready (the being ready part is also key). It is the implication that it was an "oops" resulting from irresponsible sexual behavior that I would not like to see emulated for other young people. Just my 2 bits.

Hey All, Just got back from our first weekend! It was awesome! I'm an Owl! "Hooo are we? Hoo? Hoo? Hoo? Hoo?" (With apologies to The Who)

"By man not ruining the earth, I mean that man can't destroy Earth. Sure, man can pollute, man can do many things, but not destroy the planet." Semantics. How about if "ruin the earth" means "destroy to ability of the environment of the earth to sustain human life". Does that clear up your semantics problem? "There are many things we can do, but man can't cause the temperature to go up." Sure we can. It's whether we have that's seems to be up for argument. But whether you believe that human activities are at the root of global warming or not to me seems a moot point. The important part, IMO, is that for the first time in the history of earth, we actually have the ability to prevent a catastrophic climate change that could make large parts of the earth deadly to live in. Or, we could, if we could stop arguing about it and decide to actually do something. Now, if you (a generic "you", not aimed at Gonzo) think that we should not exercise that ability, that's a perfectly valid viewpoint; but I find the arguments that we shouldn't because we didn't cause it, or because Al Gore is a hypocrit, or because "science is about facts" or because "it's happening on Mars" to be intellectual sophistry. The reason so many people (including scientists) believe that extreme environmentalism is necessary is because they think we have passed the point where we can do it without extreme action. If we had scored a couple more field goals in the 3rd quarter, we wouldn't need to make a "Hail Mary" now. We have always been notoriously short-sighted that way, as a species. But I try to see the silver lining; none of our descendants (at least, the ones who survive) well ever doubt evolution again.

Lisabob, I only have one word for the likes of you.... BRAVO!!!!

For those quick to label atheists in the Boy Scouts as liars and frauds, here is some food for thought. My son joined a pack as a Tiger at 7 years old. He qualified for all the membership requirements at that time. But at 7, he has not decided on his religious path. At some later time, he may decide to follow no religious past and be an atheist. For all I know, he may discover at some later date that he is gay. He has not lied, nor committed fraud, but if either of those things came to pass, he could be kicked out of the BSA. If his unit was chartered by a public school, they would be the ones responsible for enforcing that. I gotta tell you, I can't say I'd be too thrilled with the public school that he has to attend every day kicking him out of their sponsored unit for his religious choice or his sexual orientation. And you can say that the BSA is not a religious organization until you are blue in the face, but according to the Supreme Court they are. Calling a duck a goose doesn't make it so just because you repeat it more often. But this dilemma is, in essence, what bothers me most about the BSA's discriminatory membership policies regarding gays and atheists. Both of those are things that a boy may not know/have decided on when he joins the BSA as a Cub. He can spend years as part of a pack and even later a troop, before he suddenly no longer meets the membership requirements he DID meet when he joined. Yet now, he is suddenly unacceptable to the BSA. That bothers me more than excluding boys in the first place. But if you say that the boy who later in life discovers his homosexuality or decides on atheism can stay, then it seems hypocritical in the extreme to exclude a boy who came to the BSA already possessing that knowledge. OakTree, you bring up a good point about Cub advancement. My thought was that you could still have a requirement to *learn* about a religion, without actually having to profess or believe it. In fact, I think learning about the stories and beliefs of religions is an important part of our cultural understanding, and I would think would be an acceptable alternative to atheists.

Thanks for the updates, Beaver. I'm so sorry. Will continue to light a candle of prayer for all those involved. I don't know who to attribute this quote to, but someone once said "Suicide happens when pain exceeds resources for coping with pain." Thank you for continuing to do your best by those who are struggling with the pain of being left behind.

Ah, yes, Edmund Burke. Fascinating fellow. I prefer the quote apocryphally attributed to him: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Ironic, isn't it, that conservatism saw its rise to prominence during the Age of Reason. So how old does something have to be to earn your respect? The 1950s? The 1830s? The 1650s?

"I do feel sorry for you if you ever feel demonized, but again I emphasize that it is not my problem." Nope, don't cry for me, TheScout, I'm doing just fine. However, I will give you my stock answer to the "not my problem" attitude: "First they came for the communists, I did not speak out because I was not a communist. When they came for the social democrats, I did not speak out because I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews I did not speak out because I was not a Jew; And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." Good luck if you are ever in a position of being in the minority. Other than that, I'm afraid that we are so lacking in common ethical ground that this conversation will never be productive. Good day to you. Think I'll join Merlyn in teaching porcine musicianship.