Childhood

[Quixote]

TJ,

 

I don't agree that the basis of your conspisary theory (and it sounded like one months ago and still sounds that way) are based on FACTS, but statistics that can be INTERPRETED in a number of ways. One such way is that the LDS may find that their average church is smaller and pulls a smaller number of boys that non-LDS churches therefore they have more units with smaller membership. Or they may find that smaller troops allows the Scouting program to work better with their church for other reasons. Just because the LDS is vocal about their beliefs doesn't mean that they are enforcing their views on you - scouting is a voluntary organization - you have just as much right to voice your opinions (and do - I like that), but it's sour grapes when your side of the table doesn't win the decision.

 

National may have bent to LDS pressure as you assert, but there's nothing heinous about having one of your largest chartering organizations agreeing with you or vice verce. The LDS isn't forcing you to do anything - it's a free country - you are free to spend your time in scouting or other worthwhile pursuits.

 

Mike - my comments to TJ were of a sarcastic nature - even though i am a "dunk-head"

 

 

TJ - i appreciate your passion and respect your position (i don't agree with it, but that's ok).

 

 

YIS

Quixote

[BubbaBear]

Oh God! The Baptists are here! :)

 

I assume none of you are going to disagree with my assessment of how to resolve this issue? I don't see how you can.

 

Also, I agree with tj when he says that some of the nicest people I met are Morman, Actually I'ld like to meet Marie Osmond!!

 

 

[Rooster7]

TJ

 

You might be judging this based only on the "outside activists", but I don't think you can possibly back up your claim that most of us who believe homosexuals can be moral people also lack a belief in God. Certainly the statistics of participants in this debate on this board don't support that conclusion.

 

Of course the people who post to this board are not the same crowd you will find in the general population. Regardless, whether we are speaking about posters on this board or the entire American populous, I intentionally chose the word "most" and not "all". As for backing up my claim, I don't have a study or poll that I can site to prove my point. However, I ask the posters on this board to use their own senses and common senseI don't believe I am off the mark in regard to my statement. Most of the pro-homosexual crowd has a larger agenda. If they win this battle, rest assured that most of these folks will be fighting for another cause that flies in the face of tradition values.

 

You'll not find any condemnation of homosexuality in any quotes from B-P or ET Seton or Dan Beard or James West of Bill Hillcourt or any of the other giants of Scouting past (at least I've never seen any).

 

Whether or not these folks made public statements of condemnation is not the point. The question is"What did these gentlemen believe in, and stand for, concerning sexual morality?" Here's a quote by Baden-Powell from his book, "Aids to Scoutmastership"It should give you a clue:

 

"Personally, apart from explaining as a preliminary how plants, and fishes, and animals reproduce their species, I have found it appeal to boys, as it did to me when I first heard it, to tell them how in every boy is growing the germ of another child to come from him. That germ has been handed down to him from father to son from generations back. He has it in trust from God; it is his duty to keep it until he is married and passes it to his wife for reproduction."

 

Baden-Powell spoke about what ought to be. He did not speak out against what ought not to be. Not because he didn't have an opinion, but because it was obvious to most God fearing people of his generation.

 

See, I believe that Scouting, with 4 million active members from every corner of America, is just too big of an "association" and too divided on this particular issue to have a blanket national policy banning homosexuals.

 

TJ - How do you think this "association" became so big? Is it because they capitulated on controversial issues? Or, is it because they stand by their values? I say it's the latter.

 

OGE

 

Rooster, I've got to disagree with your logic. I don't like the fact abortion is legal in the United States. However, I do not contemplate leaving American society because of one issue it allows that I vehemently am opposed to. I will work within the system to change the system.

 

I believe there a great difference between membership in one's country (which is usually determined by birth and not choice) and membership in a volunteer organization (which is always by choice).

 

I would like to know why women cant be "hands on leaders"

 

In the absence of willing adult males, I think they can and should be leaders. However, I do feel that Scouting is about mentoring boys so that they can become men. Consequently, all other factors being equal, I prefer to see a man in the role of SM or ASM. Of course, given the choice between a well organized, morally grounded, trained female and a unorganized, immoral, untrained male, I'll take the woman every time. Who is the better role model for your daughteryou or your wife? It's not about being better or worse. It's about recognizing differences.

 

BubbaBear

 

Please correct me if I am wrong; didn't you say somewhere that you were raised a Catholic? If so, you were taught to "judge not lest ye be judged". Try not to get confused by "open minded people" causing so much discord.

 

As for "open minded people", I put that phrase in quotes for a reason. Yes, I believe in having an open mind. I'm not knocking innovators or philosophers. I am suggesting that some people's definition of being "open minded" means one needs to reject old values and the institutions and people who support them.

 

As for the first part of your statement, I was raised Catholic. I am aware of Jesus' words. I am also aware of this biblical teaching:

 

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. 2 Timothy 4:1-5

 

Although I am not in favor of homosexuals being in Scouting (for the reasons I have already spelled out), I am equally against any groups who wish to dictate policy when they need to look at their own morality as well.

 

Bubba - I respect your thoughts, but this is an ill-contrived notion. Effectively you're saying, "If you're not morally perfect, don't express your opinion." And since no one is perfect, no one should attempt to establish policy. The fact that some Catholic priests are pedophiles does not diminish the church. I hold the church's leadership accountable for prolonging and hiding a very ugly situation, but it would be inappropriate to condemn the faith. BTW, I have not been a member of the Catholic Church for many years.

 

Unless we control every moment of our children's contact with anyone else, how can we prevent them from learning from others? If we trust that the day care center we leave our children to is protecting our child while we are not there, and one of the "teachers" provides an immoral lesson, how can we stop that from happening? What if that day care center is a ministry of the very church that we were raised and married in?

 

That is a tough situation. However, I never said parents should shelter their children from all other influences. I merely said, teach your children your own values; if you don't, others will. On the other hand, if you know of a negative influence, I would do something about the situation. If I knew that an adult was teaching my children values contradictory to my faith, I would not hesitate to remove my child form that situation. As for my family's situation, we home school. Consequently, we do not have to worry about adults at the day care center, etc.

 

Another very good point can be made out of all of this; we are overlooking the children's ability to teach other children. If we do our utmost to shelter our children from what we view as immoral, what is to say that they will not learn it from other youth that we do not defend against?

 

Again, I never said parents should shelter their children from all other influences. I merely said, teach your children your own values; if you don't, others will.

 

BobWhite

 

If a person disagreed with the tenets of a church they don't join the church to become a Sunday school teacher, they join a different church. The Sunday school teacher takes the job to teach and spread the beliefs of the church. If they speak against the church they would expect to loss their job. Not because they don't have the right to disagree, but because they are not doing the job they are supposed to be doing.

 

AMEN. Hey BubbaBear! This sounds like an answer to one of your questions too.

 

Mike Long

 

Interesting, I stated my objections to disparaging others faiths on another thread and was blasted for it.

 

I hope you did not feel as if I was "blasting" you. Perhaps, you were not referring to me. Regardless, I defended my comments because I felt they were truthful and within the realm of the debate. My intent was not to "attack".

[tjhammer]

BubbaBear says: I assume none of you are going to disagree with my assessment of how to resolve this issue? I don't see how you can.Your assessment that this is easliy resolved by leaving the decision up to parents and chartering partners at the local level makes complete sense to me, and it's what (and only what) I've been advocating since I joined this debate. And I've suggested it many, many times to the group, and I've never heard a lucid argument against the proposition.

 

Funny, the first time I suggested it, the thread was titled "Now that we disagree, can we agree?". It seems that you and I are on opposing views about whether a homosexual is immoral, Bubba, but it is pleasing to me that we can still agree on a solution where we both are comfortable with the outcome.

[OldGreyEagle]

As a self-professed mackerel snapper, just what is a dunk-head anyway?

 

This forum can make my blood rush with indignation and totally destroy my already fragile ego by the myriad facts on topics I never heard of, the discussion of bonobo things (apes or monkeys? I dont remember what they were determined to be)the tenents of reformed Judiasm and episcolians acceptance of gays, the "right" way to run a troop per the offical BSA rules. I am at once forever grateful I found this place and vexed by all I read which I never knew before.

 

And all because I used to think Boy Scouts was a neat way for a father and son to spend time together, it is so much more

[CubsRgr8]

tjhammer - I did read your earlier belief statements made on this and other threads. Nothing in those statements included a definitive statement regarding the BSA policy to exclude atheists as adult leaders, until today. One could have concluded that you would be in favor of a local option on that issue, as well as on the gay issue. And nothing in my earlier post was meant to challenge your beliefs or question the authenticity of your Christian faith.

 

I'm glad you support the BSA on excluding atheists. I'm glad S4A doesn't speak for you. But as Rooster7 used it, the word "most" is probably correct, when that includes people who are not in scouting. S4A certainly speaks for a large constituency, one that is very vocal. Your take on the gay issue is very clear and also very personal (see, I do read your posts). I see and appreciate the logic of it, although I disagree.

 

sctmom - I also glad to read that S4A doesn't represent you. I guess I see these issues in light of the concept that adult leaders serve as role models. Maybe I've missed the boat, but I thought that was a specific concept of BP's and part of why he structured scouting the way he did. I like the idea that BSA adult leaders are role models, willing to accept the personal accountability that comes with it (unlike some professional athletes). I don't see how an atheist leader could model your belief in a higher power. Take away the role model concept and it doesn't matter who are the adult leaders, as long as they pass their criminal background checks.

[OldGreyEagle]

Rooster, you said

 

"I believe there a great difference between membership in one's country (which is usually determined by birth and not choice) and membership in a volunteer organization (which is always by choice)."

 

During the Viet Nam war many citizens of this country ended up in Canada and other countries because they said they could not support an immoral war. Several others stayed and protested within the country. Personally I will always have more respect for those who stayed and worked for change from within than those who left.

 

I can choose to go to a country that outlaws abortion, but the USA has so many things right with it in other areas, I think I may just have to stay and work within the system.

 

 

[Quixote]

OGE - i think you've spotted another point we can probably all agree on

 

Dunk-Head refers to the practice of actually being immersed at baptism (which isn't as an infant) - one of the things that sets us Baptists apart from the rest of you heathens.

[Quixote]

TJ,

 

The argument is that you can't have a NATIONAL organization if the membership standards are set in each local area. What you are proposing is a franchise without national membership standards which isn't going to happen.

 

What you are proposing on the surface sounds simple, but it is a slipery slope whether you recognize it or not. Implementing such a change would split the BSA even more than we are split on this board and would highlight the differences while at the same time the BSA would be relinquishing their moral ground - that's not likely to happen either.

[Bob White]

TJ

In response to your questions I give you this example. I have two brothers who are police officers. They swore to uphold the law. They chose their profession knowing what the laws were and that they could change at any time. What the laws used to be or may be someday is irrelavent. Their responsibility is to the laaws that apply today. Their approval or disapproval of the individual laws is irrelavent. There job is not to make or change the law. Their job is to maintain the rules that let the community function.

 

My father is a deacon in the catholic church. he accpted the resonsibility knowing the teachings and tenenets of the church and knowiing they could change at any time. What the future tenets will be is irrelavent. His responsibility is to the current teachings. He embraces the values of the church as his own or he would not accept the duties involved.

 

I take my responsibilities to my community and to scouting the same way. I volunteered to do this service and I agreed to use the methods and to follow the regulations as they are today. Not as they used to be or might be in the future.

 

I have been and am involved as a volunteer at many levels in scouting. I have a role in influencing scouting to a small degree on a national level. If I see the need for change I share it with the people responsible for affecting that change, I don't weaken the program by puffing my chest out and wailing in public or by using my methods rather than the scouting methods.

 

I would not embarass myself by belonging to an organization who's policies values I disagreed with, and I would not be so naive as to think I could violate an organizations rules and stay a member of that organization.

 

As a guest in your home I am bound by yopur rules. if I don't like them I can leave. If you don't like behavior you can make me leave. I don't get to stay because I think you are wrong.

 

A svolunteers we are guiests in BSA's house. NO it is not our house! The BSA was here before we came, it will be here when we are gone. If you don't like the house rules leave. If you don't follow the house rules you can be thrown out. You do not have a right to stay just because you think you are right.

 

You are here as a team player not a team owner. if you don't like the rules of the game you get to go play another game. You want to change the rules fine do it by the rules. Until then you don't get to play a different game or interrupt the game for others.

 

Bob White

[BubbaBear]

Quiote, I give you the United States of America...a national organization comprised of fifty defined sub-organizations known as states.

Each of these states have a supprotive role in the existence of the national organization, form their own local leadership and effectively handle their own internal problems through their own constitutions. Each provides support to each other in time of emergency, but at all times are aware of the necessity of loyalty and adherence to rules made by the parent organization. Some of the states impose capital punishment, some don't. Even still, they hold together as a nation. The strongest one in the world.

 

In the concluding remarks of the Citizenship in the Nation merit badge book, it states (speaking of the American political system): "This ...system has adapted to our changing society for more than two hundred years. The realities of American life often fall short of the noble ideals set forth in our great national documents, but a good citizen aspires to these goals."

 

We, as teachers of young men (and women) must not forget that the principles of Scouting are three-fold: Duty to God, Duty to Country and Duty to Self. If any of these three principles are single out as "more important", a biased individual will be formed. ( "a good citizen aspires to these ideals")

 

OGE, I owe you and all the other keepers of the faith an apology; I vowed that I would not try to quote scripture in my arguments but have obviously done so. Thank you for the quote you sent to me.

 

I have been stunned by my faith long ago and will never recover from it. I have a firm belief in God

and have faith in Him and Him only. The God I know is not vengeful, nor will he not allow people,whom have not had the opportunity to know him, be held back from heaven. I believe that we are all of the same God, although we know Him by different names.

 

I'll wager that all of you reading this and my past remarks view me differently.

 

BSA can create policy that delegates each CO to make their own determination of their membership. I would add that the members not organize against the BSA and its program in the sense of embarrassing activities and activities that undermine the overall policies and priciples of the BSA.

 

If the United States can do it, so can the BSA and its partners.

[Bob White]

Bubba, you fail to aknowledge that altho the individual states can "handle their own internal problems through their own constitutions", no state constitution can exceed the boundaries of the Federal constitution. Just as individual Charter organizations have a large amount of local authoriity they cannot exceed the limits set by the nation policies of the BSA. The Charter organizations voluntarily accept and agree to those policies each year at charter renewal. If they choose not to follow those policies they are not forced to have a scout unit. But if they choose to use scouting they must choose to use all of it.

 

Bob White

[tjhammer]

BobWhite says: I have been and am involved as a volunteer at many levels in scouting. I have a role in influencing scouting to a small degree on a national level. If I see the need for change I share it with the people responsible for affecting that change, I don't weaken the program by puffing my chest out and wailing in public or by using my methods rather than the scouting methods.Bob, I too have been a volunteer at many levels. I too have a role in influencing Scouting on a national level (I think I've said that before on this board). I have sat in national committee meetings for program, advancement and others. And while I was not in the room when the National Relationships Committee created this policy, I am friends with folks who were. (hence, Quixote, I do have some basis for my theory on the origins of this policy and its link to the Mormon Church).

 

I don't have this debate in "public" much, though I am very active in discussing it at other levels of Scouting. I think that there are two reasons why I chose to participate in this forum... the first is that I have witnessed this policy be created by small groups and without much real participation from the rank and file or parents. I thought that it was important to raise perspectives on this debate about why it is relevant with folks that truly represent Scouting in the field. It is a shame that BSA has never really consulted those folks, or its parents. (And before you argue that they have, remember I have already explained the exact steps this policy followed as it was being created and how the twenty member task force was appointed, so don't try to claim that BSA is just doing what its members and parents want, they have never fairly asked, and even ignored those that have objected, like the Methodist.)

 

Honestly, the other reason I decided to hold this debate is because I wanted to broaden my own perspective and sharpen my side of the argument in my own mind. My perspective was becoming pretty insular, and it has been very productive for me personally to learn many of the arguments my opponents will make (some quite uneducated and down right ridiculous, many others quite articulate and reasoned).

 

I did not decide to debate this here because I hoped such discussion on this board would actually change BSA's policy (though I can assure you that recently some folks from national levels have been reading these boards and paying particular interest, or so I have been told). I didn't really set out to change anyone's mind really (though providing a fair argument to those silent in the middle has been a nice byproduct for me). I also though that the local option solution was defensible against all arguments, and I wanted to confirm that by debating here with local leaders across the country (more on that in the next post).

 

 

As for the rest of your explanation about why we should all follow in step with whatever the policies, rules and whims of BSA are... your description of how we should interact with the world around us could probably be a quote from the Communist Manifesto. I doubt you are nearly as "I'll do whatever I am told, who am I to question" as you seem to suggest.

 

Your analogy about coming into someone else's house and making the rules is inapplicable. Scouting changed the house rules, and you and I were already living here. I'm not questioning the whether the house needs rules, I just don't like for some members to make up specific new rules as we go, especially when we've all previously agreed that no such rules would be made (Declaration of Religious Principles).

 

[tjhammer]

Quixote said: The argument is that you can't have a NATIONAL organization if the membership standards are set in each local area. What you are proposing is a franchise without national membership standards which isn't going to happen. Hogwash. That was the same argument used 15 years ago over whether local units should be allowed to appoint women to be Scoutmasters. And when the Mormon Church fought that policy change (for more than ten years) it was finally only resolved by the BSA acquiescence that they could set their own membership standards for their own local unit. It was exactly the same story and outcome regarding the age of Cub Scouts, in which the Mormon Church was allowed their own membership standard. Theres plenty of other examples.What you are proposing on the surface sounds simple, but it is a slippery slope whether you recognize it or not.Slippery slope is an impossible argument for either of us. Lets just focus on the real facts and the here and now, instead of assuming things without any real causal link.Implementing such a change would split the BSA even more than we are split on this board and would highlight the differencesYou know, I doubt it seriously. Theres just not that many gays looking to stay in Scouting or join If the policy were to change, I bet the vast majority of Scouting would go completely unaffected (and really not even know anything had happened). while at the same time the BSA would be relinquishing their moral groundAh, there in is the rub. This is really a lot about face now, at least with BSA national. I was so disappointed when they affirmed their policy about four months ago after studying a 20 member task force. The absolute best scenario in my mind would have been for the BSA to come out a year or so after the Supreme Court decision and say

 

"Now, we were right to win that case and determine our own standards. Now were affirming that our standards are controlled by the parents of our organization at the local level. Weve carefully studied this issue of gay members and leaders for years, and were certain that their participation in our program is not a physical threat to the boys. Now that we have been empowered by the Supreme Court, we in turn are empowering the really important people in our organization, the parents and local chartering partners, to assess the character and define moral standards for each individual applicant. Should they decide that a gay man, or a woman, or any other person is a good role model for their sons, and then we will support them in their choice." (There was even a few drafts as official press releases that more eloquently stated this and shared with BSA.)

 

If they would have done this, the issue would have disappeared overnight. The wind would have been removed from the sails of the activists. The ultra-conservatives would have been appeased (if not begrudgingly). And the image of the BSA would have remained intact. Unfortunately, now that they have affirmed their position that the ban is based on morality and done so after a supposedly broad, long-term and careful study (by twenty people who were predisposed to vote in favor of the ban in the first place) it will be very, very difficult for the BSA to do a public about face on this without looking foolish.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Quixote]

OGE, i was going to use that same example, but with the reference that the federal constitution and laws outweigh the state ones, not the other way around.

 

Same holds true in business - if i own a mcdonalds franchise and don't like the arches, i can't just take them down and call myself burger king. (although i could if i bought a happy meal with one of those hats my kids get)

 

YIS

Quixote