I would put most of that letter in the "chicken little" category, but I would like to clarify something regarding the Boy Scouts. First, adults don't share tents with boys. Period. Second, scout leadership is ALWAYS two deep. Adult scout leaders are never alone with the boys. Third, there is a difference between being homosexual and being a child molester. I don't understand people that use fear and ignorance to lump the two together.

You can put the letter wherever you want to put it.

 

I didn't LUMP homosexual and child molester together out of fear and ignorance, I simply read the words of the former Boy Scout leader who was convicted for molesting a 10 year-old boy, and is still complaining that he ( and homosexual men like him ) can't be Boy Scout leaders.

 

I posted this factual article as an example for UKPat02 that the claims in the letter, though seemingly far-fetched, are not without real world precedent.

 

For the record, I don't think its a good idea for women like Mary Kay Letourneau and Debra Lafave to be scout leaders either... so I'm not just discriminating against male pedophiles okay? :thumb:

 

I don't understand how it's "Chicken Little" to view actual facts, interpret them on their merits, understand the worldview that allows them to flourish, and be concerned that more of that worldview could lead to greater permissiveness of such lifestyles and growth in what many of us deem a harmful worldview.

 

Please educate me as to what I am missing here in my vast ignorance?

You can put the letter wherever you want to put it.?

Hmmm, naw too easy.

 

QUOTE=Please educate me as to what I am missing here in my vast ignorance?

 

It would appear that you are ignorant of any knowledge of boy scout procedures.

Hmmm, naw too easy.

 

It would appear that you are ignorant of any knowledge of boy scout procedures.

It would amaze you what I do know about the Boy Scouts, and why I support their mission.

 

The fact is however, I don't have to know one sentence of their mission statement to understand that it's not what goes on within the Scouts that is the issue here. It is the ongoing social experimentation of a fallen and failing culture that is putting pressure on the Boy Scouts to adapt to this new worldview. The problem is outside of the Boy Scout organization, not within.

 

I don't know what your experience with the Scouts is or was, but in my experience "sex" of any type had nothing to do with it. Attempting to force a private organization dedicated to teaching boys moral and ethical values to accommodate individuals who identify themselves with disparate and potentially harmful values is absurd. The fact that in 2000, the US Supreme Court affirmed the Scouts status as a private organization with the right to establish their own standards of governance and membership by the slimmest margin of 5-4 brings little comfort when one considers that a more liberal court, by changing only one vote could rule against the Scouts.

 

Under this scenario, I can very easily see the Scouts, as an organization truly committed to honor, morals and ethics, disbanding rather than caving in to the ridiculous and immoral demands of a sinful culture.

 

A flawless knowledge of Boy Scout procedures would do little to alter my opinion on this matter.

 

On my honor I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country

and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong,

mentally awake, and morally straight.

 

I still remember it.

 

These kids need and deserve “morally straight” leaders who will help establish them on a solid foundation for life.

It would amaze you what I do know about the Boy Scouts, and why I support their mission.

 

The fact is however, I don't have to know one sentence of their mission statement to understand that it's not what goes on within the Scouts that is the issue here. It is the ongoing social experimentation of a fallen and failing culture that is putting pressure on the Boy Scouts to adapt to this new worldview. The problem is outside of the Boy Scout organization, not within.

 

I don't know what your experience with the Scouts is or was, but in my experience "sex" of any type had nothing to do with it. Attempting to force a private organization dedicated to teaching boys moral and ethical values to accommodate individuals who identify themselves with disparate and potentially harmful values is absurd. The fact that in 2000, the US Supreme Court affirmed the Scouts status as a private organization with the right to establish their own standards of governance and membership by the slimmest margin of 5-4 brings little comfort when one considers that a more liberal court, by changing only one vote could rule against the Scouts.

 

Under this scenario, I can very easily see the Scouts, as an organization truly committed to honor, morals and ethics, disbanding rather than caving in to the ridiculous and immoral demands of a sinful culture.

 

A flawless knowledge of Boy Scout procedures would do little to alter my opinion on this matter.

 

On my honor I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country

and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong,

mentally awake, and morally straight.

 

I still remember it.

 

These kids need and deserve “morally straight” leaders who will help establish them on a solid foundation for life.

The letter speculated that the courts would have homosexual men sleeping in tents with small boys. If you believe that tripe you don't know scout procedures. As for my experience with the scouts, I raised two eagle scouts, one scout master, taught several merit badges, sat on too many review boards to count and spent many years on the troop committee. I believe I understand the scout mission.

The letter speculated that the courts would have homosexual men sleeping in tents with small boys. If you believe that tripe you don't know scout procedures. As for my experience with the scouts, I raised two eagle scouts, one scout master, taught several merit badges, sat on too many review boards to count and spent many years on the troop committee. I believe I understand the scout mission.

Kudos on your commitment and contributions to scouting. I mean that sincerely. :thumb:

 

To be completely technical the premise was, "Boy scouts disband because Supreme Court forces them to hire homosexual scout leaders who will "sleep in tents with them." The key to this statement to me was that the Supremes would force the scouts to accept gay scout leaders, not force the scouts to have the leaders sleep with the boys... and for this reason they would rather disband than compromise.

 

Since we seem to be bantering over technicalities, let me cut to the chase. Are you in favor of permitting openly gay scout leaders or not?

Edited October 26, 200817 yr by Fastbreak

Kudos on your commitment and contributions to scouting. I mean that sincerely. :thumb:

 

To be completely technical the premise was, "Boy scouts disband because Supreme Court forces them to hire homosexual scout leaders who will "sleep in tents with them." The key to this statement to me was that the Supremes would force the scouts to accept gay scout leaders, not force the scouts to have the leaders sleep with the boys... and for this reason they would rather disband than compromise.

 

Since we seem to be bantering over technicalities, let me cut to the chase. Are you in favor of permitting openly gay scout leaders or not?

 

No cutting to the chase would be "why do you think an Obama presdency would lead to the supreme court making this decision? It is all speculation and meant to scare voters. No one can honestly make that jump.

I laughed, I cried, and really I didn't do either because I used common sense to realize that the US of Apocolypse is not going to happen under the reign of either McCain or Obama.

 

As far as scouts go, as an Eagle scout, I wouldn't care if a leader is homosexual. Just because they're gay doesn't mean they're into kids. It's one part of their life, and it's a part I don't need to know about anyway.

No cutting to the chase would be "why do you think an Obama presdency would lead to the supreme court making this decision? It is all speculation and meant to scare voters. No one can honestly make that jump.

I outlined it in detail in the first two items of post 12. I assure you there is no wild-eyed "speculation" or "grasping at straws conclusions" needed to scare the daylights out of informed voters about an Obama presidency. Everything I posted leading to the possible conclusion of the Supreme Court forcing the Boy Scouts to accept gay scout leaders is based entirely upon factual information and is as accurate as your local weatherman (the friendly kind at the TV station not the 1960s terrorists) observing specific events develop and predicting that when these conditions occur it almost always rains the next day, and then telling you so on the news tonight. Does that mean it is 100% certain to rain tomorrw... no, but it certainly could. If you want to head out without your umbrella, that's your call.

 

Unfortunately, informed voters are outnumbered by uninformed voters excited to finally get their piece of the "95% of Americans" pie (lie) that somebody else worked to bake. They don't care about such consequences, as long as they get their piece of the pie, and we finally get rid of that Bush guy.

 

I'll make it easy for you... in summary,

• In 2000, a balanced court ruled 5-4 in favor of the scouts having the right to prohibit gay scout leaders.
  
• Altering only one vote would render the same close decision 5-4 against the scouts.
  
• There are easily 4 justices that could retire over the next four years due to age issues alone.
  
• There is absolutely no shred of doubt that Obama and a filibuster proof Democrat Congress would not appoint anything but liberal judges to the court.
  
• It is entirely conceivable that the court could go from a 4-4-1 balance to a liberal slant over the next four years.
  
• There is little doubt in many minds that a liberal leaning supreme court would be more likely to rule in favor of forcing the scouts to accept gay scout leaders.
  
• There is little doubt, at least in my mind, that an organization dedicated to instilling the highest moral virtues in the young men it serves would rather disband, than be forced to compromise those virtues.
  

Since you've basically called me dishonest and a fear-monger, please tell me what I've posted that is completely out-in-left-field on this?

 

If you and others are so enthralled with Obama, that you can't acknowledge that this is a very real and "honest" assessment of a possible pregression of events, I have a suggestion for a new mascot to replace the traditional Democrat donkey:

 

Since we seem to be bantering over technicalities, let me cut to the chase. Are you in favor of permitting openly gay scout leaders or not?

 

My answer is in two parts. First, as a private organization I believe that the scouts have the right to make the call on their own. Second, I think that the scouts got this one wrong. I have no problem with gay scout leaders or especially gay scouts.