Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by erickelly65

  1. fgoodwin,

    Im just telling you what the BSA has posted on the matter themselves at their own Website. Nothing more, nothing less.


    The point of my post, wasnt so much a legal opinion (I am a proud non-lawyer!) but rather a counter statement to the post earlier that pohsuwed had done something dishonest by using BSA logos on his website. I argue that isnt necessarily the case based on what the BSA's Website states about the use of its logos/images.


    I see a significant number of "rants" here when it comes to a scout being "Trustworthy" but based on the tone and language of these same post folks don't seem to place much stock in the fact Scouts are also supposed to friendly, courteous, kind and cheerful.


    (This message has been edited by erickelly65)

  2. Based on what is posted at the National Website regarding BSA copyright and trademark protection, there is no requirement to get approval prior to using BSA logos etc as long as they are displayed. (See below)


    From what I can tell from looking at other 3rd party Websites, all that is required is a disclaimer stating this is not an official BSA site.









    Copyright and Trademark Protection

    The trademarks and logos of the Boy Scouts of America are protected by a 1916 act of Congress (36 U.S.C. 27) as well as by a variety of registrations with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The 1916 act specifically gives the Boy Scouts of America the sole and exclusive right to use its "emblems, badges, descriptive and designating marks" in connection with carrying out its purposes.


    These and all art or logotypes obtained from the National Council, Boy Scouts of America, are the exclusive property of the Boy Scouts of America and must be used and displayed as shown in this manual or official artwork unless otherwise stated in writing from an authorized officer of the Boy Scouts of America. In other words, they must appear with any ownership symbols exactly as received, and no additional symbols are to appear in connection with them.


    If the manual or official artwork indicates that the artwork or logotype is the subject of a U.S. Trademark Registration Certificate, then it should appear with the symbol. It is customary that the symbol is used once in the headline of an advertisement (if it is used in an ad or a poster) and then the first time it is used in the text.


    The symbol is placed on the upper right-hand shoulder of the last letter of the trademark (if it is a word mark) or on the upper right-hand shoulder of the symbol (if it is a design mark) and in a size that is approximately one-third the size of the largest letter or element in the trademark (but never so small that it can't be read).


    It is also desirable, but not as critical, to place a statement at the bottom of any advertisement or poster that clearly identifies trademarks or design marks of the Boy Scouts of America. This might read as follows:


    "BE PREPARED is a registered trademark of the Boy Scouts of America."


    If you have any questions concerning correct trademark usage, please contact the Custom Communication Division at the national office for further guidance.



  3. I have all my training completed and always have for all the positions I have held. Having said that, I do find the BSA approach annoying with regard to record keeping. They have taken attendance and documented every class I've attend. So where did that data go? Every year as part of our recharter packet we turn in a leader training history. Where does that data go?


    I typically dont have much tolerance for professionals and organizations that can't keep their administrative and business process house in order. The council's and BSA should be breaking their backs to make life easy for volunteer instead of continuously dumping more and more inane bureucratic hoops to jump through.(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

  4. The first portion of the email is, in fact, from Ben Stein. The later part an addition written by someone else.


    From Ben Stien's Website:



    Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart:


    I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is, either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife.


    Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. Is this what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.


    Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.


    I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.


    Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?


    I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.




  5. I think if the scouts got persmission from the owners of the facilities (where the polling places were located) after they had agreed to serve as polling places (and therefore, I assume they agreed abide the polling rules) then the error falls on the owners of the facilities not the scouts.


    Also, per the Boston Herald article, this wasnt an Eagle project but just a service project being done by the Scouts. In addition this article claims it wasnt that the Scouts hadnt obtained proper approval but that the Election Commission was unable to confirm they had recieved approval. (big difference)


    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1045046(This message has been edited by erickelly65)


    Here is an op ed piece claiming that there were other "political" flyers on display at the Polling places of a more "anti-war" nature that were not removed.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1044992(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

  6. You probably will be able to confirm it from some governmental website, too, unless you prefer to believe that your own government is forging statistics just because you don't want to believe...cool.

    But nevertheless, let's get on with the BSA and their right to discriminate.


    What the heck are you talking about. So far, you've substantiated nothing you've said other then its in some "Federal almanach" or on "some governmental website". You dont get to make sweeping generalizations and leave it up to others disprove it.


    Now, if you have read much of anything I have written on this forum about the issue of homosexuality, you'd know I think the BSA should reconsider its stance with regard to membership.


    I do disagree your assertion that this represent oppressive discriminition and your whole melodramatic "they came for the Gays" speech is just ridiculous. That just doesnt fit here.


    This is about freedom of association. The BSA has a right to set its membership policies. There are many views on how this should be handled.

    There are those that think the program should keep its stance on gays, some that would like to see it changed but stayed in BSA and others that may have left.


    It drives me nuts when people build their argument and view on the fallacious foundation of "what I think is right" so anyone that disagrees with me must do so because they are: "simple-minded", or so backwards as to never have left their "State boundaries", or don't care about discrimination, or......


    Come up with some real reasons why the program should change....not name-calling. (I know there are some because I agree that policy should change.)

  7. The key executives of large charitable organizations have large organization's to run and large issues with which to deal. Therefore, you would expect them to compensated for their work.


    Everything I have read leads me to believe that, while BSA execs are well paid, their salaries arent out of line with other charities. For example the head of United Way (National)made just shy of$400k in 2003.



    And, per Charity Navigator, the head of the ACLU made $300K.


    In 2005, Bill Lucas (then head of my council (SHAC)), made $285k (with a $16MM budget)

    That same year, Mary Vitek (head of our local GSUSA (San Jacinto Council), made $185K (with a $11MM budget)

    In 2006, Clark Baker (head of Houston's YMCA's) made $487,802






  8. From Merlyns earlier post


    I had written "However, in the early comments in this thread it was stated that the BSA's statement was "denigrating" to Atheists. I in no way think it meets that definition in fact, tone or intent."


    Merlyn's reply "Well, I think it does. Saying only theists can be the best kinds of citizens is belittling to non-theists"



    Well ol Merl', to parrot back what you wrote to me In your post:

    RE: Philly raises scouts rent $199,999/year

    Posted: Wednesday, 10/24/2007: 9:39:52 PM


    And I quote "Oh, too damn bad."



    I originally wrote:

    The program can't include a duty to God and a requirement for Reverence for some and not others so what I am hearing is: To bad for you, your wants/rights/wishes are less important then others."



    Packsaddle wrote:

    Really? If it wasn't a requirement wouldn't you continue your religious practices anyway as a personal conviction? For you, in particular, I would think that the 'requirement' is unnecessary. And if unnecessary for you, then why for anyone?


    My responses:


    The issue isnt if I would/could continue my religious practices but if I can continue them within the outside organization known as BSA. I was brought up in a family that utilized the scouting program as a key tool to develop my faith. I can not do the same for my son in a program that is so secular as to soften its stance and say I believe in a duty to God or not (as long as no one gets offended)


    This isnt an issue of I like chocolate and you like vanilla, its one of A or B not both. It is impossible for scouting to have an element that teaches faith is important and faith isnt important at the same time.


    Packsaddle wrote:

    How would a local option preclude you from ANYTHING? It seems to me that local option would actually allow even greater personal freedom...for everyone.


    My response:

    First, this whole concept of Local option is a non-starter. We have a unified scouting program or we dont. Even if we did keep scouting in the same form as it is today but allow the extent of local option I believe you are alluding to, what would we do when it came time for district events, or council or regional or national events. Would we have the atheist Jamboree and the theist Jamboree? These differences may be insignificant to you but they are very major to me.


    Would we have a local option on the Scout oath and law too? Some would say Do my duty to my God and my country, other Do my duty to my country, other Do my duty to nobody?


    I just dont think this one size fits all approach will work.



    Packsaddle wrote:

    Getting back to that part of imposing one view on another: you already have the freedom to pursue your personal beliefs and religious practices. How does another person's difference in these matters detract from what you do? And If you want to require this of everyone else, why? For matters of faith, why not let everyone have the personal freedom to choose what they think?


    My answer:

    Of course I have the freedom to pursue my personal beliefs and religious practices, What I am saying is that secularizing the program this way will preclude that free exercise within scouting, with other like minded scouters and scouts. I grew up in a scouting program that held faith to be important, why should I change. People are free to choose otherwise, why must I change MY scouting program to accommodate them. Let them create their own secular scouting program.



    Packsaddle wrote?

    How would you be required to "give up" using the scouting program? You would still be free to practice your personal faith. In that respect nothing would change. It seems to me that if you gave it up, it would have to be a matter of choice on your part although I don't understand why. But definitely not a requirement.


    My response:

    I wouldnt be required to give up the scouting program. I would however be unable to utilize scouting to promote the religious views I espouse to my son. As I have said earlier, scouting would become just one more secular youth organization.


  10. You wrote in response to the BSA statement on the "Best kind of citizen"


    I don't believe that statement is meant as offensive. However, I do believe some people might be offended by it.


    However, in the early comments in this thread it was stated that the BSA's statement was "denigrating" to Atheists. I in no way think it meets that definition in fact, tone or intent.



    1 : to attack the reputation of : defame

  11. "I am hearing people tell me there is no room in society for a group like this I find that unacceptable."

    I am curious as to why is it unacceptable for someone else to express an opinion different from yours?


    Certainly people can have whatever opinion they like. However, the opinion i find being expressed in this case is pushing for changes to a program that, in my opinion, preclude me from instilling through scouting the beliefs and social norms I find so important.


    The program include a duty to God and a requirement for Reverence for some and not others so what I am hearing is: To bad for you, your wants/rights/wishes are less important then others.


    This is in distinct contrast to some other changes others might want in the scouting program.

    Such as allowing women to become Scoutmasters,

    Allowing homosexuals as members/leaders,

    Opening the younger programs up to girls, etc.


    I may or may not agree with the above items but none of those changes would require me to "give up" using the scouting program to accomplish the goals I have mentioned in the above posts. To allow atheists to participate, the program would have to drop elements of faith expressed in the current program. That I find unacceptable.

  • Create New...