Hunt

"Hunt I believe that the BSA would accept the charter of a new unit where the CO was a white supremist church as quickly as they would one from a Baptist Church. Why, its plain and simple......money." You can't be serious. Even if BSA only cared about money, such a decision would cost the organization millions of dollars. DanKroh writes: "And yet, the BSA has allowed COs to be churches that don't believe in any god (Scientology) and that don't allow women to hold leadership positions (LDS). But has banned churches that would allow gays and atheists to join (UU). And it has only been since 1974 that LDS troops have officially discontinued the practice of denying leadership positions to black scouts." I don't think BSA banned UU churches from being COs, did it? It did refuse to accept their religious emblem program. Also, I think 1974 is pretty long ago in terms of the consensus view of racial discrimination. But I will agree that there is line-drawing here that is not entirely clear--why is it OK with BSA for some COs to decide that women shouldn't be leaders, but not OK for other COs to decide that gays can be leaders? That just takes us back to the murky question of whether BSA's values on these subjects are based on some underlying principles or rather on the consensus of the most powerful COs. But however you slice it, it should be obvious to anybody which side of the line a white suprematist CO would be.

"So here's my proposed solution. Make "marriage" a solely religious sacrament, like baptism and communion. It holds no legal recognition, and forms no legally binding contract. If a couple wants to have their relationship recognized by the government, they must file for a civil union, which carries all the legal/goverment benefits that a marriage contract currently covers, but is available to any consenting couple, no matter what their gender. That way, you have two separate entities. The civil union is the one recognized by law, and the marriage is recognized by religion." This idea will never fly, because it makes too much sense. Conservatives should like it because it gets the government out of our private lives, and liberals should like it because it increases personal freedom and choice. Why do I think that neither group would support it?

I would say that paid work is not a "service project" at all. That isn't adding to the requirement--it's giving a sensible meaning to the words "service project." I don't think anybody is claiming that the SM shouldn't apply any interpretation to the requirement at all, but simply that he shouldn't add conditions--in this case, turning the Life service requirement into a mini-Eagle project. I can imagine a SM rejecting proposed service projects as being inadequate for various reasons, but he shouldn't be setting preconditions like showing leadership. For one thing, that would mean that helping on another scout's Eagle project would never count for Life, and that is clearly wrong.

In my neverending thirst for knowledge, I Googled "Tot'n Chip" and "pocket flap" and found an opinion on another board (from 1998) that the Tot'n Chip patch is unofficial, and thus is no more than a temporary patch--the actual "Tot'n Chip" is the card, according to this. I then looked at ScoutStuff.org--BSA's supply site. They sell a Tot'n Chip patch, but the listing includes the following: "Note: This emblem is not for uniform wear." Hmmmm....

I'm willing to accept the dictate that the Tot'n Chip, although shaped like a pocket flap, and although it isn't really temporary, doesn't go on the pocket flap. But can anybody explain WHY it's shaped like a pocket flap? Is it a vestigial remnant of some past time when it DID go on the pocket flap?

"So they attack anything that has a moral context and implies homosexuality as immoral, the BSA included. They could really care less about the positive effects that an organization like the BSA has on cultural values because that doesnt help their cause." I don't understand why you find it somehow nefarious that people who believe that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong would attack BSA, which admittedly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. While you're perfectly free to disagree with them and their cause, it makes no sense to suggest that they should give BSA a pass because of all the good it does. Groups seeking racial equality wouldn't let a group that discriminated on the basis of race off the hook just because they did good in other areas, and why should they? I've noticed that when people get very polarized on an issue, they tend to think that the people on the other side don't "really" disagree, but are doing what they are doing out of some evil, ulterior motive. That leads both extemes to make arguments and accusations that are not very persuasive to people in the middle.

According to the dictionary definition below, a flugelhorn IS a bugle. What's more, it got its name from its use in battle to summon the flanks, or flugel. So it seems to me that a MBC for Bugling wouldn't be wrong for accepting it, and at least arguably would be wrong for not accepting it. Also (to be even more pedantic), bugles come in all sizes from soprano down to bass (used in drum and bugle corps)--certainly the low bugles wouldn't really be appropriate for single bugle calls, but would it be adding to requirement to insist that a boy use a regular bugle if he showed up with a bass bugle? I don't know. flugelhorn or fluegelhorn ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flgl-hrn) or flgelhorn (fl-) n. A bugle with valves, similar to the cornet but having a wider bore. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [German Flgelhorn : Flgel, flank (from its use to summon flanks during a battle) (from Middle High German vlgel, wing, flank. See pleu- in Indo-European Roots) + Horn, horn (from Middle High German, from Old High German. See ker-1 in Indo-European Roots).]

I think sometimes the adult troop leaders become disgusted with some aspect of the boy led activities, and there is a strong impulse to add requirements. This happened in my son's troop, when the patrol "cooking" deteriorated to such a degree that adults wanted to require the Cooking MB for the higher ranks. I pointed out that you couldn't really require it, but you could encourage it--the "requirement" sort of faded away, and as far as I know, only one boy actually obtained the Cooking MB as a result of this emphasis (mine). Cooking has improved, at least a little.

A clarification (maybe): While it is true that a parent may not sit on a Board of Review for his or her own child, an advancement report may include both ranks and merit badges--there would be nothing wrong with a parent (who is a registered committee member) sitting on the rank BOR for another scout, but turning in an advancement report that ALSO included a merit badge for his or her own child.

"The funny thing is I can see the BSA accepting a Troop or Pack who's Charter Organization is a white supremest church." No way. Not a chance. Not for one second would it even be considered. It's hard to believe that anyone who was involved with BSA could possibly believe that the organization would choose to destroy itself. Even if you believe that BSA makes its decisions entirely cynically, it wouldn't do this--it would drive other COs away in droves. I think most in BSA would also think that it would be unethical and against the values of BSA to accept such a church as a CO--and the fact that BSA is "non-sectarian" wouldn't change that.

The anti-same-sex amendment is such a transparently phony political ploy that it almost qualifies as an intelligence test for anybody who takes it seriously. The Republicans know that it isn't going anywhere, and most of them don't really care about it, but they hope to energize their "base." Kmiec must know this too, if he's really a professor.

"...do you believe that the Bible should be used to determine BSA policy at a national level? I think it's fair to turn this question around. If you think that BSA should base its ethical policies on the doctrine of one religion, or even of a majority of religious, what should it base them on? And if you want to leave that to the CO, how should BSA decide which COs are ethically OK? What would be the proper mechanism or thought-process for BSA to go through if, say, a white supremacist church wanted to be a CO and have a white-only unit? It seems to me that you're either left relying on a consensus of BSA decisionmakers, or you have to refer to some external source of ethics. I find it difficult to think of any truly non-sectarian way of doing this other than taking a vote.

I don't know about in Minnesota, but in most places the leaders of the Methodist Church are significantly more liberal than the rank-and-file members. There would probably be a signficant schism of the church if the National church changed its position on this issue. It would be extremely ugly, too, because of the way the church properties are owned.

Ed, the difference between your two conversations is that one starts with a rude and improper question, and the other doesn't. I can't understand why you refuse to see this. It is like the difference between asking, "Tell me about how you earned the Camping merit badge," and "Did you lie to the counselor to get the Camping merit badge?" Now, if you ask a boy how he earned the Camping merit badge, and he confesses he lied to get it, you'd have to deal with that--and if you ask him how he does his duty to God, and he confesses he doesn't believe in God, you'd have to deal with that too. But a BOR is not an inquisition.

So Ed, do you think all COs should be required to exclude all adults from unit leadership if they have had an affair? And would you also kick out heterosexual couples who are infertile and used a sperm or egg donor? The problem here is that people don't agree on what "family values" are, but BSA has made a declaration on one issue without making it clear what the basis is. Why listen to the churches who say that gay people can't be good leaders, but not those who say that divorced people are just as bad? Trevorum, don't confuse the gay issue and the religion issue. The Dale case was about the gay issue, and really has nothing to do with school sponsorship of units--that's the religion issue. I suppose the Dale case may have sparked more attention to both issues, but if BSA only excluded gay leaders, it wouldn't be unconstitutional for schools to sponsor units, because sexual orientation is not a protected class under the federal Constitution.

Also, you have to read the words of the requirement together. It clearly states that "For Star and Life ranks, a Scout must perform 6 hours of service to others. This may be done as an individual project or as a member of a patrol or troop project." I don't think this gives the SM to refuse to approve a project just because the candidate isn't leading it--i.e., if he's just a "member" of a troop project. I suspect this is yet another troop trying to slow down boys who might otherwise advance to higher ranks "too soon."

My son explained to me that he considered Scout Camp to be his real vacation, and that he wanted some time to relax. I would have liked him to accomplish more--but in retrospect, what better place for a vacation?

I think Barry makes a good point. I was going to suggest that maybe the DRP should just say that all members must be willing to subscribe to the Oath and Law, but rereading the DRP, I think its main purpose is to emphasize the non-sectarian nature of the religious requirement, so that duty to God in the oath can't be used against somebody worshipping the wrong God. I'm not aware of any cases involving people who were close to the line drawn in the DRP, who were relieved of membership in BSA. (The closest case is the Wiccan boy, but that was a unit error.)

It disresses me that this has come up again, because it should be so obvious to anyone that asking a boy in a BOR of review "do you believe in God" is not only improper, but neither courteous nor friendly nor kind. It's improper because the BOR is not the venue to determine whether a boy meets the membership requirements of BSA--would you verify that he's really male? It's rude and unfriendly because it's an aggressive question that suggests he's a liar when he recites the oath and law. The right way to address the issue is to ask him to discuss how he fulfills his duty to God, or how he lives out the "reverent" element of the Scout Law. And when he goes to fill out his Eagle application, he can put down his parent's name if he doesn't have a formal religious affiliation.

When my son was in Cubs, several families, including a den leader, left the Pack when the Dale decision came out and BSA's position was publicized. So yes, it does come up. Eamonn's analysis, I think, is most likely correct: BSA's position is what it is because it is the position of the largest and/or most influential of BSA's chartering partners. BSA won't change its position unless they do.

Poor Frist. It just won't help. His Presidential hopes have gone up in smoke, so to speak. He just hasn't turned out to be the kind of figure he might have been. I think the Schiavo case was the beginning of the end for him.

"How would the program suffer if we got rid of the hypocrisy? Massive membership loss. Soon as we admit gays, all the conservative Christian groups will drop out." Maybe, but I doubt it. Those who are against a change in the policy always seem to imagine that the new policy would require that all units allow gay leaders and scouts. That is highly unlikely. Rather, a change in the policy would more likely allow Charter Organizations to make the decision on whether the units they own will allow gay leaders and scouts--just as they already do with other membership requirements. COs can already restrict membership to members of a particular religion, can decline to have female leaders, and can essentially set whatever membership requirements they like (although I don't think they can exclude on the basis of race). If BSA relaxed this restriction, only a small subset of COs would allow gay leaders and scouts. Would the large COs really torpedo the who program over that? I also tend to think there would not be a stampede of gay folks joining units, so the impact on probably 99% of actual scouts and leaders would be zilch.

"Hunt, I disagree completely. The DRP says that atheists cannot be the best kinds of citizens; at best, they can be second-class citizens. I call that denegrating." I didn't see the reference to second-class citizens in the DRP. Good luck convincing anybody that this statement is some kind of terrible insult. As I've pointed out, it's very similar to what the American Atheists say about people who don't put humanism first. "Hunt I am confused by your: "Merlyn, do you think the Roman Catholic Church denigrates atheists by refusing to allow them to receive Mass?" Why would an atheist be upset for not being allowed to receive Mass?" I don't know--maybe their local Catholic Church organizes a lot of fun camping trips restricted to members of the church. After all, although people know that BSA is a club for people who believe in God, there seem to be people who don't believe in God who would like to join because of all the other cool things scouts do. The point is that it's simply an absurd stretch to claim that a group is "denigrating" others with it claims that following its own beliefs makes you a better person. As I pointed out, I don't feel "denigrated" because Catholics think my brand of Christianity is inferior to theirs--although I don't agree with them.

C'mon, Brent--anybody whose been involved in Scouting for very long knows people who received the Silver Beaver for long years of selfless giving to Scouting. The Silver Buffalo being given to current political leaders is a totally different thing. It relates, apparently, to actions taken in their official capacities--and its being given to a person who still has the power to use his official capacity to BSA's benefit. It may not be wrong, exactly, but in my opinion it's a lot cheesier than giving a Silver Beaver to a guy who's been a scoutmaster for 40 years. Maybe there are cheesy Silver Beavers, too, I don't know.

"Hunt, the BSA denegrates atheists via their DRP, which says that only theist members can be the best kinds of citizens." "Denigrate" means "To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame. To disparage; belittle." The DRP simply doesn't rise to this level--it's really no different from the Roman Catholics believing that they are the best kind of Christians. I don't agree, but I don't feel denigrated by that simple belief. BSA is not on a campaign to badmouth atheists--they just don't let atheists join the club, because they think the atheists are wrong about something important. There are lots of clubs that restrict membership to those who agree with them--take a look at the statement of principles that one must agree to in order to be a member of the American Atheists, Inc., and you will see that it "denigrates" believers in the supernatural in the same way that BSA's DRP "denigrates" nonbelievers. That is, it doesn't, really, although it makes it clear that those who are not materialists are misguided.