Hunt

"Im not 100% convinced that its the moral high ground to provide murderous and vile men with a bed, three meals a day, and other comforts, while they withhold information that will lead to the eventual torture and killing of innocent men, women, and children." Let me try this from another angle that might help. One of the brightest characteristics of our national system is that we are have a government of laws, not of men. What this means is that there is no king--no person who has discretionary power over everyone else. All the elements of our government have checks and balances, and oversight. We elect our leaders, and even the unelected leaders can be removed. If Congress were to pass a law authorizing torture under certain specified circumstances, requiring a decision by a judge, say, as it does for a search warrant---that would be one thing. I would strongly disagree with it, and I would urge my representatives to vote against it. I might assist in efforts to have it declared unconstitutional. But to learn that agents of our government are secretly torturing prisoners in overseas prisons without any kind of review or oversight, is something else entirely. It is an example of government by men, not laws. It's government by shadowy men who act on their own, without anyone or anything to restrain them. There's no way to know or verify if they're making the right decisions, or to punish them if they do wrong. And once the CIA does this overseas, what's to stop the FBI or your local police department from doing it here, with US citizens? So the argument is that this practice is un-American, not just because torture is un-American, but because giving that kind of power to a few hidden men is un-American.

"That sounds reasonable enough to me. Now all the boy has to do is figure out what his duty to God (or higher being) is, and do it." I think many people may find it easier to figure out what the duty is than to figure out the nature of the higher power. For example, treating others with kindness, protecting the environment, etc.--so many things are common to multiple religious traditions. Because BSA is nonsectarian, I don't think we can assume that duty to God must include some kind of religious observation, such as prayer or ritual.

Acco, I wouldn't read that requirement to require a patrol (not troop) campout. I think it simply reflects use of the patrol method on campouts--compare it to several of the rank requirements. And, if you want to get really literal, the requirement doesn't require the boy to go on this particular campout, just to prepare for it. (Many MBs have such oddities, where boys have to plan something, but don't have to actually do it.) And AvidSM, you say "It says nights of summer (long-term) camp also count in an outdoor tent." It might be clearer if that's what the requirement said, but it isn't. As noted before, the requirement says: "Sleep each night under the sky or in a tent you have pitched (long-term camp excluded)." Your interpretation is one of several possible interpretations of these words. Many people have interpreted this to mean that the limitations on where you are to sleep don't apply to summer camp. The difficulty is that there are two values that BSA is trying to promote here: "roughing it," and encouraging attendance at summer camp--and they can be a bit in conflict.

I was thinking about the issue of "pushing" Life scouts to finish up their Eagle requirements. I agree that they have to want it for themselves, but I do think that there are ways adults can be helpful without usurping the scout's responsibility. First of all, I think it's important to remember that teens don't have the long-term, big-picture view that adults do. They often have trouble with long-term planning, and with understanding the long-term impacts of short-term decisions. We can help them understand that better. I also think that this kind of help may be more useful and effective from an adult who is not the scout's parent. If I talk to a Life scout who is not my son, I may point out to him that he still needs the First Aid MB, and that it's being offered at an upcoming event--but I'm not personally invested in what he does next--it's up to him. With my own son it's harder to keep that separate. I was reading a parenting book recently that made this point. If a kid who's not your child tells you he got a D on a test, you might say, "Well, I'll bet you'll study harder next time, right?" You might even offer to help him if you can. If you're the parent, however, you'll point out to him that this D will affect his grade for the course, which will affect his grade point average, which will affect his ability to get into the college he wants, etc, etc. In my own family, I finally had to ask my wife to stop talking to my son about the things he needed to do for advancements--she just couldn't resist pushing him, and he responded with typical teenage resistance. Finally, she had to go cold turkey, and just leave that particular interaction to me and to other leaders in the troop. I've tried to restrain myself from pushing, and so far he's doing nicely. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a happy medium between pushing a boy too much, and just letting him hang out there on his own. I'd describe it as helping him understand long-term planning and impacts.

"It means I believe in something higher than me, I'm just not sure what that is". This may be within the broad common understanding of what an "agnostic" is, although it is probably not within the dictionary definition. I think that a person with the belief stated above can subscribe to BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle, at least if he recognizes an obligation or duty to this higher power. That's all the Declaration calls for--it doesn't use labels like agnostic (or even atheist)--it focuses on whether the individual recognizes an obligation to God, and professes to be non-sectarian as to what exactly that entails. And just to bring this back on topic, the following is from the Unitarian/Universalist website: Do Unitarian Universalists say grace? If so, what are some UU table graces? That depends on which Unitarian Universalist you ask. Some do, some don't. Our congregations don't require their members to say grace before eating. As with all religious practices, the decision about whether to adopt this ritual is left to the individual. A small collection of UU table graces can be found in the Handbook of Religious Services, available from the UUA Bookstore: http://www.uua.org/bookstore/ Here are two sample graces from that collection: "May the love we share around this table with family and friends renew us in spirit. May the spirit of hope, joy, peace, and love dwell within our hearts This day and forever more. Amen." "A circle of friends is a blessed thing; Sweet is the breaking of bread with friends; For the honor of their presence at our board We are deeply grateful." (This message has been edited by Hunt)

"I am now free to own a gun with out having to take a test and I have the right to retain that freedom." My point is that you have no such right, beyond the general right to do anything that isn't currently against the law. It's like your right to build a hog-rendering plant on your property. You have the right to do that, unless there's a law that says you can't. The legislature can pass a law banning hog-rendering plants in residential areas, taking away your right to build one. (I should clarify the above by saying that you may have a right to own a gun under some STATE constitutions; you just don't have a right to own a gun under the federal constititution if the state wants to deny you that right.) As for the GPS in your cell phone--I share your concern, but I would point out that the people who want to put the GPS in your phone--the ones who pushed the Patriot Act--are not the same people who want to take your gun away.

"Thanks to all who replied. It will be a surprise, and there is NO WAY I would cut up his shirt unless I wanted to end up in divorce court! :-)" Are you sure he doesn't surrepticiously go and put the shirt on once in a while? (For many of us, unfortunately, this would be an impossibility.)

It seems to me that it doesn't matter what the dictionary or any other reference says an agnostic is--what matters is what the boy means when he says this. He may just mean that he's having some doubts about the existence of God. He may really mean that he's having doubts about the particular beliefs of his family's religion. In other words, if you probe, you may indeed find that he's an atheist, but you may also find that he's a Unitarian.

Thinking it's OK to torture "insurgents" because they aren't "innocent" is pretty far down the slippery slope, in my opinion. First of all, who's deciding that they are "insurgents?" That they're not "innocent?" That torturing them has a reasonable likelihood of "saving lives?" It's certainly not a court, and there doesn't seem to be any review of these decisions, either. I realize that innocent people get hurt and killed in wars--but the deliberate torturing of a person who has never been convicted of any crime is so un-American it makes me ill. I have to say that the news of secret torture prisons run by the CIA really shocked me. Have we really sunk this far?

Longhaul, I just don't see the distinction between guns and cars in most of the arguments you are making. We are all "lumped in" with the bad drivers when we are forced to take mandatory driving classes and pass a test. The only difference I can see is that most of us aren't afraid that those reasonable restrictions are the secret beginnings of a plot to take away our right to drive at all. I should also add that most of these arguments are based on a "freedom" or "right" that simply doesn't exist in our law. Your freedom to carry a gun goes only as far your ability to convince your state legislature to allow you to do it. As a result, you have to persuade the majority why they would be better off with things the way you'd like them to be.

"I will ask our SM tonight what the Troop's policy is on parents acting as merit badge counselors for their own son." Don't ask--this is down in black and white in the BSA advancement materials--it's allowed. Just tell the SM you'd like to do it, unless somebody else would like to step up.

For some more info on why states can't infringe your rights of free speech, but can take away your guns, see: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm In a nutshell, the issue is which of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were "incorporated" in the Fourteenth Amendment. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, and in 1876 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment was not incorporated. The Supreme Court has never revisited that decision (nor is it likely to do so).

"Making me pass a test to drive a car does not stop unlicensed drivers. It does not stop misuse of automobiles." Making people pass a test to drive a car probably does reduce the misuse of automobiles, at least by licensed drivers. I have no doubt that the mandatory driver's education course I took in high school made me a safer driver. The same would certainly be true of mandatory safety training for would-be gun owners. Just as gruesome Ohio Highway Patrol photos helped me understand the risks of unsafe driving, would-be gun owners could be shown gruesome photos of kids who played with licensed guns that were not adequately secured. If anybody who wanted to own a gun was required to take a brief safety course, and take a test comparable in difficulty to the driving test, who would be prevented from owning a gun? Only people who refused to take the course for whatever reason, and people whose level of competency should preclude them from having a gun in the first place. And, it would provide a level of basic safety education to the people who did obtain licenses. The course could include a section on how to reduce the likelihood that your gun will be stolen by criminals, too.

I would just like to add a word of caution, just in case this is intended to be a surprise gift--I wouldn't cut or glue anything with respect to these uniforms unless your husband is aware you're doing it.

In our district, a MBC has the option of indicating that he or she only wants to work with the scouts in a particular unit. I don't think anybody has mentioned that there is nothing preventing you from registering to counsel this MB yourself, if you think you're qualified. You can counsel your own son.

I am genuinely perplexed that Rooster, of all people, is championing moral relativism. Are there no values that you wouldn't abandon to "save lives?" Would you kill or torture an innocent person in order to influence the person with information? Would you deny your religious faith in order to save the lives of you and your family? I admit that many people's values would waver and probably crumble in the face of terrible choices--but would you really have contempt for a person whose values didn't waver in such a situation?

Kahuna, the following article has links to Supreme Court cases on this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ The most recent case cited, from the Seventh Circuit in 1982 (cert. denied by the Supreme Court, can be read at: http://www.healylaw.com/cases/quilici.htm This opinion, written by a Nixon appointee, clearly holds that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, under ruling Supreme Court precedent. It goes on to hold that even if it did apply to the states, it wouldn't prevent them from banning handguns. It also holds that the right to have a handgun isn't protected by the right to privacy under the federal constitution. A Reagan appointee dissented, but not on the Second Amendment point. So, under current law, it's pretty clear that the federal Constitution doesn't prohibit a state from banning all guns if it wants to. The question of what Congress can do is less clear. It probably couldn't ban all guns, because then the Second Amendment would be meaningless. The Miller decision held that Congress can ban guns that don't have any connection to a "well-regulated militia," but the Court didn't really give criteria on what that means.

SeattlePioneer, it seems to me that you could accomplish a major part of what you have in mind by having a good Scribe. While you might not have blue cards, you would have records showing which boys did these various activities. I don't think "issuing" blue cards will necessarily solve the problem of MBCs rejecting requirements done before issuance anyway--a MBC who takes that approach will probably not accept a blue card that was signed two years before the Scout contacted the MBC.

"Tell you what - if you and all your liberal buddies are so convinced the 2nd is only about militias, and since we don't need militias in this day and age, y'all just get your representatives to propose abolishing the 2nd. If everyone is as anti-gun as y'all think, it should be a piece of cake." We don't need to do that, because the Supreme Court, even a more conservative Supreme Court, will never rule that the Second Amendment gives an individual right to possess any arms you want without restrictions. They've already ruled that it doesn't give you the right to possess a sawed-off shotgun. What's more, the Supreme Court has already held that whatever limitations the Second Amendment imposes, it imposes them on Congress only, and not on the states--so the states can enact whatever gun control laws they want with no Constitutional limits. So, you see, me and my liberal buddies don't need to do anything--our buddies the Founding Fathers took care of it for us.

Just to add a few points to what LongHaul said: 1. A number of specific MB requirements explicitly state that the MBC's approval is needed before doing them. That implies that this is not the case for the others. 2. For a number of requirements, it would be clearly unreasonable to require them to be done after the Blue Card is signed (such as study a foreign language for a year, or serve in a school band for six months). Yet there is nothing to set those requirements apart from others, suggesting that there is no limitation on recognizing work done before the blue card was signed. 3. BSA knows how to make it crystal clear that work is not to be done before approvals are received--look at the requirements for the Eagle Project.

I'm sorry, you cannot simultaneously advocate a broad and undefined meaning of "active" and criticize people who define it differently from you. And Fscouter, by no stretch of interpretation can some of the things you listed be part of "active in your troop and patrol." Attending church certainly is following part of the Scout Oath and Law, but it is hardly being active "in your troop and patrol." Look, if you want to defend the idea that "active" means "registered," just come out and say so. Or, if you think a boy's idea of what "active" means is the sole determinant, say that. If neither of those is your interpretation, then perhaps you can give us an example of a situation in which you would decline to sign off a boy as "active" even though he tells you he thinks he was.

Ed, I think if you'll look back, nobody is disagreeing with that--the only disagreement is whether cabin camping AT long-term camp should count. If you like, though, we can talk about caves again.

I think scoutldr's summary misses the point that apparently this troop is composed entirely of boys who are not members of the CO's faith, or at least of boys who do not follow the dietary restrictions in question. Now, if they all knew they were joining a "kosher troop" (and the specific restrictions make it pretty likely that's what this is), they have less reason to complain about it now--but there's a real inconsistency here. Were there formerly members who did follow the restrictions, and they've gradually been replaced?

"Anyway, the point I was going for, and is reflected on many threads is that the requirements for Eagle are supposed to be national standards not breached by local whims. There are not supposed to be Eagle mills and there are not supposed to be super extreme tough troops, there are just supposed to be troops where the Boy Scout program is presented." I totally agree with this--but the tendency of some people to go to one extreme or the other is enabled, to some degree, by vague standards. You won't find troops (I hope) requiring 30 MBs for Eagle, or allowing a boy to make Eagle with only 10. That's because the standard given to us for the number of MBs is clear. That simply isn't the case for some other requirements like "active."

Let's think about these Adirondacks tht msnowman described. Put one beside a large tent that stays up all summer and that has a permanent wooden floor under it and bunks. I'd have to say that sleeping in the Adirondack is a little less "camping" than the tent. But it would seem unfair to me to give the boy sleeping in one credit for a week of long term camp, and not the other. There's really no difference in what they've done. I wouldn't split hairs over that. My discomfort level would rise if there really was true cabin camping, with beds, sheets, private bath, etc.