Hunt

"I see no reason to "sugar coat" the question." The reason to sugar coat it is that the way you ask it is rude and unfriendly. You're essentially suggesting that the boy may be a liar. The purpose of a BOR is not an inquisition. Your purpose is not to find out whether the boy believes in God or not--you know he does, because Scout Spirit has been signed off. You shouldn't ask him the question that way, any more than you should ask a Star Candidate whether he's earned the required number of Merit Badges. You know he has because the requirement has been signed off. A BOR is supposed to review the boy's achievements, not test them.

Yes, it's awful to have our group insulted in this way, to have well-meaning people accused of evil motives, and to be called names. That's why we should all be even more devoted to the friendly and courteous values of Scouting, and to never use such insults, namecalling, or unfair generalizations, even against those who disagree with us, like gays, lawyers and the ACLU. Right?

There seem to be at least three threads here (maybe more), and I'd like to respond to all of them. First, the original question of why some people seem not to like Christians elicited this response: "For example, how would devout Christians like for someone to come in, explain to them that their beliefs were misguided or worse yet wrong (look at the reception Merlyn gets from many on this forum) and attempted to convert them to something else?" The answer, for me anyway, is that we wouldn't be "offended" if somebody did this--we would essentially see that person as a competitor for the hearts and minds of others--sort of the way a Ford dealer might see a Honda dealer. What's more, devout Christians of various stripes are always trying to convert each other, so we're pretty used to it. Second, the question of whether laws have a religious basis or not: Clever lawyers can come up with a secular purpose for just about any law you can think of, and we may soon have a Supreme Court that will accept those arguments, so this issue may become increasingly moot. But I do think the back-and-forth between Rooster and Merlyn shows something, that when you look at the underpinnings of all our laws, they are based on certain moral judgments about human life and society that are not (despite the views of the Founding Fathers) really self-evident. In my opinion, most of those moral judgments evolved from religious beliefs even if they were not directly based on a particular religion. Finally, on the issue of life and heartbeat, Bob White asks "to your knowledge has anyone ever knowingly taken a brain dead individual and buried or cremated them while they still had a heartbeat?" No, but I have heard of the beating heart of such a person actually being cut out of that person, and then transferred to another person, allowing the first person to die. As I pointed out, the question of whether someone or something is "alive" is not the same as whether it is a "person" or not--which is a much harder question. I was just listening to some lectures by Alexander McCall Smith on these kinds of issues, and he offered the interesting argument (I'm not saying it's his view, or mine) that an embryo cannot be considered a "person" while it is still possible for it to divide into twins. (Obviously, that's long before it has a heartbeat, but it's yet another possibility on the continuum.)

I think the problem with Ed's question is not that the subject matter is inappropriate, but rather that it's couched too aggressively--it's not a friendly question. It's like the difference between asking, "Tell me about what you did to earn the Cooking Merit Badge," and "Did you really fulfill all the requirements for the Cooking Merit Badge?" Remember, a scout appearing at a BOR has already had his Scout Spirt requirement signed off, in which it has been determined that he lives the Oath and Law in his daily life. If you ask him if he believes in God or not, you're essentially asking him if he lied to the person who signed off Scout Spirit, and I don't think that's a very friendly or courteous approach.

Let me get this straight--this boy didn't just impulsively swipe some patches--he led a gang of patch thieves? It boggles my mind that anybody thinks this individual should continue as SPL of a troop. It isn't a matter of punishment at all--it's a matter of trustworthiness. And to me the stark difference between this boy and the beer-drinking one is that the beer-drinking boy is apparently an exemplary scout in every way, and the only rap on him is something he does outside of Scouting with his parents' aquiescence. The patch-stealing boy, on the other hand, brought shame on his troop (or at least, they should feel shame).

A heartbeat is indicative of the presence of life, but it's not necessarily dispositive. For example, a brain-dead person may have a heartbeat, but it is a matter of definition whether that person is "alive" or not. When I was in high school, we dissected a live frog, removing its heart and putting the heart into saline solution. The heart kept on beating, but I am fairly confident that the frog was no longer alive. This disagreement is really just a matter of loose terminology, because we aren't really talking about when "life" begins, because obviously sperm, eggs, fertilized eggs, and fetuses at all stages of development are "alive" in a basic sense. What we're talking about is the question of at what stage of development should (or must) we ascribe the status of "personhood" to the developing fetus. This is not an easy question, whether you believe in the soul or not. To try to bring this back on topic a bit more, this issue is a prime example of an inevitable collision between religious and secular views. People with certain religious views believe that the unborn baby is an individual person with a soul and with God-given rights. As such, they simply cannot accept an argument that some other person can have the right to kill that person. Thus, it's not that they are trying to cram their religious beliefs down somebody's throat, but rather that those religious beliefs have implications for what the law should be with respect to the effect of actions on innocent third parties. (As distinguished from a ban on gay marriage, which probably is more fairly defined as cramming.)

I'm experiencing some cognitive dissonance here, because I find myself on opposite sides of two somewhat similar discussions. In this one, I think a scout's wrong actions (stealing) definitely should affect his standing with the troop, while in the other I'm not sure his wrong actions (occasional underage drinking) should hold him back. To me, stealing from a fellow Scout is a MUCH bigger deal than having a couple of beers. I simply can't agree that stealing is "minor" or that it's a "misguided decision." ("Minor" crimes are things like jaywalking, and "misguided decisions" are things like canoeing without a PFT. Stealing is of another order, both legally and (in my opinion) morally.) Furthermore, although I think this Scout's "punishment" was laughably mild, the desire for further punishment is not the reason I would not want him to continue as SPL. The reason is that he has graphically shown that he lacks, at least at present, the trustworthiness necessary to have a position of responsibility over other boys. I'm not sure what the mechanism is for removing him (or even if there is one)--I think it shows a lot of nerve for him even to think he should continue to "lead" as if nothing has happened.

The more I think about this, the more I think that the reactions to what this scout did are just too muted. I mean, he stole from another scout, and the only punishment was giving up his ill-gotten gains and ONE DAY of restriction. If he had stolen those patches from a store and been caught, the consequences would have been much different. To me, it should take some time and some doing before this scout could earn the trust of the troop and its leaders again. You can call this a mistake or a bad choice all you want, but it is a whole different order from other kinds of misbehaviors, or even other crimes--there was a victim here, a brother Scout. In my opinion, this scout should have no position of responsibility until his words and actions over a substantial period of time (six months?) show that he can be trusted.

I think the nighttime hike was a good example of a consequence that flows from the infraction. I can imagine that you said, "Since you guys seem to be having trouble sleeping, let's use the time productively and go on an night hike."

I'd like to address the question of what constitutes being "arrogant." A dictionary definition of the word is: 1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. 2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak. I don't believe it is fair to use this word to describe a person who simply believes that he is right about something. I don't even think it necessarily describes a person who believes he has been called by God for a particular mission. I don't think it is arrogant to try to persuade other people that you are right and they are wrong, especially if you are doing out of altruistic motives. All that being said, I think a big part of the answer to Rooster's original question is that many Christians have acted and spoken arrogantly, and all Christians end up being tarred with that brush. Some really have tried to impose or force their views on others (i.e., by requiring the teaching of creationism in the schools). I also think too many Christians have spent too much time on trying to suppress sin among non-Christians rather than trying to spread the Good News. Another point about strong religious beliefs--for many people, they arise from definitive religious experiences, as opposed to study. When this is the case, people cannot be convinced by argument that their beliefs (and thus their experiences) are wrong. It also means that such people don't preference their statements with, "Of course I might be wrong about this, but..." This is not necessarily arrogant (although it can be).

Bob White wrote: "The BSA as a private organization can and should promote whatever position on whatever topic that its executive board determines to be representative of the BSA." I'd like to deconstruct this statement a bit. When you say "representative of the BSA," do you mean representative of the views of the majority of dues-paying members, or something else? I don't think you mean that the basic values of Scouting should be subject to majority rule. But if you mean that on more gray-area topics, the leadership should seek to determine the views of the membership, and should take that into account, I certainly agree. One way they might do that is by reading message boards like this where these issues are discussed by thoughtful people. As far as "creationism," NJ points out that this term has taken on a fairly specific meaning, and that BSA's generalized theism does not really match it. Consider the following Chinese version of creation: "In the beginning , the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos. The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself. After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep. He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might to crack open the egg. The light, clear part of it floated up and formed the heavens, the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth. Pan Gu stood in the middle, his head touching the sky, his feet planted on the earth. The heavens and the earth began to grow at a rate of ten feet per day, and Pan Gu grew along with them. After another 18 thousand years, the sky was higher, the earth thicker, and Pan Gu stood between them like a pillar 9 million li in height so that they would never join again. When Pan Gu died, his breath became the wind and clouds, his voice the rolling thunder. One eye became the sun and one the moon. His body and limbs turned to five big mountains and his blood formed the roaring water. His veins became far-stretching roads and his muscles fertile land. The innumerable stars in the sky came from his hair and beard, and flowers and trees from his skin and the fine hairs on his body. His marrow turned to jade and pearls. His sweat flowed like the good rain and sweet dew that nurtured all things on earth." Most American creationists would not care for this story at all (it doesn't even show intelligent design!), but BSA would presumably have no problem with it. Worshippers of Pan Gu (if there are any) would be welcome within BSA. I think it's true that BSA does promote the idea that the earth and nature are "God's creation" in some general respect, and that they should be treated with reverence and respect. I guess BSA is sectarian to the extent that it disagrees with those religions that teach that all matter is evil and that only spirit is good. (For example Gnostics--if there are any--believe that the world of matter was created by an evil god.) So, should BSA promote "creationism?" No, nor is it likely to do so. Should it promote respect for "God's creation?" Yes, as it has traditionally done (even if the Gnostics don't like it.)

"I continue to suggest that I see no clear rule that prohibits such punishments, although they are not recommended in training either." In thinking about this further, I come to the conclusion that punishments like pushups, because of their tendency to be humiliating and to reflect the exertion of power, directly violate the Scout Law, because they are unkind. Also, because they do not teach the proper lessons, they are unhelpful. I'm a little more on the fence about work details as punishment/consequences, because I can see situations where these might be a natural outgrowth of the type of infraction ("Johnny, since you seem to have so much extra time that you can play with your knife like that, why don't you take a few minutes to....") I'm still concerned that turning work into a punishment sends the wrong message about work.

I think a major problem with push-ups or similar punishments is that they teach the wrong things. To boys who are weak and shy, it teaches them that if they get out of line in Scouting, they will be humiliated. You can expect these boys to get out of Scouting at the first opportunity. For boys who are strong and/or like to show off in front of the group, it teaches them that misbehavior will bring a "punishment" that they actually enjoy. I think this idea of pushups may come from sports, where it may have some actual connection to the activity going on (i.e., pushups for slacking off in drills). I'd also like to comment on the idea of extra work as punishment. Is this how we want boys to think of tasks? Again, if you have to "punish," by far the best, in my opinion, is to deny the boy something he desires that is linked to the infraction. For example, if a boy can't behave at campouts, the "punishment" is obvious--he doesn't go on the next campout, or he goes home now if it's bad enough.

"I do not undresant why Rooster7 keeps bgring up the subject of Church sponsered Troops. The Chruch dose not run the troop and its belive systems do not affect it." Well, in fact a Church does run the troop if it's the CO. Some churches (such as LDS) use Scouting as their own youth program. Thus, it's not surprising that a church might be concerned if it felt some part of BSA's program was contrary to the church's beliefs. What's more, religious parents, told that Scouting is nonsectarian, might well be concerned if they heard that "secret" rituals had some kind of religious elements. So it's reasonable for people to ask the question--and personally, I'm satisfied with the answers.

I am a bit surprised at the reaction to this situation. In my mind, what this boy did isn't a "mistake," it's a crime--it might even be a felony, depending on the value of the patches. He could go to jail for what he did. When I compare this to the other thread about a boy who dranks some beers, I'm pretty perplexed. In my opinion, if he's really remorseful, the first thing he should do is resign his position as SPL. If the boys want to reelect him even with relevant new information (i.e., that he's a thief), I suppose I wouldn't object. I wouldn't chuck him out of the troop or out of Scouting, but I would consider this are big deal. The other thing this makes me think is that patch "trading" has gotten way, way out of hand. There was an article in the Washington Post about trading at Jamboree that, in my opinion, put scouts in a very bad light.

"I once observed my commanding general order my commanding colonel to 'gimme 10' in front of a civilian audience when the colonel didn't answer something to the general's satisfaction. I am bringing this discussion to the general's attention for his education." This is a great example because it exemplifies what is wrong with this form of discipline--it is all about the superior's power over the subordinate. It teaches nothing except a reminder of who's boss. It has a strong possibility of being humiliating. It sends a negative message to outside observers about what the organization is all about. (Do you think the general was a good recruiter?) Personally, I think the best, most educational, and most effective form of punishment is the denial of a benefit related to the infraction.

I have a few thoughts about this: 1. It is still hearsay, unless the boy admits it. His dad doesn't have to face the Eagle BOR--he does. If he says he doesn't drink, or that he had a few drinks some time ago and doesn't do it any more, what will you do? 2. Drinking itself does not violate the Oath and Law, unless it is illegal. Otherwise, it would violate the Oath and Law for adults too. 3. I think I have to agree with Rooster that if the drinking is fairly minimal (as in the examples he gave) I would not hold up his advancement. Are you going to hold up the advancement of anybody who admits to exceeding the speed limit when driving? 4. I don't want to minimize the problem of underage drinking. But in this case there really is no evidence of any problem with underage drinking, other than some (vaguely defined) amount of drinking itself. 5. Is there a cultural difference that may explain the difference in attitude about drinking here?

I think you'd find that most Biblical scholars would not accept the complex gymnastics that the writer had to go through to "explain" all the passages in the Bible about homosexuality. And there is simply no support--none--for the proposition that Jesus, Paul, or any of the writers of the OT or NT would have accepted a loving homosexual relationship. That is simply the injection of a modern point of view. 'In the end, even if you still view "homosexuality" (not just exploitative or promiscuous relationships) as sinful, I find no justification in the Bible for looking upon gays any more harshly than divorcees, something that much of Christianity has decided to leave up to the personal relationship between the individual and God, without casting stones." I tend to agree with this, in general. I think some Christians are much too quick to rank sins, and to be horrified by certain sins, but to tolerate others. (For what it's worth, people have gone through similar gymnastics to defend divorce from Biblical condemnation.) On the other hand, just because I say that something you do is a sin, doesn't mean that I'm saying you are a "horrible person," or that other sins aren't bad, too. I know plenty of very good Christian people who, in my opinion, have a particular persistent sin that they don't get rid of.

tj, I've read all these arguments before, and I have to say that they're not very persuasive. They reflect a strong desire to harmonize what some folks think is the "spirit" of Biblical teaching with some pretty explicit statements. In short, I think it's pretty clear that the writers of both the Old and New Testament viewed homosexuality as a sin. (The treatment of the passage from Leviticus is particularly weak.) Of course, people of today are free to think that those views were affected by the cultural mores of the times, and that they should be rejected or modified--but that's a different argument.

I don't see anything in the article that says St. Jean is receiving no benefits. Maybe I missed it. Are you suggesting that BSA denied him benefits to which he is legally entitled? Or that Smith is receiving benefits to which he is not legally entitled? I'm not convinced that you've made out a case that they were treated differently. Perhaps there's an article from a journalistic source that is a little more objective than Mother Jones?

A few points: 1. The government can't--and doesn't--simply donate money to private charities. It does make grants to them, with restrictions and with strings attached. The complaint against Old Baldy Council and the HUD grant is that purportedly Old Baldy violated the restrictions (this happened in 2001--and I haven't seen any evidence that this is a current or widespread problem.) As long as BSA follows the rules, I see no reason it shouldn't get grants like any other non-profit. 2. The creation of Learning for Life appears to be an effort by BSA to do some good while following just these kinds of rules. Whether you think it is a worthwhile program is another question, as is the question of whether BSA has adequately followed the rules. 3. Rooster said, "Most theme parks are open to the public. However, they are not public parks." It's important to note that BSA is not "open to the public." In fact, that was a key issue in the Dale case, which involved a claim that BSA units were places of public accomodation, and that therefore the New Jersey non-discrimination laws applied (just as they would to a theme park). 4. So to me, this is pretty simple: First, BSA should stop accepting direct government sponsorship of units and activities that have restricted membership--which it has now largely done. Second, for any other activities which involve government grants or cooperation or interaction, BSA should scrupulously obey the rules. For Jamboree, the next couple of years may be needed to establish with finality just what those rules are. If BSA did those things, people who oppose gov't support of BSA (like Merlyn) should be satisfied. Those who want to force BSA to change its membership requirements won't be satisfied, but after Dale, they won't have much legal recourse. For those who would like to see BSA voluntarily change its membership requirements, the elimination of ACLU challenges and controversy might allow the underlying issues to be considered in a more peaceful and thoughtful environment.

In fact, BSA has already taken strong steps toward cutting its ties to government support. The most important one, of course, is the decision that it will no longer have units sponsored by government entities. That's really the big one. The others are more dependant on the particular facts. For example, private groups, even discriminatory ones (like churches)can use, rent, and lease government property under appropriate circumstances. The courts will have to decide whether a particular lease is an improper "sweetheart deal" or an "arm's-length agreement." Also, there is nothing wrong with public-private partnerships, even if the private entity is "faith-based." Thus, there is no problem with something like Scouting for Food. Also, various non-profits, including religious groups, accept government grants for particular social services--although they have to live with certain restrictions. BSA can do the same. As I see it, after moving the units out of government sponsorship, the only really big issue left is Jamboree. BSA could short-circuit the debate by holding it somewhere else--or they could appeal the decision, and probably win. The Supreme Court will probably accept the training and other arguments, in my opinion. Really, the people who have been fighting the Boy Scouts should declare victory with the unit sponsorship change, because they now face the risk that a more conservative Congress and Supreme Court will swing the pendulum back the other way if they continue to push.

Ugh. I would flee from a troop that does this. I think it's all about exerting power over others, and is antithetical to what Scouting should be like. It's particularly bad if it's the adults who are giving the boys pushups to do. But it's a pretty good way to get rid of the kid who can't do pushups.

I was confused by this post until I figured out that it involved a case that was reported in the press more than a year ago. In the case, a Scout leader (or perhaps former leader) was charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy, and was also accused of having some kind of pornography on his home computer. I took a look, and didn't find any followup at all. So did he plead guilty to a lesser crime? Were the charges dropped? Was he tried and convicted? Is he still awaiting trial? Who knows? What this shows, to me, is that one should not try to assign too much significance to the first report of a crime story--it's hard to say if the facts are correct and complete, and even harder to say what they really mean.

Particularly for BORs, there may be a difference between "improper" and "invalid." Thus, a BOR with two committee members and an ASM may be improper, but it may not be invalid. For a MB, one might say that if the MBC was apparently authorized (i.e., provided by a BSA camp, identified by the SM), the MB should be recognized as having been earned. I wouldn't want to take this too far, and look the other way for numerous or serious flaws, but I think a rule of reason should be applied.