Hunt

It seems to me highly unlikely that a rank or MB would be "revoked" for these kinds of issues,unless they were extremely serious (i.e., if the scout falsified documents). From what I have observed, we must really depend on the trustworthiness of scouts and scout leaders anyway--for example, when you look at blue cards from summer camp, the signatures are often illegible. So will you question an illegible signature from an out-of-council camp that was signed five or six years ago? Will you try to find out whether a previous BOR was properly constituted? Is anyone going to look at old lists of MBCs to verify that the counselors were properly registered at the time they signed? And if you did, what would you accomplish? You'd deny ranks mostly to boys who actually did the work and depended on adults for the technicalities.

It's true that everything will offend somebody, and that some people are offended by everything. However, that doesn't mean that nobody is ever justified in taking offense. I can certainly imagine that it would be offensive to Native Americans if symbols with important religious significance were used for some other purpose. It sounds as though OA is taking steps to avoid it. (Note: I was reading recently about Hopi kachina ceremonies. Many of them used to be open to the public for viewing, but they have now mostly been closed because the participants felt their beliefs were not being respected. Apparently the last straw was the use of kachina figures as characters in an issue of Marvel Comics' "NFL SuperPro.")

I looked at the Flag Code, and it refers to "persons in uniform," rather than specifying military uniforms, so presumably the Scout uniform would count. It does refer to the "military salute," though. The Scout salute is, in essence, a modified military salute. Perhaps it's close enough. What surprised me in the Code was the statement that when the Pledge of Allegience is recited, "persons in uniform" are to remain silent and salute.

I wasn't in OA as a Scout, and so I don't know that much about it--it was even more secret then. I don't really want or need to know more about it-except I do have some conerns about its religious nature if my son gets elected into it. I guess there is a natural tension between such concerns and the desire to keep the details private (if not exactly secret). At this point, I probably would not go to the Council for more details, but would rely on the assurances of people I trust that there is no conflict.

"If you think you might enlarge some pictures for prints larger than, say, 8x10, you need to stay at the hightest resolution of your camera." Just to add a bit, this can be a factor even if you're making smaller prints, if you plan to crop the images and enlarge only part of the image. Using the highest resolution you can gives you more options in using the images later--the problem, of course, is storage.

"If you think you might enlarge some pictures for prints larger than, say, 8x10, you need to stay at the hightest resolution of your camera." Just to add a bit, this can be a factor even if you're making smaller prints, if you plan to crop the images and enlarge only part of the image. Using the highest resolution you can gives you more options in using the images later--the problem, of course, is storage.

"There are very few non-interested boys in the non-LDS troops so that part of the equation is missing." There are more of these than you might think, although they probably don't stick around for as long.

Just to be very picky, "Bugler" can be used as a POR for Star and Life rank, but not for Eagle.

"Obviously, Heaven doesn't belong to one person, belief, denomination, church, or faith as has been advertised." I don't think that's obvious at all. It certainly could be that only one is right--the problem is determining which one. Furthermore, even if many roads lead to Heaven, that doesn't mean ALL roads lead there.

Is there any legal way for poor, unskilled,uneducated people from Latin America to emigrate to the United States? It also seems that we shouldn't get on our high horse too much about these terrible illegal immigrants, since most of us are enjoying this fine country because our ancestors took it from its original inhabitants,and then violently rebelled against the governments who sent them to colonize it.

On oaths: Some Christians believe that any oath at all, or even a promise, violates Jesus' (and James')injunction to let yes be yes and no be no. See http://www.thefaithfulword.org/oaths.html. If you follow this guy's logic, repeating the Scout Oath (even if you call it a Promise) is a sin. Please note: I'm not saying this is my interpretation. And although I don't have a reference right now I do believe that certain Protestant sects would consider a statue of Jesus as a graven image (which is one reason they tend to have an "empty cross"--although even that could be a "graven image" to some.)

This is an issue that always perplexes me, because it is so obvious to me that a "Christian" attitude to these people would be very different from "round 'em up and deport 'em." And yet, I see that attitude from people in the "Christian Right" all the time. As Prairie Scouter pointed out, most of these people came here not because they wanted to subvert our system, but because they were desperately poor. Sure, it's illegal, but if your kids are hungry enough you might convince yourself that the law keeping you out is unjust. I'm not sure what the answer is--I do fear that truly unrestricted immigration could wreck the US economy and harm the whole world, but I' don't know. As an American, I do worry a bit about the "sheep and goats" judgment.

This is kind of a diversion, but I want to respond to Ed's question about my list. Some of these things AREN'T specifically condemned in the Bible, but various Christian groups have condemned them based on their interpretations of the Bible. I'll annotate the list, but I'm not going to look up Biblical references or church doctrines--this is going on memory, and others can feel free to correct me. 1. Drinking alcohol Bible condemns drunkenness, but does not call for abstinence from alcohol. Several Christian sects call for total abstinence. 2. Smoking--Bible says nothing about it, condemned by some churches as defiling the body (as a temple of the Lord) 3. Getting divorced--pretty clearly condemned by Jesus himself (with modest exceptions), condemned by some churches. 4. Lending money at interest--prohibited in the Old Testament, condemned by a few groups 5. Dancing--not really mentioned in the Bible (at least not social dancing), but condemned as leading to lust by some churches 6. Watching television or movies--obviously not in the Bible, but condemned as "worldly" by some groups 7. Using buttons on clothing--don't know if it's in the Bible, but condemned by the Amish (the Bible does prohibit joining two different kinds of cloth together) 8. Playing cards--obviously not in the Bible, but condemned as frivolous (and also I've read some arguments that the cards have some kind of evil symbolism as well) 9. Reading Harry Potter books--The Bible condemns witchcraft, and the Potter books promote it (say some) 10. Having more than one wife. Old Testament obviously allows this, New Testament states one wife only. Most churches agree with NT, except for some splinters from LDS. 11. Having sex before marriage. Bible says "flee fornication." 12. Using birth control, even during marriage. Bible not clear, Catholic Church teaches that sex is for procreation only. 13. Working on Sunday 14. Working on Saturday Bible says don't work on the Sabbath--churches disagree as to which day is the Sabbath. 15. Buying insurance--not aware of Biblical prohibition--some churches say trust in God 16. Swearing oaths--Bible clearly says don't swear by anything, and some churches take this seriously. 17. Homosexual behavior--pretty clearly condemned in both Old and New Testament. 18. Racism--not explicitly addressed in Bible, but can be derived from statements about unity in church. 19. Damaging the environment--man to be steward of creation. 20. Making carved images of Jesus or Mary--This is the easiest of them all--these are "graven images" violating the Second Commandment. This view is what caused "iconoclasm." 21. Calling another person a fool--the Bible says that he who calls another fool is in danger of hellfire. 22. Gambling--I really don't know if the Bible condemns this or not, but it's been condemned by lots of churches. Again, my point here is that BSA should be neutral where there is significant religious disagreement about whether a particular activity is moral or not.

"If the jacket had "WWJD...be an orthodox Jew", he wouldn't be violating any Scout law. That is a fact." I don't agree. I think such a shirt would be mocking people who wear WWJD shirts, and as such would be unfriendly and discourteous. Perhaps there is more than one interpretation of what such a shirt would mean, but that's what I think it means. Ed, on free speech...printing on a jacket IS speech. He doesn't have a right to free speech when he's on somebody else's property--or rather, the property owner has the right to kick him out if the owner doesn't like the speech. That's one of the limitations on free speech in our society.

Look at the following list and answer the following questions: (a) Which of these behaviors are condemned as sinful by at least some Christian denominations? (b) Which of them are specifically identified as sinful in the Bible? 1. Drinking alcohol 2. Smoking 3. Getting divorced 4. Lending money at interest 5. Dancing 6. Watching television or movies 7. Using buttons on clothing 8. Playing cards 9. Reading Harry Potter books 10. Having more than one wife 11. Having sex before marriage 12. Using birth control, even during marriage 13. Working on Sunday 14. Working on Saturday 15. Buying insurance 16. Swearing oaths 17. Homosexual behavior 18. Racism 19. Damaging the environment 20. Making carved images of Jesus or Mary 21. Calling another person a fool 22. Gambling Now, which of these behaviors should preclude a person from being a Scout leader, and why? ALL of those behaviors are condemned as sinful by various Christian groups. Some, but not all, are explicitly condemned in the Bible, and perhaps you can extrapolate others. In certain cases, some Christian groups actively practice and promote the very acts decried as sinful by other groups (i.e., are the icons and statues in a Catholic church "graven images?"--it depends who you ask). Now, I didn't put "committing murder" or "stealing" or "abusing children" on the list, because there is broad agreement across Christian religions--and society as a whole--that these actions are wrong. At the other end of the spectrum, there's not much of a consensus that it's sinful to use buttons on one's clothing (unless you're Amish). I think the problem here is that some people think that homosexuality belongs with murder and stealing--that there's a broad consensus that it's sinful--while others think that it belongs more with something like divorce--some religions condemn it, others don't. If you're in the first group, it seems obvious to you that BSA should retain its current position, and if you're in the second group, you think that BSA should be neutral and let the COs decide.

"For sake of discussion, what would it mean to the various religious belief systems that view homosexuality as a "sin" (or, at least, their behavior), if it turned out that homosexuality was a genetic trait, just like being "male" or "female"? Could it be viewed, then, as a "natural state", or would it still be something that needed to be "fixed"?" For many religious people, it would make no difference that the preference is hard-wired--if the behavior is sinful, it is still the moral duty of the individual to refrain--just as an alcoholic sins when he drinks. For another analogy, even if you proved that human males were "hard-wired" to seek multiple sex partners, that wouldn't make adultery OK. It would simply mean that, for reasons unclear, God has allowed some people to bear the burden of inborn impulses that they must resist. But this shows to what extent the issue of the morality of gay preference and gay behavior is essentially a religious question, and why it should be left up to COs to decide. I suppose that one might feel so strongly about it that you couldn't tolerate being involved with an organization that even recognized a difference of opinion on this (this seems to be what Ed is saying), but I think this would be a minority of Scouts and Scouters, especially since many COs would maintain current membership restrictions.

"Then politely tell him he is no longer welcome at camp and remind him which part of the Scout Law he is out of tune with." But Ed, what if he reminds you that as an American he has the right to free speech? You'd have to tell him that BSA is a private organization and that....well, you see. As far as the WWJD shirt mentioned, or any similar shirt, the part of the Scout Law that's being violated is Friendly and Courteous. Wearing a shirt that you know will offend other people of good will is neither friendly nor courteous. (Note that there is a line between "offend" and "spark disagreement." I would say for example, that "WWJD" by itself would be on the OK side of the line, while "WWJD--be an Orthodox Jew" would be on the other. Similarly, "Kerry for President" should be OK, while "Bush Stinks" is not. I also added the phrase "of good will" because some people will be offended by anything. Your mileage may vary, of course.)

After reading this whole thread, a few things a pretty clear to me. First, it's obvious that BSA is making a moral judgment about homosexuality--although they don't state that it's a "sin," their statements clearly reflect a judgment that it is immoral. As far as I know, we haven't been told exactly how BSA came to such a conclusion, since religious groups disagree about it. I submit that it cannot be derived from the Scout Oath and Law without some external frame of reference, such a religion. Thus, it seems most likely that BSA's position is derived from the religious views of some (but not all) of its religious chartered organizations. It is this that makes some of us believe that BSA should shift to "local option" on this issue--just as it did on the question of whether women should be leaders in units. Of course, BSA doesn't have to do this--it has the legal right (after the Dale case) to keep its membership requirements unchanged. If it made this change, it would be able to reclaim its nonsectarian nature--it wouldn't have to explain why it caved in to COs who don't believe that women can be proper role models for boys, but refuses to cave in to those who think gay adults can be.

My daughter is on a soccer team that IS a dictatorship. The head coach has made it clear that it's "his" team, and that those who don't like his way of doing things are free to leave. Nevertheless, he has to periodically remind parents of this, because they persist in treating various issues as if they were up for collective decision. I think Bob White is right, technically, in pointing out that BSA is like this, too. It is a private organization that can throw anybody out, essentially for any reason (especially after the Dale decision). However, I'm not surprised that some people would have an incredulous reaction to this, because we are so used, as Americans, to organizations being run democratically. And even BSA appears, in certain respects, to be run democratically--it has an elected board, and it's got this whole structure with volunteers all through it. I think another factor is that the National leadership is "faceless" to most of us--it's not like we are following a charismatic leader, or a leader with divine credentials (like the Pope). I should also point out that BSA has long acted in ways that cut against its claim to be private--such as using schools and other government entities as sponsors. This is what caused a lower court to find BSA to be a "place of public accomodation" in the Dale case. I guess what I'm saying is that many Scouters probably have trouble thinking of BSA as an organization that "belongs" to some unknown people in Irving, Texas, even if that is technically true.

I haven't read the decision yet, but I think it could go either way on appeal--especially if it doesn't get to the Supreme Court until after one or two current Justices are replaced. If the lower court decision is overturned, my prediction is that the Court would base the decision on a finding that the government action had a "secular purpose" (recruiting, training, perhaps even providing security for a large civilian gathering), and that the entanglement with religion was minimal (BSA is non-sectarian, religion is only a part of the program and not a major focus of the Jamboree, military funding not going directly to religions training, etc.). They could make such a determination without making any changes to established law. (They could also go the other way without making any changes in established law.) My best guess...if the military makes arguments that sponsoring the Jamboree promotes military readiness, the Supreme Court would defer to that position and approve the support.

Average tenure for leaders is 7-9 MONTHS? Can this really be true? Is this true for Scoutmasters? Does this mean that new leaders are picking up the reins from a previous set of short-timers? It seems to me that this must create units without much in the way of institutional memory. It also means that even if the leaders have been trained, their training hasn't been reinforced by much experience, or more advanced training. Could it be that some of these leaders cycle through Scout units several times, so it's not as bad as it seems?

I think what these battling quotations reveals is that there has always been difference of opinion over how separate church and state should be. I feel confident that if you could resurrect the Founding Fathers, some of them would think that we've gone too far in separating, and others would think we haven't gone far enough. (Several of them, including Jefferson and probably Franklin, would be dismayed that Christianity still existed after two centuries of progress). But I have to agree with the idea that the point of view that prevailed in the Constitution--which is what really counts--is that there should be significant separation, and this is the view that the Supreme Court has followed over the years.

"And, what I said was that as the scoutmaster I don't hire patrol leaders so I don't fire patrol leaders." Bob is trying very hard to avoid saying who, if anyone, can fire patrol leaders. That seems to be because he doesn't think they should be fired, even if they aren't performing adequately. He has more faith than some of us do that a boy who isn't doing the job will either step down or improve in time to avoid disrupting the program for the boys he is supposed to be leading. I certainly respect the idea that adult leaders should train youth leaders and work with them to improve rather than just dumping them at the first sign of trouble. But it's unrealistic to think that nobody will face the situation in which a boy needs to be removed from a leadership position for the sake of the other boys in the program. The statement above at least suggests that the rest of the patrol could "fire" their leader, since they hired him by electing him. I'm not sure that would be the best way to handle the situation, since it would pit the boys against each other, but by Bob's logic, it may be the only way.

"How long should a SM work in training a boy leader before he concludes it is hopeless and that the only solution is to remove the boy from his position? How long?" It seems to me that that would depend on how much his failure to perform adequately affected other Scouts. If he's the bugler,well, there's not much harm in working with him for as long as you think there's a glimmer of hope. If he's a PL, it's a different story. What if you had a PL who repeatedly cancelled patrol meetings for questionable reasons. You work with him, and he promises to do better, but keeps on doing it. How many times do you let it happen? You have a responsibility to help him lead, but you have a responsibility to the other boys, too.

"Hunt, if I read your interpretation correctly, a situation where a religious group attempts to place a monument will almost by definition fail the test after this decision. Did I get that right?" I think that's basically right. They'll only be able to do it by hiding it among other monuments and essentially lying about their purpose. Hopefully, we won't see too much of that. I do think there will be some very disappointed people when they learn that the Texas case doesn't really mean that "10 Commandments monuments are OK." If the bikers want to put up the giant menorah to promote Judaism, it'll fail the test too. I think johndaigler really gets to the crux of this--the Supreme Court is only going to allow very weak actions supporting religion--so weak that I, for one, can't see why it's worthwhile to keep fighting this battle.