Hunt

I think what Prairie said--that it would be a difficult transition if gay scouts were admitted--is a fair point. This would be particularly true if units/COs that did not want gays were forced to accept them if they wanted to retain their charters. While it's antithetical to the whole ethos of scouting, there is already bullying in units, and there would probably be some over this as well. But realistically, if BSA were to make a change, it would be to allow for "local option," and only a subset of COs would allow gay leaders and scouts--these would, presumably, be COs that would be more welcoming anyway. On the other side, these would also be COs that would be more prepared to deal with the issues of tent-sharing and the like. I also agree with busylady that it's unfair to label someone as a "homophobe" (or a bigot) simply because they believe homosexual behavior is a sin. That's just a handy way of labelling somebody who doesn't agree with you. But I do think that we need to examine our motivations when we start ranking sins. Thus, for example, I am not aware that BSA will revoke your membership if they learn that you are engaging in a sexual relationship with a person of the opposite sex to whom you are not married. Certainly, they will not revoke your membership for drinking alcohol, smoking, gambling, dancing, lending money at interest, blaspheming, and on and on. Is there any immoral but legal behavior other than homosexual behavior for which you will get your membership revoked?

I would like, if possible, to spread peace, love, and understanding on the topic of Class A and B uniforms. It seems to me that,to most units and councils, "Class A" is a nickname for the field uniform, and "Class B" is a nickname for the activity uniform, in the same way "Smokey Bear Hat" is a nickname for the campaign hat. Use of these nicknames should not confuse people, however, about what is an approved uniform and what is not--BSA defines that, with some leeway given to units on hats, neckerchiefs, and activity uniform T-Shirts. I suspect these nicknames took hold for a couple of reasons--their common use by the military, and the inherent confusion in calling the more formal uniform the "field" uniform. So my modest suggestion is this: when somebody uses the term "Class A" or "Class B," we don't need another discourse on how those terms don't exist in Scouting. It's enough to say, if you must, that you assume the poster means the field or activity uniform when he or she is using one of those nicknames.

"She did not have enough time to "do my job for me"." I think this is the essence of it--some parents really don't get it that this is not your "job," that you're just a volunteer, and that if they're not willing to step up, they shouldn't complain. I recently had a new dad in the troop complain to me that his two sons still haven't made Tenderfoot, and he wanted to know who was responsible for getting them there. I told him that my son, who is Troop Guide, had been working with the new scouts on their requirements. I mentioned to him that my son could not get his boys to bring their handbooks to meetings after repeated reminders, and that it was hard to sign off anything if they didn't (I had also told him previously that his sons needed to bring their books). This didn't really seem to register, however.

Let's run the cafeteria analogy a bit more. Let's say you'd like the cafeteria to buy tuna from local fishermen as a matter of principle. The cafeteria owner says they only buy dolphin-safe tuna as a matter of principle, and the local tuna isn't dolphin-safe. Some people would say that the owners of the cafeteria make the decisions, and you should just be quiet and go elsewhere if you don't agree. Others say that it's perfectly OK to try to get into a discussion of which principle is more important, and to try to persuade the cafeteria to change its policy. Wouldn't we all agree that it shouldn't matter which policy would result in the cafeteria selling more tuna? Many of the cafeteria customers may have an opinion on which principle they prefer, but it may not be a "make or break" matter for most of them--they will keep eating there whatever kind of tuna the cafeteria serves. Others are strong advocates of one or the other kind of tuna, and will only eat there if the right kind of tuna is served. Customers may disagree about whether the tuna policy is a core policy of the cafeteria, or is rather only one of a number of policies, or is a subordinate policy. If you are the cafeteria owner, how do you respond to the request to change your policy? If you are a reasonable person, you listen to the arguments made by both sides, and consider whether there is a reason to reexamine your principle. Maybe you keep your old policy, maybe you change to a new one--and maybe you decide to offer two kinds of tuna. You may swallow hard if you you think the principled decision will cost you customers, but hopefully you decide to do what is right. One more thing--to make this on point with the first post in the thread--the regular patrons of the cafeteria can be expected to be annoyed if people who don't even eat there want to get involved in setting the cafeteria's tuna policy. Those outsiders don't really care about the cafeteria's well-being or that of the patrons, but ONLY about the tuna. That's why they're much more likely to label the cafeteria owner as evil if he follows the "wrong" tuna policy. They don't know--and don't care--about all the good things the cafeteria does and all the other positive policies it follows.

One suggestions: when you do your AOL/Bridging ceremony, include this boy as much as possible. You don't want to take away from the boys who earned the AOL, but you want to avoid putting a negative spotlight on him. We had this situation when my son finished Webelos (one boy not receiving AOL), and we did some careful tinkering with the ceremony with this in mind.

"Also remember that service hours used for 1 requirement can't be used again for another." Sez who? Some requirements prohibit "double-dipping," others don't. If the MBC is willing to accept the same service hours that were used for rank for the Camping conservation project (for example), I'm not aware of any rule against it. I would like to echo the idea somebody raised that it is appropriate to counsel scouts on what MBs to do and when--often they are looking for such advice. For example, we advise scouts to do Swimming and Lifesaving at camp if possible, because it's difficult to arrange it otherwise around here.

Bob, I guess your question was intended to smoke out hypocrasy, and your last post seems to suggest that you think it did, but I don't get it. And this: "Others would take them because they are trained...good for you.. but why aren't those same people as vocal today about the units with untrained leaders that actually exist as they are about a hypothetical situation on a topic they have no control over. How about we fix the problems we actually have first." What does this mean? That you would choose the trained homosexual leaders over the untrained ones? Clearly, you've made you position clear that you are strongly against untrained leaders--I don't have to put words in your mouth to ascribe that view to you. You go on to say, I think, that people should stop arguing about gay leaders and should focus on untrained leaders. Who are you talking to? I'm in favor of trained leaders--and BSA policy doesn't have to be changed in order to support training--people just have to go to the training.

Although I continue to think that such a sudden change would be far-fetched, I have given it a bit more thought. As Semper describes it, this change would more than a "local option"--it would involve changing the Oath and Law to remove Reverent. To me, that's a big deal, a much bigger deal than allowing COs local option on gay leadership. Honestly, what I think I'd do is turn to the unit--the troop--and try to make a collective decision on whether to stay or go. If the troop as a whole decided to go, we could at least continue as a church-sponsored group that carries out many activities similar to Scouting. If the troop as a whole decided to stay, I'd stay if my son wanted to. It wouldn't be the same Scouting--but it would continue to be as good, and probably better, than, say, a baseball team to occupy my son's time. It surprised me that so few people said they'd leave if this radical change were made. That tends to confirm my view that very few would leave if a more modest change were made--ie, local option on gay leadership, no change in religious requirements. The sad fact is that if you leave Scouting, you have noplace comparable to go, unless you start it yourself. That might work--but probably only if BSA made such a huge change that people left in droves. I don't see that happening.

We seem to go around in circles on this, but here goes: It's perfectly fine to say that you agree with BSA's current position to exclude gay leaders and members, and to give all kind of reasons why you think their decision is the correct one. But it's something else to suggest that because "BSA" takes a particular position, the discussion is over. As has been noted ad infinitum, BSA has changed its position on matters of principle before (presumably because the decision makers either changed their minds or because new decision makers came into office). Furthermore, BSA takes steps to find out what its members think about issues like this (by taking polls, at least). Third, it seems pretty obvious that at least to some extent the moral values of BSA reflect the moral values of the religions to which the vast majority of BSA members belong. If those religions change their position on an issue, you would expect BSA to at least take a fresh look at the issue. Finally, it's worth discussing on a forum like this because I'm sure readers here include current leaders at various levels, as well as future leaders. To the extent that leadership grows out of the rank and file, the opinions of the rank and file on various issues will gradually become dominant. So, for the nth time, if you think BSA should maintain its current policy on gay leadership (or anything else), tell us WHY you think that's the best viewpoint. If you disagree, say WHY you do. Your opinion may influence the future Chief Scout Executive.

I don't think it matters whether BSA allows COs to be more restrictive or less restrictive--in both cases,the CO is allowed to have a policy that is in conflict with BSA's general policy. BSA's policy--presumably based on principle--is to have leadership open to men and women. COs are allowed to have a different policy based on their own principles. BSA is totally nonsectarian--but COs are allowed to set sectarian limits on unit membership. But hey,if this is a distinction that matters to you, I think BSA should make the same change it did with women leaders--open leadership to gays, but allow COs to be more restrictive if their principles call for that. That would be totally analogous to the female leadership decision, right? Now can we talk about whether we think that change would be right or wrong, or a good idea or not, which is really the only issue worth talking about?

I think it's really an impertinent question. I wouldn't choose either. Which would you choose, Bob? For once, I have to say I really don't know how you'd answer.

Bob, I don't think my analogy is flawed at all. At one time, all BSA units were forbidden to allow any women to be leaders (except Den Mothers). I assume--correct me if I am wrong--that there was some principle or value behind this total prohibition. Then, in a series of decisions, leadership was opened to females, although COs were allowed to retain the restriction if they choose to do so. Presumably, the new principle or value is a recognition that the decision of whether to have female leaders is best left to COs, which have their own values with regard to such matters. As far as gay leaders go, we are currently in the place we used to be with female leaders--prohibition. If you want to say BSA would be changing its values if it allowed COs to make this decision, fine--then what I am saying is that there are strong arguments for making the same kind of change with respect to this issue that was made with respect to female leaders. You can certainly disagree with those arguments, but you can't really argue that BSA has not, does not, and can not make such changes, if the decisionmakers become persuaded that it's the appropriate thing to do. I'm glad you brought up racial discrimination, because I don't want to suggest that all decisions be left up to COs (although you seem to be hinting that by saying things about making changes "at will," etc.) Clearly, I think BSA is right in not chartering any CO that would (at least overtly) discriminate based on race. I've never gotten a clear answer on whether that, too, was a change in BSA policy at some point in its history--if it was, I applaud it.

I'd pinch myself, and then I'd wake up.

"Hunt Your are suggesting that the BSA about allowing each unit to determine what the values of the BSA are." I think a better way of putting it is that I am suggesting that since BSA already allows COs to trump certain BSA membership and leadership requirements based on the values of the CO, it should consider adding this particular membership and leadership requirement to the list. BSA allows COs (not "units" as you keep saying, for some reason) to exclude female leaders, and to discriminate on the basis of religion. To me, it is extremely odd for BSA to claim that it is wholly non-sectarian, and then to offer charters to COs that limit memberships on the basis of religion. I don't really see the principle there, unless it is the principle that in some areas the values of the COs are allowed to predominate. Of course, BSA gets to say what it's values are, but they have changed some of them over time, in at least one notable case going from a blanket rule (no female leaders) to allowing COs to decide. In the case of female leaders, which "value" of BSA was right--the one espoused before the change, or the one reflected by the change?

Here's a bit more thought on this...the BSA prohibition against hazing is a rule, and there's been quite a bit of discussion about how to interpret this rule, to decide what's really hazing and what's just "fun" (even though it might embarass someone.) But "A Scout is Kind" isn't a rule--it's a law. It's a standard of behavior that makes it obvious that an older scout doesn't send a new scout off to look for a left-handed smoke-shifter. In no way can this be considered a "kind" thing to do. Ditto for forcing a person to sing or dance or act silly to retrieve a lost item or in any other situation in which the person would be embarassed. These things may not be hazing, and thus they may not be improper at a regular summer camp, but the Scout Law calls us to a higher standard than that.

Obviously, Bob thinks you should ask your Merit Badge Counselor, and of course, he's right. However, because the question may be of interest to others who read this, including people leaning how to counsel this merit badge, I think a fuller response to your question is in order. I think you'll find that most comprehensive fitness plans do no contemplate that you perform the full range of exercises every day--you are supposed to tailor the plan to your own abilities and to the results of your fitness tests. You might take a look at the worksheets on www.meritbadge.com for a helpful tool in setting up your plan and in keeping records.

This is one example of a situation in which the troop (or at least the patrol) needs to make advancement opportunities available. I think it's very likely that there are other boys who will also need to do conservation projects for camping (or who could use the service hours for rank advancement). The boy should talk to the Senior Patrol Leader, the Scoutmaster, and the Advancement Coordinator to make sure that they all know that a conservation project opportunity needs to be built into an upcoming campout. Personally, I don't think just policing the campsite would be enough, but something like a broader litter cleanup could well be appropriate.

"How can you give each unit the ability to make all their own choices and still have a national program?" While local units can't make ALL their own choices, local COs already have the power to make decisions on leadership and membership restrictions, and yet we still have a national program. Local COs can exclude female leaders, and they can also limit membership in the unit to members of a particular religious group. Personally, I don't think the world (or BSA) would end if it came to pass that local COs were also given the power to decide whether to allow gay leaders or members as well. I also feel that it's important to point out that it is neither disloyal nor disobedient to provide constructive criticism to an organization to which one belongs. And a question: if BSA is convinced that it's policy is morally correct, why do they bother performing a survey to find out if Scouters agree with it or not? Also, I suspect the survey results might be different if the question asked was whether the respondent supported allowing COs to make the decision.

I think there are a couple of approaches to this problem. The direct approach would be to tell the SM to relax, and that most of the boys will probably slow down anyway as they hit some of the more time-consuming merit badges. On the other hand, the requirement for Star says the service project must be approved by the Scoutmaster, not provided by him. If a Scout wants to do a service project for advancement, he should approach the SM and ask for approval--and ask him why if he doesn't approve it. I should note that I am not aware of anything that says the service project has to be done as a troop or patrol--it can be service done outside of Scouting entirely, as long as the SM approves it.

What I meant about principle is that the possibility that people will quit Scouting is not a principled reason to either keep or get rid of a policy. Thus, if Scouting Canada did the right thing morally by changing its membership rules, it is irrelevant that it caused their numbers to drop (if it did). Similarly, if it is the right thing for BSA to keep its membership rules, it is irrelevant if it drives people away. Neither organization should change (or maintain) its principles because of the possible effect it might have on membership. They should do what is right. It is up to the decisionmakers in those organizations to decide what is right. While that decision may change over time, and may respond to the views and arguments of members, I wouldn't think much of leaders who made those decisions based on whether people would quit or not. That being said, you'd have to blind not to recognize that there has been a significant shift in this country on whether people in general think homosexuality is wrong or not. The shift turned out not to be as great as some people had hoped, as shown by the defeat of the gay marriage legislation, but anybody who's been paying attention over the last few decades has to recognize a tremendous change. If that trend continues, organizations like BSA will either change their policies or become increasingly marginalized. But whether the trend will continue remains to be seen.

Well, the Supreme Court allowed the government to ignore the civil rights of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII because of perceived national defense needs. Of course, most people no longer like that result. What I'm really getting at, and what seems to be behind several of the arguments others have been made, is that there is a "secular purpose" to holding the Jamboree. With the current makeup of the Supreme Court, that may well be enough to allow the event to pass constitutional muster. The Court could conceivably balance the various elements of the Lemon test (secular purpose, advancement of religion, excessibe entanglement) rather than simply finding improper establishment if any one of the prongs is met. So, I can imagine the Court saying something like the following: "The Establishment Clause is not violated when (1) there is a valid and compelling secular purpose for the government action involved; (2) the government action provides only indirect or minimial support for a religious or nonreligious viewpoint; and (3) the entanglement of the government entity with any religious group is minimal or transitory." Depending on how you slice the facts, this kind of ruling could save the Jamboree.

I've defended the ACLU elsewhere, but now I feel like criticizing them. Like a lot of people who are zealous about certain causes, the ACLU sometimes lacks a sense of proportion (and strategy) when it chooses causes to pursue. This "solitary cross" is a good example. While the ACLU is almost certainly right as a legal matter that this cross must be removed under established precedents, the publicity from the case is so bad that it probably sets back the broader goals of the ACLU more than it advances them. Also, there is no question that the ACLU is politically liberal, and that it cares more about certain rights than others--it's championing of the Dale case is a prime example--in that case, the ACLU really should have been defending the right of free association, rather than defending a state's power to control the membership requirements of a private organization. I think it did what it did there, however, because it is strongly influenced by gay rights supporters. I do think that there is a danger that the ACLU will "defeat itself" if it pushes too far beyond what the great majority of Americans will accept. They could actually help get more conservative judges named to the Supreme Court, who might cut back on all our rights. That would really be a defeat.

Ed, in the interests of fairness, I have to say that you seem to throwing out "flamebait" in a manner very similar to what Merlyn does. For you to say something like "BSA does not discriminate against atheists," suggests that you are just trying to get a rise out of somebody, because you know that BSA does in fact discriminate--it's just that the discrimination is lawful, because BSA is private. But you already know that. You also must already know that the issue here is whether the government can sponsor an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. Stop pretending that you don't understand it. Sure, it annoys Merlyn when you do that, but it wastes everybody else's time too. You also know that the ACLU does care about defending rights guaranteed by the Consititution. You might not agree with their interpretation, or their tactics, but I, personally, am sick of your constant impugning their motives while you seem not to know (or pretend not to know) what they actually do. Really, you and Merlyn should both give it a rest. On the other hand, I'd be interested in reading Proud Eagle and NJCubScouter hash out whether the Jamboree benefits the government enough to avoid Establishment Clause problems.

Do you really think people would quit BSA in droves if BSA allowed chartering organizations to decide whether to allow gay leaders? Don't plenty of those same people participate in Girl Scouts, youth sporting leagues, and other organizations that have no such leadership requirement? Certainly, most of the units chartered by churches would not change their policies at all. Even if some COs allowed gay leaders, the likely total number of gay leaders would be pretty darn small. Sure, maybe people would quit if BSA required all units to accept gay leaders and members--but that's not going to happen under any scenario I can imagine. (Note: the idea that people would quit isn't a principled one anyway.)

I guess these days even our money need two-deep leadership!