Hunt

It seems to me that if the scouts went on a 15-mile bike trip on the middle day of a two-night campout, for example, it would meet the requirement. There is nothing in the requirement that suggests the activity must be part of the transportation to or from the campsite. So I think requiring any gear other than that required for the activity itself is adding to the requirement. I also note that there is nothing in the requirements suggesting that they couldn't do this on any day during a week of camp.

It seems to me that the purpose of teaching First Aid to scouts is so they can apply first aid when needed, not so they can advance. So I can't see teaching them wrong information just because that's what the (outdated) book says. I guess it depends on how wrong the information is--surely nobody would advocate teaching them something that has been shown to be harmful?

I'd just like to add one point to this--if you are going to have competitions, they should be as fair as possible. Boys are especially sensitive to perceived unfairness, and the value of the competition will be completely destroyed if the boys think it is unfair. While life is not fair, of course, the Scout Law is a higher standard. I'd also like to second the suggestion that competitions should be varied enough so that everybody has a chance to be a winner at least sometimes--and the adult leaders need to be on the lookout for the boy who just can't keep up.

It's true that one's political views color your reaction to this, but it works both ways--if you are a supporter of the administration, you are likely to immediately label this the action of "rogue" low-level soldiers, while if you oppose the administration, you are likely to label this a result of policies flowing down from the top (like the position that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Guantanamo detainees).

But gosh, how can anybody say this isn't horribly embarassing for America? Even if it is just a few "bad apples," it does reflect badly on all of us, and it conflicts grossly with our moral self-image. As much as one might want to demonize the people who did this, when you read about them a lot of them seem pretty normal, and their friends and family all say they'd never hurt anybody, etc., etc. I think it's another example of how thin the veneer is between civilized and uncivilized behavior.

I think the appeals court (maybe the Supreme Court) will rule that the process used was sufficiently open and public that a formal bidding process was not necessary to satisfy constitutional requirements. I'm not aware of any evidence--the judge doesn't cite any--that anybody objected to this deal when it was made in 1987, or that it was done in secret.

What's really pathetic about this is that the City has the right not to renew the lease for any reason (or no reason) when it ends, and the City will then own the facility free and clear. If the lease is ended prematurely, however, I suspect that a court may rule that the city has to pay BSA for its lost ability to use the facility.

I read pretty good, and I think the judge states the facts pretty clearly. But then he misstates them when he draws his conclusion. He pretends that this was a typical contract put out for bid--it wasn't. It was an offer made by the Boy Scouts, and then it was reviewed in public hearings. Remember, the judge didn't rule that this practice violated some technical bidding rules--he ruled that it was unconstitutional because it "favored" a religious organization. But obviously, it didn't. It was an arm's-length agreement that was publicly aired. Merlyn, if the lease had been put out for competitive bids, and nobody else had bid, would you still object to the existence of the lease? If you wouldn't, then this is a pretty ridiculous case, since it's quite clear that nobody else would have "bid"--because the Boy Scouts brought the money! But we know--don't we--that your position and the judge's ruling don't really have much to do with some decades-old "bidding" process.

This can be a real problem in a small troop--in my son's troop, the parents who are active in the committee are also active with troop activities--if several of them were ASMs, we'd have a hard time getting a board together. Obviously, the answer is to get more parents involved, but in the meantime you have to deal with the implications of some people fulfilling multiple roles.

I think the article is profoundly wrong--but I did notice something significant. The article treats the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as if they are the same thing--they aren't. But the writer of this article is not the only person to make this mistake.

Merlyn quotes the judge in the Fiesta Island case: "The City selected the BSA-DPC (Desert Pacific Council) to receive the benefit of the lease without inviting bids from any other organizations." But as I keep saying, this is a ridiculous distortion of the facts. It suggests that the city was looking for somebody to lease the land to, and "selected" the Scouts. As the judge well knows--because it's in the statement of the facts in his own decision--this is not what happened at all. Again, this is why the case will be reversed on appeal.

I don't think the loophole would work either--if a troop forbids lone female adults (or any females) from camping with a troop, wouldn't they just say to the single mom who wanted to observe that she can't--and if she insists, her son can't go either?

It occurs to me that this is an example in microcosm of a stupid rule that you might try to get changed, but if you can't, you might decide to live with it if the other elements of the troop are positive.

Well, Merlyn's right about the call to worship and the church bells. In neither case is the government supporting anything--the only issue is whether they can prohibit a particular activity, and clearly they can't prohibit calls to worship if they allow church bells that are just as loud. The government can't discriminate based on the content of speech. But Merlyn's still wrong about Fiesta Island, because both he and the judge want to ignore the actual facts of the case--that the government was not supporting the Boy Scouts, but that the opposite was the case. Merlyn and the judge are pretending that the scouts got something of value from the city in a sweetheart deal--but as I keep saying, it was the scouts that approached the city with a big sack of money to build the aquatic center, and the commitment to run it. Neither the city nor any other organization lost any opportunities in this deal, but rather they gained benefits because they got at least some use from the center, which otherwise would never have existed. That's why the case will be reversed on appeal.

The initial poster notes that the CC and CO can do this "but it just doesn't seem right." While obviously it is their troop to administer as they see fit, that does not make their actions immune from question or criticism. The questions posed here are really (1) is this a reasonable restriction? and (2) if it's not, how can you persuade them to change their position? In my view, it's not a reasonable restriction, because it's punishing the current ASM for the actions of some other people, without any evidence that there is any risk of such a behavior by her. But in terms of changing their minds, a belligerent approach will probably not work, nor will going over their heads (since they're not violating any rules). Having the husband show up and explain that he trusts his wife completely might help (but saying he's insulted probably won't).

I'm with Bob58 on this--get the boys into Scouting, and then deliver the program in a manner that makes them want to be properly uniformed. I think there are plenty of people who are turned off by the whole idea of a uniform (my wife is one of them), and if you emphasize it too much when recruiting you may well lose some boys who would get a lot out of the program.

I just downloaded Norton Internet Securty 2004 today, and it blocked me from the site. When I turned it off completely, I was able to get back on.

I agree that there should be no turning back, but I do think ODL deserves an apology for not being told by the CM. If you start with the apology, the firm decision to retain NDL might go down a little easier.

Your statement-which I quoted verbatim-refers to "liberals" in general. If you're really referring to Bill Clinton, well, I won't argue with you too much. And there's no reason to try to turn my question around on me, because I never suggested that your opinion wasn't genuine or wasn't based on morals. What I dislike is the type of argument that impugns another's motives rather than engaging on the merits of the issues. On the main topic, I don't think you'll hear Kerry criticizing the Boy Scouts--Kucinich might have, but that's simply an example of why Kucinich won't be the nominee.

"Liberal moral leader is an oxy-moron. Liberals dont lead, nor do they embrace morals. They pick and chose their stances based on the political climate of the day. In other words, the tail (i.e., the collective power of on-the-fringe political interest groups who are willing to sell their souls to achieve their narrow-minded ends) is wagging this unconscionable dog."

I sure get tired of this view, that anybody who disagrees with you has an ulterior motive--of course, I see it from both political sides (i.e., conservatives are just greedy). It's a lazy way of thinking, because it means you never have to try to understand why somebody might have a different view of something. You really think that nobody has an honest view, based on their own ideas of morality, that BSA is wrong to discriminate against gays and atheists? You can disagree with that view as long as you want, but it's just insulting and wrong to suggest that nobody can really think differently from you.

OK,what if I, as the new Advancement Chair, review the records and find that Scout B had his Board of Review for Star a year ago, and the Board was composed of two ASMs and the Committee Chair? Or three ASMs? Or one ASM, the COR, and another person who used to be a Scouter? Etc., etc., etc.?

The advancement report has long ago been submitted, and what's more, the boy has already earned his next rank. What, if anything, should be done (aside from preventing a recurrence of the problem)?

To me, the important question is whether there is something about the uniform that is keeping boys out of scouting--obviously, to learn if that is the case, you need some focus groups of boys who aren't in scouting. I also have to say that while the uniform is an important method of scouting, if there is something defective in the method (say, if there is really something wrong with the current uniform), it is to be expected that the boys will lose some respect for that method.

This reminds me of when Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The flag code is designed to engender respect for the flag--and the flag itself is a symbol of the nation. I have seen many flags being carried horizontally by firefighters, children, and others, and it is absurd for anybody to say that any of those people were showing disrespect for the flag--the opposite is the case. In my opinion, the people who complained about this flag are spoilsports who put legalistic readings of laws before their purposes.

You know, there are many organizations in America that discriminate against various religions--specifically, they are OTHER religions. You can't join a Methodist Church if you are a Buddhist--at least not without ceasing to be a Buddhist. And if you're a Methodist, you can't join a Baptist church without getting baptized again--that's discrimination, of course. It doesn't matter that you are a fine, wonderful person--if you don't want to be baptized again, you can't join. Basically, BSA is like that--it's FOR people who believe in God. People who don't believe in God may be fine, moral people, even better than many people who do believe in God--but they simply don't belong in the BSA, any more than they belong in the Baptist church. I can understand that some people don't like this, because they would like to have the benefits of Scouting without having to accept that limitation. People who feel that way about churches have the option of becoming Unitarians, so they can get many of the benefits of church membership without being required to adopt a creed. Merlyn's argument about the BSA getting government benefits is different (and better, really) than simply disagreeing with BSA's position--and I wouldn't squelch him at all--I was just pointing out that in my view it's a waste of time to come here to make that argument, and I continue to think that his most recent thread simply read like gloating.

You know, there are many organizations in America that discriminate against various religions--specifically, they are OTHER religions. You can't join a Methodist Church if you are a Buddhist--at least not without ceasing to be a Buddhist. And if you're a Methodist, you can't join a Baptist church without getting baptized again--that's discrimination, of course. It doesn't matter that you are a fine, wonderful person--if you don't want to be baptized again, you can't join. Basically, BSA is like that--it's FOR people who believe in God. People who don't believe in God may be fine, moral people, even better than many people who do believe in God--but they simply don't belong in the BSA, any more than they belong in the Baptist church. I can understand that some people don't like this, because they would like to have the benefits of Scouting without having to accept that limitation. People who feel that way about churches have the option of becoming Unitarians, so they can get many of the benefits of church membership without being required to adopt a creed. Merlyn's argument about the BSA getting government benefits is different (and better, really) than simply disagreeing with BSA's position--and I wouldn't squelch him at all--I was just pointing out that in my view it's a waste of time to come here to make that argument, and I continue to think that his most recent thread simply read like gloating.

Merlyn clearly has no defensible answer to why he takes the time to post here--again, it appears to me that it's just to gloat when he perceives a "win." Otherwise he would occasionally try to make some persuasive arguments about why BSA should stop being a "discriminatory private club."

Merlyn wrote: "Some people here are under the delusion that excluding atheists isn't religious discrimination, so their Scoutreach program that excludes atheists can safely use CDBG funding that prohibits religious discrimination; disabusing people of that delusion may actually reduce the number of BSA councils that get sued."

So you're trying to save BSA from getting sued? Pardon my skepticism. Really, your posts here are like going on a Britney Spears fan forum and talking about how ugly and untalented she is--you're not really trying to convince anybody of anything, and your tone ensures you won't. Mainly, you just like to gloat when a court agrees with your point of view. I guess that's a hobby, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's part of fighting the good fight.

I can understand why somebody who would like the BSA to change its policies--especially on gays--would want to post here and in similar forums--a gradual change in opinion in the BSA rank and file could eventually have an effect on its leaders. But I don't see how you could ever get current BSA members--surely the dominant group on this board--to join a crusade to get BSA kicked out of schools, parks, etc. It just seems pointless to keep raising that argument here. I haven't seen opinions from very many members that the requirement for a belief in God should be changed--far fewer than those who think gay leadership/membership should be at the option of COs. And frankly, somebody like Merlyn simply harms his supposed cause by the tone of his posts here--he justs solidifies the opposition--as opposed to some other posters who try to make more measured arguments.