Hunt

God can judge us by what we "are," and by our inmost thoughts, feelings, and desires--but I don't think human institutions should try to judge people that way, but should concentrate on what they do. Even judging people by what they say is dicey--consider the following hypothetical statements, and consider which ones would result in BSA removing the adult leader from his or her position:

"I am a practicing homosexual."

"I am a former homosexual, but now I'm celibate."

"I am a former homosexual, but now I'm cured."

"I am a celibate homosexual."

"I am a practicing bisexual."

"I have certain homosexual urges, but I'm basically heterosexual."

"I am heterosexual, but I occasionally engage in homosexual behavior."

"I am heterosexual, but I think there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality."

"I am homosexual, but I am undergoing psychiatric treatment to cure me of this disorder."

"I am not a homosexual, but I live with a person of the same sex in a platonic relationship--and we're going to adopt a child together."

"I believe that I'm genetically homosexual, but I have overcome my genetic programming and I'm in a happy heterosexual marriage."

I don't envy the person who has to enforce BSA's policy.

Previous threads suggest that there is a spectrum of opinion on this. At one end of the spectrum is the view stated by FScouter--essentially that the BSA program is an organic whole, and that deviating from any part of it is misuse of the program. At the other end of the spectrum, some folks can be expected to say that the program is not being "misused" as long as the essential aims of the program are being pursued. I think many people, myself included, find myself somewhere in between. I certainly think the program is being misused if it becomes the personal fiefdom of adult leaders who cavalierly ignore the BSA program--but on the other hand, I wouldn't want to label people as misusers if they mostly follow the program and deviate in small ways (such as precise uniforming). In fact, I think many discussions on this board have suffered from this kind of labelling, coming from both ends of the spectrum. Specific issues should be discussed on their merits, and not on whether they fit into somebody's idea of what somebody else thinks about issues.

I think "follower" has a negative connotation. Perhaps a better quote is the one from Mark 10: 44---"whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be the servant of all."

I think it's unfair to say a troop isn't "doing Scouting" if it employs mixed-age patrols rather than same-age patrols. You can certainly criticize such a troop for not following the current BSA guidance on how to do things. It's also fair to argue that BSA has created a good, organic program, and that people shouldn't pick and choose parts of it (as long as you have reasons for why it's good beyond "BSA says so"). But mixed-age patrols have been around forever, and although you might think it's not the best (or even a good) way to do Scouting, it certainly is "doing Scouting."

I'm still wondering about a SM "putting a stop to" use of gameboys, etc. Isn't that a decision for the boys who run the troop to make? Certainly the adults can provide all the good reasons the troop should decide to leave these devices at home, but isn't this for the PLC to decide?

If you read the circuit court opinion (here's another place you can find it: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre70103opn.pdf), it's obvious that this was not even a close case. Moore's own words torpedoed the only possible argument he had to defend his action (that the monument had a secular purpose). It's only Moore's self-promotion that has made people think there is something shocking about this case. Moore clearly knew he would lose in the federal courts--this was strictly a political act on his part. And it may take him to the Senate, so who's the victim?

He violated the Establishment Clause--as he well knew, evidenced by the fact that he brought the monument in under cover of night. Now he--and others--may disagree with interpretations of the Establishment Clause rendered by the federal courts in recent years, but this was an easy case. The monument was clearly installed for a religious purpose--something Moore didn't really try to deny.

You can certainly support Moore's actions as a form of civil disobedience, if you like

I think this is a prime example of a case in which it's difficult to parse the Scout Law to give an answer, and a troop rule (or "collective decision," if you like) might be necessary.

"A scout is courteous" is the only part of the law that seems to me to apply, and it's hard to see how it would support a total ban.

I can see why adults would want to ban these devices on campouts. I feel the same way. To me, one of the most pathetic sights is to see several boys watching another boy play Gameboy.

But...should the adult leadership in the troop be making such a rule? If the boys want to make such a rule (and adult persuasion might be appropriate), I see nothing wrong with it. But an adult rule like this is just the kind of thing that tells the boys that the adults are really in charge. It's not a safety rule--it's just something the adults (including me) find really annoying.

Is there anybody who thinks the boys shouldn't be permitted to establish a rule like this?

I read an article the other day which made the argument that conservatives and Republicans are currently winning the "culture wars," and that they are beginning to admit it. CBS' decision to back down on the Reagan telebio was given as a prime example.

The amazing thing about the Judge Moore story is that so many people have come to his defense, when it has been clearly obvious for decades to anybody with any knowledge of the law that his actions were unlawful. He must have known this as well,and was deliberately acting as a provocateur, so he could cast himself as a victim of the liberals. I hope his efforts have backfired, when even conservatives realized that you can't flout the law.

While I do see some of the conflicts you describe, I don't buy the right's constant claim of victimhood.

The best reaction to this would have been to quietly drill out the holes and not publicize the crime at all. That would have been the best punishment for the perpretrator.

I'd like to throw one more element into this--maybe this is just semantics, too--but obeying fair and properly enacted rules IS a value. (A scout is obedient, after all.) That's why I obey the speed limit on my street, even though I think it's set too low. The rule about doffing your hat in the dining hall is another example of this--you might think it's a stupid rule, but you obey it out of respect for the tradition, or for the right of the camp to set its own rules.

Some rules have a clear ethical basis--no running in camp is an example, because the potential harm can readily be explained. I think it's a matter of semantics whether you patiently explain that it's an important rule or an ethical imperative--you're probably going to make the same points.

But something like whether electronics will be brought on campouts--while I question whether the adults should impose such a rule, I see nothing wrong with the boys making a collective decision for the good of the troop on how this will be handled.

What I find objectionable is the institution of rules that are designed simply to exert power over others, or to enact one person's preference over the collective interest. "As long as I'M Scoutmaster, there will be no Gameboys on campouts." I think the disagreement here is partly on what rules fit this description, and what rules don't.

It seems to me some of the issue here is just semantic--but here are some more thoughts.

1. Some rules primarily convey information. For example, surely nobody would object to a troop having a "rule" like the following: "The closet in the back of the room may not be used for storing troop supplies because it is used by the church for hymnals." Obviously, BSA doesn't have a specific rule or procedure that covers this.

2. "No running in camp" is a rule, whether it is written or unwritten--if there are consequences for a person who continues to violate it after being instructed/counseled/requested to desist.

3. Adult leaders of troops are responsible for the safety of the boys. If they believe that BSA's safety rules are inadequate in some way, I see nothing wrong with a troop safety rule that goes farther. There might even be local considerations that the national organization is unaware of.

4. On the other hand, I think it's likely true that many troop rules are unnecessary, overbroad, and often in direct conflict with BSA rules and procedures--this is usually based on ignorance (i.e,. merit badges have to be completed within two years--a false impression in my son's troop).

I continue to think that in today's environment--especially if you live in an urban or suburban setting--that it's going to be extremely difficult to find a place for boys to camp without adult supervision, and extremely difficult to find parents who will allow boys younger than 16 or so to camp without adult supervision. Perhaps that's why there is such a strong reaction to the BSA policy about its own property--a suspicion that BSA really knows that patrol camping is unlikely to happen anywhere. even though it continues to give it lip service. I note that nobody has answered the original question--if you can give examples of patrol camping, where was it done? How old were the boys in the patrol? And what did you have to do to convince the parents that it was safe?

It seems pretty obvious that liability concerns are the reason behind this restriction. OGE is right to ask what are the liability considerations for a private landowner allowing this activity on his land. While I'm certain BSA would defend the troop leaders for allowing patrol camping, I'm not so certain it would defend a landowner, especially if he is not a BSA member.

I'd be interested in seeing some answers to the original question in this thread--where have patrols actually camped? How did you convince today's parents that it would be safe enough?

Rooster--I certainly agree that men and women have many fundamental differences, but I still don't get which ones make it wrong for women to be directly in harm's way. And is it wrong to expose women to danger, or to put them in a situation in which they would have to kill others? I admit I have a gut reaction agains women in combat, but I can't honestly say whether it's cultural or moral. What's the moral argument?

If "serve actively" means something more than "serve" alone would mean, I don't see how anybody could have this requirement signed off if they performed none of the obligations of the position. It would certainly be unfair and wrong of adult leaders to thwart a scout's efforts to perform those duties--but it would be dishonest to pretend that the scout had actually performed them.

I understand the the program materials say BORs should be held for scouts who aren't advancing--but who makes the decision that a particular scout needs one, and is that decision enforced? What if the scout says, "no, thanks."?

To me, the whole idea of having people register for the draft is a waste of time. Do you really think they'd be hard to find if we ever needed to reinstitute the draft? As I recall, the reinstitution of draft registration was a sabre-rattling action by President Carter when the Soviets were up to something (I don't even remember what it was--invading Afghanistan, maybe?).

If you are going to have registration, there's no reason to register men and not women. It's a completely separate question from whether women should go into combat or not.

And I have to say, I really don't understand this horror of having women in combat. It seems to cast all women--no matter how strong or capable--primarily in the role of potential sexual victim. If that's not it, what is it?

Can a scout who is not advancing be required to appear before a Board of Review? Who can require him to do so?

I bring this thread back because I have a related question--a boy in my son's troop spends all summer with his father in another state. What kind of affiliation, if any, can he make with a troop there?

It may just be semantics, but it seems to me that it's crystal clear that smoking causes lung cancer. It doesn't cause all cases of lung cancer, and not all smokers get lung cancer, but it's clear that the vast majority of lung cancer cases would not occur but for smoking. It may be that the confusion comes from the fact that you can't clearly establish that any particular smoker's cancer was caused by smoking--he might be part of the small group that would have gotten lung cancer anyway. So saying that smoking causes cancer is like saying driving blindfolded causes traffic accidents--clearly true, but not necessarily true in an isolated case.

Every time this issue comes up, it seems to go around and around the same way. Here are a few points to ponder in thinking about it.

1. BSA is a private organization that sets its own policies. How does it set them? What circumstances causes it to change its policies? What are its mechanisms for changing its policies?

2. What part, if any, should the views of the volunteer membership of BSA have in determining what its policies should be?

3. It's clear that there has been a shift in public opinion on the morality of homosexuality. I'm not sure that there is a social consensus on this one way or the other. It's primarily a religious issue, and religious groups disagree on it (there are disagreements within religious groups).

4. While we may want to say that shifts in public opinion shouldn't affect the principles of Scouting, can we really say that wasn't an element in previous policy changes on racial and gender policy by BSA? When the social consensus shifts enough, it becomes "obvious" that, for example, racial discrimination is wrong. I would argue that the social consensus on homosexuality hasn't reached that point (and may never reach it).

My conclusion: I see absolutely nothing wrong with people disagreeing with BSA policy and urging that it be changed. Their efforts to persuade the decisionmakers will succeed or fail, but it should be on the merits. BSA doesn't have a pope--and heck, even rank and file Catholics try to get the church to change its policies.

In short, I would urge people to debate this issue on the merits, and stop suggesting that somebody who disagrees should either be quiet or leave. Shouldn't we all speak up if we perceive a way to make BSA better?

(Note: if you think you can discern from the above what my personal view of having gay leaders in scouting is, you may be surprised.)

You'd have to be living in a fantasy world to believe that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. See http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_14.htm, and follow the link to CDC for more. I guess you can choose to believe that it's all a big conspiracy. There is a mountain of scientific evidence of the harmful effects of smoking--indeed, the effects are worse than most people realize (for example, most people think your risk of lung cancer goes back to normal if you quit smoking--it doesn't--it just doesn't continue to increase). I know the person who was claiming the links are unproven has announced that he won't be reading this any more, but I just can't stand to see that kind of misinformation left hanging out there.

I think they are both very poor choices for a scouting event, because of the deviation between their prior behavior and the principles of Scouting, as well as their extremely partisan views. I am surprised at the degree to which Oliver North has been able to rehabilitate his image. I would also think that speaking invitations shouldn't be extened to Al Franken or Bill Clinton, for similar reasons (although Clinton, at least, would be unlikely to use such an occasion to bash the Republicans).

As to the disgusting display of booing of scouts at the DNC, it's a sad reminder of how far out of touch Democratic leaders are with many rank and file Democrats.

"Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without tobacco and may not allow the use of tobacco products at any BSA activity involving youth participants." -- from the Guide to Safe Scouting, Part IV

I agree with the sentiment that smoking should be prohibited at all scouting activities. I especially don't think anybody in uniform should be seen smoking, anytime or anyplace. But, as an English major, I feel competent to say that the above wording is vague, or at least strange. It begins by focussing on what adult leaders "should" do and then uses the phrase "may not allow." The first time I read this, I asked myself, "Is this a prohibition, or do they just mean that the adult leaders have the power to prohibit smoking?" Also, it immediately follows a passage which states that "BSA prohibits" certain activities. Why is the smoking language then couched in terms of what adult leaders may not allow? And it's followed by another passage which says activities "should" be carried out on a smoke-free basis, with designated smoking areas "away" from all participants. Is this last referring only to activities with no youth participants? Perhaps the explanation is really that BSA wanted to prohibit smoking but wanted to soften the language. I think smoking prohibitions have become familiar enough that this is no longer necessary, and is undesirable if it leads to confusion.