jmenand

I apologise for all the typos in my post... Let this be a lesson to all: if you wake up and can't sleep in the middle of the night, don't go posting things on online message boards!

No one's mentioned the possible solution of removing the instution of "marriage" entirely from the functions of the government. I still wonder why the government endorses the concept at all. If you want to enter inter a legal contract with another person that has similar benifits/obligations as the current marriage has, that's fine and dandy.

People who argue that there is a potential slippery slope where people will want to marry children and inanimate objects are sort of right, except that really what should be done is to leave the spiritual, emotional, and societally binding concept of marriage to the private and religious sphere, and the leave the legal arrangements that marriage typically brings to the government/courts.

Pretty simple answer if you ask me. Unfortunately the argument that "marriage has been around forever and every other society has something like it and blah blah blah" continues to 'count' as a rational for keeping government marriages. I could easially evoke the, "if every other society jumped off a bridge, would you?" argument that my mother was fond of using on me when I was young, but for some reason I think it would go in one ear and out the other of most people.

The shorts on the switchbacks are not too short. They don't hang down all baggy below the knee as some youth might prefer, but I wouldn't call them "daisy dukes" either.

Unless the fabric just starts falling apart after constant use, these pants are perfect. Everyone owes it to themself to go try em on.

Also I've never heard of a "no daisy dukes" rule being specifically mentioned as a troop rule! Bizarre...

Just picked up my pair today. They seem really great so far! Everyone go check em out.

Our Scoutmaster is on his 17th or 18th consecutive year with our troop.

Quote: "Kinda dispels the notion that most scouts are Republicans, doesn't it?"

Unfortunately it seems to prove that eagles are incapable of winning the presidency, eh?

Talk about bad timing, Merri. Is your troop aware that the BSA is releasing official Zip-Off uniform pants later this month? They will be the same color green and everything!

Hah! They changed it. They must have sensed a disturbance in the scouting force...

Even though he's wearing the working WB necker, he's also wearing the beads. I picture this actor showing up at the photo shoot and the photographer pulling out a box of random uniform parts and slapping them together.

I would like to clarify and rephrase what I am trying to say. I do not deny that the BSA has done a lot of the 'heavy lifting.' No doubt, some people want to make alternative youth organizations and call them scouting just to emulate and "steal" some of that success. However, I feel that my comparison to religions is at least appropriate when talking about the legal classifications of different organizations as being companies for business, non-profit organizations, or religions (or anything else).

Why is it that religions can take a fundamental element of another religion, and build a slightly different religion around that core principal? To take my previously used example, the LDS church is an example of a religion that has many similarities to other christian organizations, with a number of fundamental differences. They are arguably very successful and operate in many ways very efficiently and business-like.

So can anyone explain in plain language what the difference is between an organization like the BSA and an organization like the LDS church?

We keep coming back to the word "scouting" as the definitive aspect that is under contention, but it is really the entire history, connection to Baden-Powell and the Scout Law, etc. that is being held by the BSA. If I make a scouting organization called the Monkey Treemen that talks about the history of Baden Powell and his vision for a worldwide scout movement and all that, will the BSA leave me alone just because I don't have the word "scout" in the name of the organization?

Why can christian churches start their own non-profit religious organizations with nearly identical beliefs and histories, while alternative scouting organizations cannot?

It just doesn't make sense to me, and for that I apologise for my ignorance. If someone knows the answer, please tell me/us!

Actually, on second thought, I'm not so sure the BSA lacks a spiritual theology. After all, it does require the recognition of a duty to God. It may be different from many religions, but there are a lot of religions out there, and many have fundamentally different beliefs about who/what created the universe- yet they still all qualify as religions. I don't see why the BSA is any different, and the scouting movement in general could certainly be a religion to a lot of people.

Trevorum, there is no reason to "confuse the issue" by talking about scouting in theoretical terms. That is why I posed the question about someone starting an actual scouting religion. The BSA may lack "(3) a supernatural theology," but a new scouting religion might not. Some of the stuff in Wood Badge and the OA, for example, provides enough of a foundation for supernatural theology I'd think.

"So is having a "monopoly" on the word "scout", "scouting" etc any different than "Kleenex" or "Jello"? Both have had to defend their BRAND NAME and are now very careful to say Kleenex brand tissue and Jello brand geletin. Try selling your operating system as DOS or Windows or naming your shoes nikee and see what happens. Is it truly a monopoly or is it just copyright, trademark and patent potection? "

Are you seriously asking if the scouting movement is different than facial tissue and chilled sugar water?

Imagine a representative of the catholic church walking into an LDS church with a cease and desist order saying, "hey, we're just prtecting our BRAND NAME 'Jesus,' no hard feelings guys!"

If scouting is a business, it should be treated with the laws and regulations businesses are subjected to. I don't know very much about the legal differences between companies, religions, non-profits, etc., but it sounds like you know even less.

If the BSA wants to change to a corporation and start selling sneakers, there might be a parallel. Please see in my above post where I mention that the BSA seems to want to be both a company and a religion.

"So, for those who complain, what is so magical about the name "Scouting" that you want to co-opt it? Create your own program, and come up with a name for it. "

I'm willing to bet most people, including you, fgoodwin, already know the answer to this question. But since you asked, I will spell it out for you. All you have to do is look at religions which branch off and start their own, slightly different church. There are so many churches that are christian, and all of them have their own little differences. If one church owned the rights to say, the bible or the term "christian" or the core fundamental ideas of christianity, I'm willing to bet there would be a vocal outrage.

The scouting movement is a religion to many. Maybe you also go to chruch and when it comes to the afterlife, you're Christian, but when you believe in the message of scouting and the truth of it's ideals, it might as well be called a religion instead of a movement. That's pretty much all there is to it. People have a vested personal interest in "scouting."

The BSA wants to be a corporation AND a religion, even if it doesn't come out and say it in plain language. I wonder what would happen if someone tried to start an actual scouting religion? Or for that matter, the church of Microsoft or the Temple of McDonalds? Where do corporate rights on a name end when it comes to freedom of religion?

I can't honestly say I know what is rattling around in the heads of the top brass in the BSA, but the optimist in me requires that I look for the good intentions in what the BSA does. For example, I have to assume that the ban on homosexuals at least partially comes from the supposedly "logical" train of thought that male adults who are attracted to men rather than women, will thus be more likely to molest boys than straight men.

We have to ask ourselves: when push was coming to shove back in the highly politicized environment of the meetings to decide the way to word the policy that bans homosexuals, what forces lead to banning "homosexuals" rather than, for example, simply "molesters, perverts, and anyone attracted to children?"

I mean, if they were going to ban people with certain sexual urges, it seems much more appropriate to ban those who are sexually attracted to children... or more specifically boys. With middle school boys getting their middle aged teachers pregnant, the homosexual ban fails to screen those female leaders with immoral intentions.

And what of the word "avowed"? Talk about a squishy word! I picture the heads of the BSA and their many lawyers spending sleepless nights around a conference table, asking, "What word can we put in this policy that sounds assured, but is in truth arbitrary and malleable?"

I picture a similar discussion taking place years ago around a table of community leaders of Salem, just before their first witch hunt.

That darn word, "avowed..."

But I digress.

The bottom line is that these are the elected leaders of the people of the city. They are, through those democratic votes, the voices of the majority for better or worse. If they want to put pressure on the scouts, whether for political publicity and distraction from the city's real problems or for their honest moral beliefs, then pressure will be applied.

The scouts will just have to deal with it, and to that degree I agree with the above article. They should stop the political publicity stunts of "he said, she said," and just DEAL with it, and move on.

Oldsm- after talking to a couple people and referencing the previous post, I speculate that what you say is true: the pants your son saw were probably not from BSA Supply. I can only speculate this because I have not seen the BSA pants in person yet. However, everyone I have talked to "in the know" says that a lot of effort was made to match the color of these new pants to the old color. If the pants your son saw were a slightly different color, and because the entire troop was outfitted in them, I am thinking they were not the BSA pants.

That said, they might have been the real McCoy. It is possible this troop had early access to the BSA product for some reason. Also, colors (especially on clothes) can be very tricky, and different materials can look like different colors depending on the lighting. Take for example the Poly/Cotton shirts compared to the 100% Cotton shirts. In some lighting, they look like the same color. But under other lighting, one looks slightly "pinkish," especially after laundry.

In other words, we will all just have to wait and see.

The spark issue is one I'm willing to live with for the many apparent benefits of these pants. I have nylon pants with tiny spark-melted holes on them (especially around the calf/ankle area). Of course nobody wants holes in their pants, but if supplex is anything like my normal nylon pants, the holes will at least be nicely fused! And while I'm waiting for the holes to develop, I will be able to enjoy a pair of uniform pants which function well as both hiking pants AND shorts. Tiny, cleanly fused spark holes are a small price to pay.

As for supplex shirts, I didn't think about the patch issue. I must give it to the current shirts, they hold up well to stitching. But I'm willing to bet there is some miracle fabric with the benefits of supplex and the durability to withstand repeated stitching.

Epaulets on the other hand, like bedroll packs and dutch oven backpacking, are best forgotten. I don't mind shoulder loops, but if loops are the only thing keeping epaulets on the uniforms, then I say good riddance to loops!

Great!

Now how about a supplex field shirt, too? Maybe a full shirt re-design with a more classic cut and no epaulets while you're at it?... I guess I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth...

Anyone know of a good site that shows pictures of old uniform styles? Specifically the changes to the shirt over the years. If pictures aren't possible, a good site with written descriptions is OK too. I'm having a hard time finding a clear timeline.

Thanks in advance.

I don't care much for the current collar style, but I do like collars generally speaking. I don't care that some think the uniform looks like military uniforms. I think that the addition of the world crest as a standard piece of insignia goes a long way to help identify the shirts as scout uniforms- and in the 21st century the neckerchief looks rather silly, especially on adults.

The current collar is too big. It reeks of 80's fashion. Going back to a more classic, timeless collar cut as well as cotton/wool material would be nice. As I said, having the world crest on the front of every uniform is great just by itself. Combined with the "Boy Scouts of America" lettering, I don't know of anyone who mistakes a scout uniform for a military uniform. After you add stuff like camp patches and lodge flaps, only a complete charlatan would think a BSA shirt was military.

All of that said, I like the history of the necker. I think with a more modest collar, and bigger, more functional neckers, a perfect balance can be struck. A shirt with a collar that looks fit and classic without a necker, and neckers that have a purpose and fit well over the collar.

In short, I say shrink the collars and enlarge the neckers.

Setting aside for a moment what the BSA has a legal right to do, there is a possible difference between a traditional corporation and something like the BSA. The BSA is, in my eyes and the eyes of many others, a steward of an idea called the scouting movement. Over the years and even from the beginning the BSA has had to balance that stewardship with the real world demands of a functional corporation. I am simply arguing (nay, suggesting) that despite the BSA's *right* to exercise it's legal rights, it should do so while being conscientious of the principals of the scouting movement it claims it stewards. I feel the scouting movement is something that cannot be owned, and I feel dismay towards modern developments which indicate that the corporate exercises might, *might* be taking precedent over the moral responsibilities of the stewardship of scouting values.

The ideals and values of the scouting movement are augmented by the BSA's interpretation and implimentation of those values. I feel it is nonsensical to rely on the legal rights of private groups to justify the actions of an organization which prides itself on values- Values which in most ways excede what the law requires of a person. If the BSA wants to claim it's values are simultaniously American as well as the ideal of what American character *should* be, there is something wrong when those values as presented by the BSA's program are so often at the center of controversy concerning basic American culture and freedom.

I'm not saying the BSA should "water down" it's value system. I am merely saying they should carefully think about their own values and how and what they want the program to teach as a component of American culture. Perhaps it is the case that the leaders of the BSA no longer view themself as an organization that teaches ideal American values. I realize that there are some who feel American values have changed and that the BSA should stick to their "mission."

Few people are suggesting that the BSA should suddenly start *advocating* certain behaviors and beliefs such as homosexuality or alternate spiritual beliefs that fail to meet the declaration of religious principal. This is a case of fixing something that wasn't broken. There was never before a need to confront these issues the way the BSA's national policy has chosen to, why is it happening now? When a new policy is introduced where no policy was before and no policy may even be needed, red flags should go off in the minds of the people who care. People like me.

In a widget factory, such things could go unquestioned. In a group that stewards the scouting movement, such things MUST be questioned.

The BSA claims to be based around American ideals. Is it only the ideals of the 1910 USA we should hold the BSA accountable for? Some new policies are just part of modern life, like the G2SS. But other policies seem specifically designed to wage a culture war against modern American freedoms- freedoms the people in charge of the BSA might not personally feel content co-existing with. And by golly, if they can't force people out of America at least they can force them out of Scouting. But I feel that just because they are legally allowed to do something doesn't neccisarilly mean they *should* do it.(This message has been edited by jmenand)

Based solely on the way it is presented here, the scout's lawyer must be out of his mind. I hope that the lawyer is acting, as lawyers often do, the way they *believe* is in their client's best interest. If the lawyer is acting under direction from the council then they're all insane.

Maybe some people would complain even if the uniforms were free, but most people I know would be very grateful for even a 10% reduction in price. A scout is thrifty, after all.

And in response to the "people seem to care about price over quality" remark: As I said the scout shop had both USA made uniform shirts and Dom. Republic shirts. I compared them side by side and the stitching and construction seems better on the DR shirt. Who knows how they will hold up over time, but since the USA shirts hold up pretty poorly IMHO, there's no where to go but up.

Not to start an argument about whether this is right or not, but I've noticed that new uniforms are no longer being made in USA, but it either Dom. Republic or Honduras I believe.

Hopefully prices fall (or at least do not rise) as a result of this.

Only time will tell, but comparing the stitching on the "Boy Scouts of America" on the front of the shirt to the USA shirts, the quality actually appears to be improved!

Anarchist- you say "find another game"- that would be a lot easier to do if the BSA would stop trying to monopolize the scouting "movement" in the US. It's easy to say to find another organization, but it's not easy to do that. What, Boys and Girls club? Indian Guides? Hardly the same thing as scouting, to put it kindly.

I read an interesting analogy by Bob White in an older thread where Bob described the BSA system as a franchise. He compared it to McDonalds. If you don't like working under McDonalds rules, start a Burger King francise. But this is a false analogy, because for Burger King or any other number of businesses to compete, they compete with a different take on the generic product- in this case hamburgers.

With scouting, scouting itself is the product. But rather than be content to offer their "flavor" of scouting, the BSA demands a monopoly. It would be like if McDonalds tried to copyright the hamburger so they could be the only place to get burgers in the US. The product is not generic youth programs, the product is the history of the scouting movement. It baffles me why the BSA is allowed to hold the movement for ransom in the US. But I digress.

I know that scouting is not vital to life, but it has always been a part of my life and culture. I have less of an attachment to the BSA, but I definately have a strong attachment to the more generic idea of scouting. Until the BSA relaxes it's hold on scouting, or someone presents a strong legal argument to the courts to force them to let go, I will work within the BSA system. And I will even be content to do so.

But that doesn't mean I have to think it's right that talking to my fellow scoutmasters or DE or the higher ups about these problems is grounds for dismissal. I was just curious what other people thought about this perceived problem.

If all I wanted to hear was why BSA is legally allowed to do something, I wouldn't be involved in a youth program that teaches values which go far beyond what the law requires!