johndaigler

"Church Camp" . . . Thanks for the mental jump start, chickenranch!!!!! jd

http://www.itcbsa.org/PDF/program%20guide.pdf jd

I know it would be a trek for you and your boys, but is Haliburton still up and runnin'??? We always went to Camp Ditmer (~Leroy, NY?). Somewhere back in time, I think it closed, though. I would have guessed you were in a perfect location - Adirondacks, Catskills, Finger Lakes, Berkshires, Greens, Whites . . . There must be some great camps within a day's drive. Atleast, I can't imagine there arent't. . . Good Luck. jd

Bugler, you're right. We're not going to agree. I had originally written that in my post, but because I know I get way toooo wordy, I was editing things out to cut it down. I'm not trying to convince you to change your beliefs. I just don't want you or anyone else misusing scientifically researched data to illigitimately validate a personal belief. You don't accept homosexuality, and you don't want homosexuals in Scouting. I understand that, but please, don't try to explain it with science. It won't work. Just call it Faith, and everyone will accept that. I'm not even arguing with your position to keep homosexuals out of Scouting - I think my earlier posts explain why. I'm arguing with the way you brought it to the conversation. Mr. Hudson cannot be seen as an independant voice - a truly objective interpreter of any research data. Again to blame homosexuality for the abuse crisis in Catholicism cannot be based on the information found by John Jay/CUNY. " . . ."shows a hatred that frightens me." -How is having an opinion that differs from yours showing hatred that that frightens you? If I disagree with you, should I just keep quite so you won't be frightened? I have said nothing threatening or vile, I have committed no hate-speak. I just vehemently disagree with you. . . ." I apologize if you thought I was speaking about you. My words referred to the words and actions of Mr. Hudson. His words were, . . ."Overall, 81% of abuse victims were male, and 78% were at or past the age of puberty. In general, the highest rate of abuse occurred among males aged 11 to 14. In other words, most of the abuse involved gay priests molesting teenage boys. This is called homosexuality, not pedophilia." . . . He's saying that because most of the boys were 11 or older, they were teenagers. Obviously, that's a twist because we don't call 11 and 12 year olds teenagers. He's saying that because the boys were "teenagers" this should be deemed as homosexuality and not pedophilia. Redefining pedophilia in order to blame homosexuals, and redefining "teenager" and the "age of puberty" in order to justify blaming homosexuals is an egregious manipulation of scientific data, legal definitions and common understanding. THIS is what represents a hatred that frightens me. I guess, then, for the young women victims, the problem is heterosexuality and not pedophilia!?!?!?!?!?!?!? " . . ."THERE IS NO VALIDATION FOR YOUR POST", OR YOUR BELIEFS, IN THE JOHN JAY/CUNY STUDY." -Yes, there is." . . . Bugler, believe what you believe, but I've shown you the numbers don't justify what you want them to justify. . . . You know what they say, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics . . ." ..."BTW, who are the liberal elite and are they all homosexual??" -Hollywood, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Time-Warner, etc., etc., and I don't know about all of them, just "Will and Grace", oh, and "Three's Company"!" . . . THAT'S a VERY large paintbrush you're swinging. This and your "Blue America" are divisive and hurtful to many more people than "homosexuals". This borders on ignorant hatred. "Three's company"??????? " . . .If any SM or other Scout Leader gets it into his head that his role somehow resembles the role of a priest, I'll be making phone calls to Council. -I wasn't referring to being like a religious minister. I meant that the youth would presuppose that because each adult was in a traditional role of authority, they would therefore be trustworthy and morally upright." . . . I understood, I disagree. Given the stictures of 2 deep leadership, the BSA doesn't presuppose such trustworthiness. Part of the Church's crisis is that Catholic families believed that wearing priest's traditional role of authority made priests trustworthy and morally upright. Teach your Scouts that trust needs to be earned by a person, not a uniformed role. jd

WELCOME, Jethro!!!! The posts are probably cut off either by bandwidth issues or security software. At least, that's what I've been told. It happens to me once in a while and if it happens, I can trust it to happen several times to the same post. I've learned to copy my posts before sending them, then use the edit button to fix any partial diveries. Good Luck!! jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

"Why don't ya'll take a drag at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Research Study? Start trying to refute that instead of defending microbes." Well, Bugler, if you insist, . . . I'm disappointed in your attempt to "use" science to validate your faith-based beliefs. There are a few pieces of information that you left out of your post that might be important to anyone involved in this conversation. The words you suggested were the "pertinent details" of a good summary of the John Jay/CUNY research study . . . "[The report also broke down the facts regarding the victims and this is revealing. Overall, 81% of abuse victims were male, and 78% were at or past the age of puberty. In general, the highest rate of abuse occurred among males aged 11 to 14. In other words, most of the abuse involved gay priests molesting teenage boys. This is called homosexuality, not pedophilia. Regarding the first question, the Board concluded that two main factors contributed to the existence of these abusers in the Church: one, dioceses and orders didn't screen priestly candidates properly (and so sexually and emotionally immature men were admitted to the priesthood). The other main factor was poor seminary formation, where seminarians were not properly prepared for the rigors of celibacy in a hypersexualized world and in the all-male environment of the seminary. Bennett pointed out that many seminaries lost their way in the 1970s, and that this surely contributed to the problem. This data now proves what we've long suspected: the sex abuse scandal has more to do with homosexuality than with pedophilia. The report points out that, "given the nature of the problem of clergy sexual abuse of minors, the reality of the culture today, and the male-oriented atmosphere of the seminary, a more searching enquiry is necessary for a homosexually oriented man by those who decide whether he is suitable for the seminary and for ministry. For those bishops who choose to ordain homosexuals, there appears to be a need for additional scrutiny...."]" . . . are NOT the conclusions of the John Jay/CUNY study, NOT the conclusions of the Roman Catholic Church, NOT the conclusions of the USCCB, or any of its Boards. . . They are the words and conclusions of Deal Hudson. Deal Hudson is editor and publisher of CRISIS Magazine. . . . The mission of CRISIS Magazine is: "to interpret and shape the direction of contemporary culture from a standpoint of Catholic tradition. We are dedicated to the proposition that the crisis of modernity can be answered by a Christian humanism rooted in the teachings of the Catholic Church. We bring the wisdom of the Catholic tradition into direct dialogue with contemporary politics and culture." Hmmmm, . . . the science didn't discuss homosexuality, the Church didn't blame homosexuality, ONLY the Conservative Catholic Press decided that all those abuse cases were really homosexuality and not PEDOPHILIA after all. . . . The number (81% male victims) used by Mr. Hudson and you, Bugler, to substantiate your faulted conclusions and comments, reasonably speaks more to environment than homosexuality. Pedophiles are predators, the ease of finding young male prey is significantly greater for a Priest-predator than the ease of finding young women prey. Even if you could extrapolate any homosexual tendencies from the data, they would be invalid because such a few priests (~4%) are responsible for such a survey-whelming number (~26%) of abuse incidents. Those ~150 priests skew the data to such an extent, they make the question/answer of homosexuality indeterminable. Journalism and research science are mutually exclusive - especially to such a pre-agenda'd eye as the Conservative Catholic Press. Mr. Deal's MANIPULATION of scientific data and his Church leaders' words is very disappointing, but NOT SURPRISING. Grouping homosexuals with criminal predators of our youth is a disservice to the truth, and a deliberate misunderstanding of homosexuality. And, to whitwash the predatory nature of pedophilia, in order to prioritize and justify verbal attacks against homosexuals, shows a hatred that frightens me. Can anyone ever read his work again and trust that it has a grain of truth? THERE IS NO VALIDATION FOR YOUR POST, OR YOUR BELIEFS, IN THE JOHN JAY/CUNY STUDY. "You can spin this any way you want, but homosexuals should continue to be banned from the BSA based on their moral depravity. . . .The liberal elite/homosexual deviants want us (BSA, USA, whole World) to conform to them. . . ." . . .Apparently, spinning can be done in either direction, Bugler. BTW, who are the liberal elite and are they all homosexual?? I guess, by "us" you mean people who think like you do. What makes you think you speak for the USA, and the whole world?? I would even doubt that you speak for the majority of BSA membership - though you obviously speak, at least in part, similarly, to the policy makers of the BSA. "The position of a Scout Leader in relation to a youth, is not that dissimilar from a Priest. . . . would you want the gay Scoutmaster explaining his "lifestyle" to you son in detail?" . . . I wouldn't expect any SM to explain his lifestyle to a Scout, but personally, I'm more concerned by my sons' interactions with adulterers, untreated alcoholics, liars, bigots, drug users, chauvinists, and Scouters who don't follow G2SS and/or see "hazing" as "just good fun". If any SM, or other Scout Leader, gets it into his/her head that his/her role somehow resembles the role of a priest, I'll be making phone calls to Council. Fortunately, National policy, G2SS, their own Faith, common sense, and several training courses remind Scouters how little their role resembles the role of a priest. I can understand your hope that someone learns something from the RCC abuse crisis. However, I find it odd that you want those who don't readily agree with you to learn from the errors made by those who do agree with you. Perhaps, you'd do better to wish a little learning on the Catholic Church, and the Conservative Catholic Press. jd (This message has been edited by johndaigler)(This message has been edited by johndaigler)(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

WELCOME, Bikerferg!!!!!!! jd

Which training course do I need to take for someone to help me understand this "flexible" use of the "local option" rule?????? Where can I find the training manual or handbook that is going to help me understand the history of decision making in our Org.???? How do I learn the structure and process I need to know so that I can have an impact on National BSA policy???

What about . . . "WHEREAS, the national officers reaffirm that, as a national organization whose very reason for existence is to instill and reinforce values in youth, the BSA's values cannot be subject to local option choices, but must be the same in every unit; and ..." ??????????????????????????????? sad, confused and leaning toward angry . . . jd

Bluegoose and Brother Jaime, WELCOME!!!!! BSA is pretty clear where the "just having fun v. Hazing" line is, but even if that weren't the case... Who get's to decide if it's hazing or just fun?? The gigglin' boys or the lone Scout sitting in the forest all night??? Who's gonna decide if harm is intended or done?? The mocking GROUP or the embarassed ONE? How does humiliation and isolation teach a boy "to be a man" and to be self-reliant? I was OA as a Scout, but I'm not involved now nor would I try to convince you I was informed about today's OA practices ... But don't OA practices fall under BSA dictates and shouldn't their practices have already felt the changes of these policies??? jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Welcome, Starwolfmom!!!! Do you belong to my Pack?? Our stories our TOO identical. I was so disappointed in my son's Tiger year that it was either, walk away or jump in. My family has a LOOOONG Scouting history - taking my son out of Cubs didn't seem right. So, this year, I'm Wolf Den Leader in a Pack very similar to yours. We have a new CC who "gets it" and is actually trying to provide a strong program; and one or two (out of 10) DLs who want to get it, but other than that everyone sees following Program and worrying about little things like "required achievements" to be a bit of an inconvenience! Of course, the worst are the Webelos because they're so ingrained in the old "choose fun rather than scouting" ways. So, of course, we, too, walk our boys across the bridge to . . . dropping out. There are a great number of wise Scouters here at this web-capfire, so there's likely to be good advice for you (and me, and others). I'm curious to see new info that will help my Unit on our journey toward "Quality". We're stressing training, and improved communication and cooperation amongst the adults. This is the first year many of them have even seen the "Program Helps". (One of the things that scares me most is that we are quite likely to achieve "Quality" status this year. I hope people don't see that as an end place and "Good Enough"!) There's already some internal angst, and mini-revolts get squashed weekly, but turning our program around will take time. To be honest, I think I see success coming over a year or two, as we age-out leaders who never really lead anyway. Our Cubmaster leaves in Feb. and the CC will probably move to the Cubmaster role and I'll take the CC role. Things are improving, but not as quickly as the CC and I would like. Perhaps there's a role for you with the Pack?? Is your role with the Troop "official", or were you just helping out passing out flyers? Can you trust your son's DL to be more involved than this year's crop of WDLs? Can you take this to the CM, CC or COR? I have as many questions as you, so I'm hoping to be supportive rather than helpful. Don't get discouraged. Some wheels can't be fixed, but those are few. Just coming here shows you have the interest and know-how to attack this problem. Listen to what others have to say and choose what you can make work. Perhaps, it's just a matter of getting your SM and CM together for 5 minutes. Even if it's more complicated, you're sure to find some help here. Good Luck. Keep posting, so we can share success stories back and forth. jd

"As I understand it, units can ban female leaders, can require that all members belong to a particular religion, etc." Hunt's off base isn't he???????? These choices DO NOT exist on the local level, do they??? BTW, Ed, your praise of the "Flame/tent" comment does nothing to advance the conversation. BSA has a given policy, but the conversation isn't over, and the topic of inclusion/exclusion affects others, so it's too important to mock. BSA policy certainly doesn't condone or support comments of hatred. People are too important to verbally abuse. You need to make up your mind -- do you worry for Phillip and others who "misunderstand", or not? Do you hate sin, but love the sinner -- or do you hate them both?? jd (This message has been edited by johndaigler)

I think Scoutldr is on the right track. If you want the best, then you need to offer something that will bring the best to you. You know what's out there in the "summer job" world for them to choose from - why should they choose you?? Eamonn, you're right about money for tuition and everything else these kids need to focus on. Some will come because of their Scout connection, but for many, it has to be a money thing, too. I'm sure your money is not unlimited. In fact, I'd guess you'll have a tough time competing dollar for dollar. So, what else can we (you, in this case) offer them?? Most youths don't chip in for costs at home so the room and board thing is mostly moot. . . .Or is it? Maybe you can convince some parents that you're saving the household some money by removing the teen eating machine for a few months, and they could support the youth with a "grant" -- kind of like funding a community service project -- a family sponsored Peace-Corps-like experience???? Does their work experience count toward some achievement or recognition?? -- beyond CC's t-shirt! (BTW, how typical is that, that they guilted her into giving back her $5??!!??) If they're already college bound, can the work count toward college credit?? Can you write truly magnificent recommendation letters??? Is there a local business that will honor their camp work as something truly positive when looking at their resume?? If there's a younger sib (or even, unit peer), can you offer a discount? Can you provide study or tutor time/support to staff, so they're better prepared for school in the fall?? If the youth represents a Unit, can that Unit get a break? Do Staffers get a break at the Scout Store or Trading Post?? Another direction to think is how Camp is funded in the first place. You'll only be able to raise fees so high, but other money comes in, doesn't it? How can those monies be increased so that your payroll pool is larger. Can the camp "make money" through additional usage fees for other activities? Like training sessions? Short term use of Archery and shooting ranges? Fishing and boating facilities?? All creating a logistic nightmare, I'm sure... There are probably rules and traditions I'm ignoring as well and the safety issues certainly would become more complicated, but . . . Good Luck jd

Hi, Jakesmom, you might also try>>>> http://www.praypub.org/scripts_cubsc.htm PRAY is an org. mentioned in the Boy Scout Handbook. I'd take that as official blessing to trust/use their site and ideas. This page will mention a video to show your Cub families - it might be available last minute from your Council Office. But if your tech savvy and equipped . . . it can be downloaded from PRAY (?~$6?). Good Luck. jd

Hi, Jakesmom! Welcome!!!! Ok, you're in a rush - but that makes it hard. The handbook is brief, the Cub Leaders handbook is "briefer". You might try calling the council office to see if you can find someone to talk to about the Religious Award Program, but last minute, I don't know . . . If your Cubs are religiously homogenous then try that religious org. for contacts, but I wouldn't suggest any old speaker/resource for a mixed group of boys. Respect for their families religious choices would dictate spending more time planning and researching. I tried the "Scoutmaster's Other Handbook" for you. It suggested the site >> MacScouter's Big "A Scout is Reverent" Resource Book (http://www.macscouter.com/scoutsown/) You might try that - I'll keep looking. Good Luck jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Remember folks, Don'try this at home . . . (Arguing with several of you at one time . . . great, . . . I'm blaming this all on Amie and Pounder, BTW!!!) Ok, let me just respond person by person, so I have a small chance in keeping my brain from exploding . . . TrailPounder, you started me up, so you first. Your "Flames in the Tent" comment was out of line. I'm disappointed that so few let you know that. Again, most homosexuals are NOT RECRUITED and even using the word "choose" minimizes homosexuality into a lifestyle habit like "clothing optional". You're disregarding many truths concerning homosexuality. If it's a matter of Faith for you, fine. I'm more than willing to leave it at that. I'm surprised your faith urges you to judge others so, but I'm certainly no expert on your beliefs and I'm sure there are other things we would disagree on. FYI, Yes, CHILDREN ARE ATHEISTS. Religious faith is learned. That's why what we teach them is so important. That's why I went on about truth vs. historical legends. We may choose to teach our children to see the world in only one way. But, I believe their life experience will show them myriad other world views. If my kids can't live with others' beliefs, they're going to struggle with much of their interaction with others. Your kids don't need to go to Rooster University - my kids do! Your kids need to go to some liberal arts school in an East Coast Urban Center - someplace where they'll bump into some pony-tailed gray hair! BUDDY, my family fought for this country and it's 200 year old Constitution over the last 150 years. The First Ammendment has protected politically motivated personal expression for much longer than 15 years. I understand your comment, but you undervalue all the efforts that have gone into American History leading up to that Supreme Court decision. Flag burning didn't start with that decision. Unfortunately, my entire comment was a poor choice for this thread. As OGE has said, it was way over the top. In my frustration with you, it was a poisin-dart directed just for you, and as such, was beneath me. I won't take back what I said, but I do apologize for using it the way I did. That kind of disrespect was exactly why I disapproved of your posts. I'm not likely to ever be a flag burner, but I aggressively believe in others' rights to make such free speeches. I don't think you and I would want such different things for our children, but they'll very likely see the world differently. OGE, there's no sour grapes here. I think you read more into my mentioning FLA and Wounded Knee than was there. I chose them because I see them both as times when our Govt. and/or it's Leadership didn't work very well. They are both topics that give (or ought to give) us pause, as a nation. I'm not a Gore opologist (Hey, ya want to be President, carry your Home State!), nor do I lump ballot-counting-chaos with Congressionally-honored-murderous-slaughter-of-civilians. They are obviously, issues of different caliber. They are, however, similar in the way I used them. They both belong on the list of times in our history when the American people think we could have done things better. BTW, is a pea-pickin minute the same as a cotton-pickin minute?? OK, whose next . . . Oh yeah, Rooster . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmm, been here before, . . .We're never going to agree, our Beliefs are what they are. You said some things to Phillip that I disagree with but that's his burden. I hope at this point, you know my intent is to disagree, not to challenge or refute your Faith. Bear with me if my disagreement with your words feels like more than just that. . . "So lets play fair. I will concede that a homosexual is not a murderer, if you concede that a rugged individualist as described by TrailPounder, is in reference to the God fearing, principled men who founded this country and not a bunch of anarchists who embraced rebellion in all its forms." Problem is homosexuality isn't a capital crime in this country, nor is it in any way akin to anarchism. (and your earlier shot about "rugged is arguable" is beneath you!) So, you need to concede the point even if I don't give you what you want. But, let me try to agree with you. Trail Pounder's "Rugged Individualist" comment denied some basic truths about our heroes. They were men, imperfect men - (If historical research points out to us that Benjamin Franklin had a homosexual affair during one of his many stints across the pond, would it make him unfit to belong to the "Founding Fathers"?? If we consider having sex with a slave to be rape (since the slave cannot say NO), would it make Jefferson less of a heroic value to this country??) - and yet, as humans, they were able to rise above that and work together to create something better than any single one of themselves. I belief we ought to strive to be as principled as the Founding Fathers. We disagree, fine. Let's work together anyway to create something better than either of us. In order to do that, we'll need to let "them" into the conversation (not the org., just the conversation) . . . "Homosexuality is about behavior. One can chose to have sex or not to have sex." . . . Since we disagree on the very nature and definition of "Homosexuality" I don't think we can go very far with this. Just a question, though, ... Am I not a heterosexual until I have sex with a woman? You're upset that I said "he was more than disrespectful of what and whom he found here"?? "That's one version of history??" Most American history taught in public school in America is as close to scientifically researched "truth" as will get past "book burners". The truth that is kept out of textbooks is not kept out by "liberals", but by "conservatives". You misunderstand the textbook writing, editing, manufacturing, selling, choosing process if you think American History textbooks are overly influenced by liberals. Also, I believe you overstate the "revised" history as we understand it today. I've seen plenty of public school textbooks (too many, actually!). I have never seen Columbus, Washington or any other American Hero portrayed as "evil" - not even "less than honorable, bloodthirsty, or selfish". You're tossing out "urban myth" with this line of posting. What you may see, rarely, is an attempt to recognize Heroes as humans. (With all due respect to Texans, Tennesseeans and others with close attachments to the topic . . . an example . . .) . . . Sure, our hero Davey Crockett died "heroically" at the Alamo. Sometimes, the conversations get around to: Why was he there? Why was any "American" there? Why was Santa Ana there? Were they Right to be there? Was one side right and the other wrong? In most cases, educators will respect the open endedness of such conversations. I've never seen a test question that asked a student to identify who the good guys were at the Alamo. Sure, many readers and posters have a personal answer to those questions, and I'm not interested in starting an "Alamo" thread, but the point is, we constantly learn new things about our history and these facts change the way we see historical figures. Seeing them as people is closer to Truth than seeing them as Legends. The "relevance" to seeing GW and TJ and other American Icons as real people with qualitites that we can admire and frown upon is that if we can accept them as people who overcame their imperfection to achieve great things, then it's a step closer to accepting the differing people around us as people who are worht valueing. If we can do that, we can work together to create something better than ourselves. "Old enough to embrace the idea of having a sexual relationship with a partner of the same gender, but still young enough to be viewed as a child. In my mind, if this child is old enough to lust after other boys, then hes probably not as young and innocent as your supposition suggests. Still, we can offer him this. Your decision to seek an intimate relationship (i.e., sexual relationship) with another boy is WRONG!" . . . I can only assume that you want this taught to all the boys under 18 who have had intimate relationships with girls, as well. Should we disallow them from our org., as well??? "If we were denying their existence, then we wouldnt have a policy to address them. Were simply denying them access to our children." . . . Ok, you don't deny their existence, but it's more than denying them access to our children. We deny them access to program. We deny them access to friendship and fellowship. We deny all their other character traits beyond those two big words "H" and "A". With either of the Scarlet letters we summarily dismiss them from the "good people" club. I agree with who we are. I agree with not being able to accept them as "us". I don't agree with judging them harshly. Again, I'm sure that's a Faith block for you and me, so let's keep moving. I don't have much self doubt at all. I know quite well who I am, but more importantly I know who I am not. I am not the Judge. I am not ready to decide who is "moral" and who is not. I used to be - but, I've learned and grown, and see myself and the world differently. I see grey between "BSA traditions", "morality", "traditional values", and all the other phrases that get tossed around so cavalierly. The BSA was created by humans, as such it is not perfect. It grows and changes to accommadate new learning and experiences. Each human "redefines morality" for themselves - to deny that is to misunderstand what goes on in that brain of yours. So, we are an imperfect organization made up of individual morality definers. Is the line between us and those "outsiders" who define morality differently really so dark and wide that we cannot yell across it to communicate? MUST we JUDGE those who won't cross over the line as immoral, deviant and a threat to our children? I think we need to work harder to pass the judgement test, before we apply it to others so crisply. Peace. I need a s'more and a sumac lemonade . . . jd

Welcome, Purplemom!!!!!!!!!! Have fun and remind your husband to have fun!!!!! jd

Hey, OGE, and everyone else. My list was meant as examples of times when our "more perfect union" struggled with itself. They were (we are) imperfect. Our systems and our chosen leaders can make mistakes and poor choices. These are times when we could argue about blame or crime or errors made. My point was these types of times will always exist. We shouldn't underplay them or ignore them, but we should celebrate the fact that as Americans we are less than satisfied at those times and work to eliminate them from our future. There are any

Thanks, Anarchist, these young 'uns act like there never was such a thing as a fundraiser - B.PC.!!!!! Doggone kids!! Probably never had to wear a red beret, either!!!! jd

Welcome, Amie!! First-timers don't usually sit so close to the fire!!! Glad to see you're willing to stir the flames a bit!!! A Scout is "Brave" and so, too, must all "Scouters" be! Welcome!! I know we've seen this campfire topic before, but I can't resist. So, with ALL RESPECT, I submit . . . TrailPounder, now, you know that not everyone who disagrees with your words is a pony-tailed, MTV-lovin, aging hippy -- or misguided youth. There's plenty of room for most of the people in the world between you and those "others" you're talking about. You speak about the rugged individualists who helped form this country, but seem disinterested in allowing certain people their individuality. Now, I suppose you can argue that they can be "individual" elsewhere, but your love and respect for Scouting is obvious, so "elsewhere", to you, is obviously a "lesser" place. That seems contradictory. Everyone here respects service and Duty to Country. And we encourage it in everyone we meet --- well, . . . almost everyone, . . . you seem to be saying some people shouldn't be welcome to serve the country, or the country's children. Again, contradictory. You want your kids raised the "American Way"? Shouldn't TRUTH be a large part of that. CC, discovered America (well, it's close enough to truth that I think we can live with it and honor his efforts) but he was more than disrespectful of what and whom he found here. GW deserves every kind word we can say about him, but he WAS a slave owner and imperfect in other areas of his life, as well. I don't think it made him, or Jefferson, or most of the others, "less". They struggled with these choices as real men. Sometimes, we honor our heroes to the point of beatification. It's not really fair == I think "Saints" have it easier. The rest of us struggle with these monumental decisions on a daily basis. GW was no Saint, and yet, he helped create the greatest nation on the planet. . . more power to him, not less. Teach your children the truth -- that's the best lesson! "Look, li'l trailpounder, our republic is the best form of govt. that exists on Earth. Still we have had Teapot Dome, Wounded Knee, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Floridian Elections, etc., etc., because we're human." Being imperfect and striving to be perfect is a better truth than some false legend of perfection. Remember, the lesson of Arthur's Camelot is not that man can't create lasting perfection, but rather that for "brief shining moments" we actually achieve more than we ought. As a nation, we need to celebrate our heroes as humans, not as legends. I agree with fear of sharks, pit bulls, spiders and deep water -- and throw in bats!! Do you know that 25% of the Earth's mammals are bats? That just skeeves me out -- reminds me of having one tangled in my hair a few years ago -- really, really, skeevey! Thank goodness there's less and less hair each year for those bats to get into!!! Homosexuals aren't running around the country trying to sign up new recruits. It doesn't really work that way . . . What makes you imply that all homosexuals are "activists"? Are all divorcees, all adulterers, all smokers, all drinkers? Does being a non-Christian automatically make a Scouter a pushy salesman for their chosen faith?? Does being a heterosexual make you an activist given to bigotry and obnoxious comments about people who are different than you?? Does homosexuality, or atheism, for that matter, automatically negate every other quality that a person might have? Does being "untrained" negate every word that comes out of a Scout's or Scouter's mouth?? We're all too complicated to be summed up, and summarily dismissed, by any one aspect of our character. "I want my children to have enough moral courage, integrity, and strength of convictions, to stand up to the politically correct steamroller" . . . How are we (your children and all the rest of us) going to learn the moral courage and integrity you desire, if you refuse to let us face the truths of the world in which we live?? Sounds like you want us to learn how to shut out things we don't get or that don't fit with who we are. Sounds more like fear than courage. Before you know what's on the other side, it doesn't take courage to climb over a wall, OR to choose to stay on this side of it. Wouldn't you agree that courage comes into play after you learn about the scary thing on the other side of the wall? I'll agree with you that Scouting doesn't have room for homosexuals and atheists. But, please, don't wrap yourself in the American Flag as part of your argument. It might be MY American Flag, and my brother, father, grandfather, etc. all fought for my right to burn it. I'd hate to see you get hurt. Again, Scouting doesn't have room for homosexuals and atheists, but I don't see how condemning those groups as "immoral" or "less American" validates BSA's choice. A fairer truth might be that we don't know how to invite them in without making ourselves less. Is this their issue, or ours? If we could think of a way to "keep our values" and let them join the campfire, do you think BSA would keep them out? If we could understand each other enough to talk about the practical impact of allowing either group to participate, would we really choose to continue segregating whole groups of youth? And, if we would, WHY? Is there nothing we have to offer these children?? Are we so afraid of their impact on ourselves and our children that we deny their existance?? AGAIN, I don't disagree with the policy, but if our reasoning is that they aren't good enough for us, then, again, I worry that it's OUR problem, not theirs. Just to throw another log or two on the fire . . . Amie, ya best move a wee bit back -- there's likely to be sparks. jd

Somebody please help Spiney because I am officially TOOOOOOOOO old !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jd C'mon, someone around here is older than me. . . BW? Eamonn? Methusala? . . . so, so , saddddd . . .(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Hey, Eamonn -- (Not a complaint - just a question...) How did YOU spin a new thread off MY post (Achievement v. Participation - you know cricket girl . . .)??? Also, are you saying there's some connection between the two threads?? Not sure I see it clearly . . . Anyway, the Kid Consumer thing is such big news now for a couple of reasons. Over the last couple of decades, cool cars, houses and other "man toys" have gotten so expensive (and nobody has time to enjoy them anymore, anyway ...) that people (mostly men, since they're still the power and economic center of this country's universe...) have switched to trophy wives and children. Not that they're less expensive, just easier to finance over time, and easier to impress the neighbors with!! Keeping up with the Jones's now often means flashing cool toys for your kids, etc. Some "adults" see their ability to spoil their children as a public show of love and proof of their abilities as a provider and parent. Turning them into "little" adults means not having to deal with childhood problems and helps rationalize excessive economic support as "quality parenting". It means not even having to think about what to buy them, since we've turned them into Franken-children who can tell us what's "COOLEST" and required for their continued existance. Money, apparently equals Time. I don't mean to condemn all of us for what is seen as the "typical" American family situation, and saying it here is like preaching to the choir, I know. I'm just reacting to Eamonn's post and speaking to (about) many of the families that we don't typically reach. . . What's frightening to me is our society's continued demonstration (and glorification) of adults' failure to accept responsibility for their children - or for themselves. The US has a child obesity crisis, and whose fault is it? Those terrible companies that sell cheeseburgers and sugary cereal. Kids smoke, and kids drink and drive. Whose fault is it? Tobacco and Beer companies. Watch, there will me monumental change in the way American companies do business, but American parents won't change, so the problem won't be fixed. 10-20 years ago it was somebody else's fault that our children watched bad TV. So manufacturers and marketers of children's food, clothing, toys and other products helped fund a children's TV Renaissance. You can argue that kids TV isn't great, but it's much better now than it was -- think PBS and Nickelodean Jr. Uh oh, our kids are eating too much of those foods that fund those TV programs. Now, those companies which received public acclaim and awards are being villified for their efforts. General Mills, for example, is being hotly criticized for their little $.10 coupons on every box ("Boxtops for Education"). Sure, they were the model Program for years for corporate education-oriented philanthropy... But, today they're evil because our kids are too heavy and that means the makers of "Kids" cereals are to be blamed. Forget the fact that the kids' cereal payed for the school's playground and Phys ed. equipment! . . . GM is tricking America's children into Forcing their parents into buying cereal that's bad for them . . . Ok, so that's 5 -6 paragraphs too long, but now I don't have to contribute for a week or two - while this carpul-tunnel thing gets fixed . . . jd

Thanks Encourager, BW and SWS, good thoughts. I'm on it. "in my council there is an Interfaith Committee. It has published a wonderful booklet, I think called, "A Scout is Reverent." It also organizes a Ten Commandment hike every year, the day after Thanksgiving. It's about a five mile hike that stops at different churches of different faiths." SWS, these are great ideas and programs!!! Thanks for sharing!!! jd

Troop185, "Tripping Director"???? Catholic Camp is tougher than I thought!!! I'm glad I settled for Philmont!!! Ok, so . . . my jobs . . . paper boy Tom Watt Salesman stock clerk meat cutter apprentice security guard burger flipper burger flipper mgr. RA "super sub" substitute teacher high school teacher Teacher Union Executive middle school teacher Asst. Principal Student Services Administrator (can you say ... Dean?) Assoc. Principal (they told me it was cooler than Asst. -- still handled everyone else's headaches!! Though, I didn't have to deal with gangs and handguns, anymore!) Elementary Principal District Administrator for Technology and Curriculum STAY AT HOME PARENT (Much cooler to help your own kids than other peoples'!!) jd

All good thoughts!! Impressive thinking and communicating from the 19 year old -- Not that we shouldn't expect it, but sometimes we don't. Thanks for reminding us, pjzedalis!! Well Played!!! Here's my Uncleguinea imitation for the day . . . Stringing twine to separate campsites seems Dangerous (and unecessary). I hope you were careful. . . Kinda hate to steal your thunder, Unc, but your concerns about the Lone Scout sent out on the Skyhook Mission taught me to keep my eyes open wider -- besides, now you can go for the punchline and suggest that next time they use home and away unis! jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)