Kahuna

Calico: The right to use military facilities is limited, but it is not exclusive to the BSA. Lots of groups use military facilties all the time for lots of reasons. The relationship between the military and the BSA is historical. It goes back to WWI, when Scouts sold Liberty Bonds, collected peach pits for gas masks and Sea Scouts were used to free up some shore duty jobs to let men go into combat. It has been mutually beneficial, since the military gets recruiting opportunities and Scouts get a lot of freebies. The fact that the BSA is chartered by Congress gives us a different status than groups that are not. Anyway, it's clear that access to military facilities and services will somewhat limited no matter how the SOS law and the court cases are decided. With the military on a wartime footing and some troops looking at a third tour in Iraq, they simply won't always have the money or the manpower.

Seattle Pioneer: I had exactly the same reaction. We just have to use our heads sometimes.

Bob White: It always does my heart good to know that there is still at least one person in Scouting who still believes in the infallibility of the BSA. At any rate, I must be confused. I thought discussing and second guessing is what we do here.

OGE: thanks, you got exactly what I meant. We don't want to be standing around with our thumbs in our ears in the summer of 2010. Bob White: Don't you think the BSA would look pretty silly if we got into that situation when we had 5 years to work on it? I also don't think the ruling applies to other state and federal properties. As far as I know, that ruling just applies to the military. Maybe someone else can direct us to the actual ruling. I couldn't find it this morning. I would be very leary of planning to use a state or federal site, though, assuming the ACLU can find a judge someplace who would rely on Manning's clearly wrong decision to extend the ruling other governmental properties.

Thanks for that tip, Kudu, I came up with some interesting stories, too.

While I agree with Bob White that we are far better off with A.P Hill and it's facilities than moving around for the sake of moving, and I agree that by 2010, this case will be disposed of favorably to the BSA, I think National would be derelict in their duties if they don't consider an alternative. 2010 Jamboree is a biggie and I would hate to see us all lined up and ready to go, like the 1935 Jamboree, and have to stand down at the last moment. As Bob points out, there are many more ecological and regulatory considerations today than in the 1960's. Still, they can be overcome. Problem is, it takes a lot of money and time to overcome them.

When you say not all lawyers, what do you think about 1 percent? Yeah, I know, it's the 99% that give the rest of us a bad name! I'm looking for a bagpipe teacher now.

I don't normally take offense at lawyer jokes, but some of this is beginning to be a little annoying. Not all lawyers are ACLU stooges or would-be politicians. Most don't appear on TV begging you to sue somebody for some wrong done to you. Most spend more pro bono hours helping poor people and charities than you realize. I think I reported over a thousand hours of volunteer work for 2004-2005. I don't even practice law, but have to maintain a lot of ongoing legal education, reporting and dues paying. I created, run and pay for a 501©(3) corporation to own Sea Scout vessels and assist other youth maritime organizations. A lot of councils I know would go out of business without their lawyer volunteers and financial contributors. Could we lighten up guys? If you don't, I will learn to play the bagpipe, record an album of Celtic music and send it to every one of by private message.

Cubmaster Jerry: My point exactly. I agree with you also that I felt some concern about "trophy" aspect as expressed by the parent. I've seen kids before who just wanted to get it out of the way and move on. It would make me very wary of being accomodating to that. As to the liability of those "in the know" it's hard to say, but I feel that since the Scoutmaster has discussed this with the parents, the liability issue is primarily in their lap. If, on the other hand, the leaders had witnessed the kid drinking or personally knew of some drinking activity that the parents were not aware of, there would be a responsibility to share it with them. I would still be leary of involving the police, unless he was driving DUI, which presumably he isn't, or engaging in some other dangerous activities while drinking. If we share what we know with the parents, I think we discharge our legal obligations as to liability. The fact that the troop is dealing with it in terms of his advancement indicates they are taking it seriously and doing the best they can in the Scouting arena.

Eagle in KY writes:Kahuna, I realize you are an attorney are paid well to parse words. But I will say it again. I clearly see that (1) the drinking is illegal, (2) it's happened on multiple occasions (and likely to continue), and (3) the parents - even if they haven't seen it - acknowledge that it's going on. Please understand I am not trying to parse words or make a legal argument (although it IS in my legal nature to be argumentative and persuasive ). I have pointed out that T216 believes it is illegal, but is not absolutely certain, at least to my satisfaction. I have also pointed out that what is not in dispute is the fact that the boy has violated his pledge to his troop. To me, that is the more important issue. You may not agree. In any event, as others have said in this thread, it is up to the parents to deal with the issue at home. In the troop we have a possible violation of law and definite violation of a pledge made to the troop. Both can certainly be used in the Scoutmaster's ultimate discussion with the Scout. I'm just trying to avoid someone running off to the police and creating a problem that is unnecessary. If a conference and threat of not signing an Eagle app now or in the future unless he changes his ways does not change his behavior, the troop will probably lose the boy anyway.

Eagle in KY writes: Kahuna, Please re-read all of T216's posts. It's clear that (1) the drinking is illegal, (2) it's happened on multiple occasions (and likely to continue), and (3) the parents - even if they haven't seen it - acknowledge that it's going on. I have re-read all the posts. Perhaps you were reading something different than I. It is NOT clear to me that the drinking is illegal. As to to the other two points, they are different if No. 1 is untrue. Please re-read all my posts. What is clear is that the boy has violated a pledge he has signed as a member of his troop. As such, he isn't entitled to advance at all until some understanding is reached with his leader. I am not callous about the idea of 15 year olds drinking. I just think we need to keep our heads when something like this happens that can afford us an oppportunity to do something to help the boy see his error in terms of violation of a commitment.

I would say the author is a Bush-hater to the extent that HE is out of touch with reality. "Over the top" is a milder expression than I would use. People, kids included, can certainly disagree with the President and his policies (as do I in some issues), but I doubt that any of the kids there were inspired to strap themselves with dynamite and go blow up a mosque.

Always a great feeling. I've had the same experience and it makes you feel very special. You must be doing something right.

I still think most of us are missing the point(s) here. We are assuming a lot of things that may not be true. The drinking may or may not be legal. The parents may or may not have witnessed it. It may or may not be something he has done more than once. However, according to T216 he has signed a copy of the troop rules which contains a pledge not to drink or use drugs. If he was drinking (I would say religious ceremonies in Jewish or Catholic settings aside), then he violated this oath and his troop rules. Is he then qualified to get the Scoutmaster's signature on his Eagle app, which precedes the BOR? I don't think so and wouldn't sign it. I would investigate enough to get the answers to the first questions, but would then interview the boy. I think the chances are, he will agree he has violated his pledge and is not presently qualified to be an Eagle. The only issue then is how he plans to ensure it doesn't happen again and how he can satisfy the Scoutmaster that it hasn't. After some period of time has passed, maintaining weekly or bi-weekly discussions, the Scoutmaster can reevaluate. The whole thing will be a learning experience to the boy, not just about the dangers of alcohol, but of his responsibilities under the Oath, the Law and the pledge he signed.

Merlin writes: You have a really strange worldview if you think the ACLU wants to "do away with any standards of decency whatever"; why would e.g. Bob Barr work with them? Why would they defend Oliver North and Rush Limbaugh? Why would they fight removal of religious symbols from a Florida cemetery? Why would they fight for a student's right to include a bible quote in the school yearbook? Okay, I think I got this one: It's the same reason Santa Claus doesn't leave lumps of coal in every little boy's and girl's stocking at Christmas when they've been bad. Right?

Are you really a Buddhist, or merely an agnostic who wants everyone else to accept your beliefs and reject their own? Adrianus: I will not debate theology with you or anyone else on a forum. Rooster7 asked a question and I gave a response that is simply one point of view as to why Christians may be considered arrogant by non-Christians. I have no idea why you would ask the above question of me. I do not suggest you should accept my views at all. Nor have I even said what they are. I would suggest your own response demonstrates exactly why I answered as I did. BTW, you may have READ what the Buddha said, but you don't understand his teachings. Buddhism is revealed more by meditation than by the words of Buddha. I would also point out that Buddhism is not monolithic. We tend to follow different teachings in different groups, based upon what our own teachers believe. However, I don't ask that you accept my views, the Buddha's views or anyone else's. I just ask you not try to impose your views upon me or to accuse me of agnosticism because you don't agree with me. As to OGE's comment, I could not agree more. The media is reprehensible in it's treatment of the Christian religion. The Passion of the Christ was a great example of media prejudice. I personally think it has to do with the elements of the left (read ACLU) and media who want to do away with any standards of decency whatever. It's the same reason the BSA is singled out for punishment for upholding decency.(This message has been edited by Kahuna)

Speaking only for myself, I believe it is because many Christians consider that non-Christians or Christians who believe differently than they are ignorant, self-willed heathens who are defying God's will. Many fundamentalist Christians cannot accept the fact that other religions may have the answer as well as they. As a Buddhist, I know what the path is and I know I'm doing a lousy job of following it, but I would not presume to ask you to accept my views of Truth. Christians, on the other hand, have no hesitation about "sharing their views" with me on a variety of subjects that I see differently. Everybody's view of Truth is different. I don't see Christians as ignorant or hateful, but I do see them as arrogant in the sense that they believe they have the one true path and nobody else does. This wears a little thin with those who have studied and thought a great deal about it. I believe that you will find Heaven, the same as I, but (I assume) you would not be willing to say the same of me. Can you see how that might seem arrogant? I mean this in the fraternal friendship of Scouting and not be offensive, but you have asked the question.

As far as I am aware (and I find out more every day ) Ventures who are in OA can stay in OA. I know that in Florida there are many non dual registered Ventures who spend a lot of time with OA functions. In Sea Scouting, one of the attractions of the program is that they stay in OA without being involved in the troop.

T216: Very wise, IMHO. The less higher-up involvement, the better. I think this young man will see the error of his ways, at least in the short run. As you said, who knows what happens later, but we can't be responsible for that.

And Kahuna, you are correct that DRINKING is not illegal under 21 in some states. However, where the law covers this is regarding purchasing AND/OR possession under 21. And even if there is (and I don't think there is) still a state where these laws are effective earlier than 21, I doubt that they are as young as 15. CM Jerry: No, and I speak as a lawyer, there are a fair number of states in our nation that do not consider it a crime to purchase and serve alcohol to your own children in your own home or as part of a religious observance. Check with your local DA's office. This kid may not be breaking the law. T216: You have a different issue with regard to your troop handbook and pledge. If the boy has taken a pledge and is bound to the troop rule, then he is not qualified to be an Eagle Scout in your troop, for the moment. I still think we have to mindful of youthful indiscretions, remorse and second chances. I'm sure many of us had our first drink before it was legal and went on to be Eagle Scouts. He has broken his pledge, though, and if it clearly includes alcohol then it's serious. Finally, I don't see how YP comes into this at all and you CANNOT be serious about taking this up with the Scout Executive. Any troop should be able to handle this on their own.

I would put the kid on probation following a discussion and agreement between him and the Scoutmaster. If he can't uphold his end, he should be fired. Kick a kid out of Scouting for violation Scout Laws? You wouldn't have any left. Do you kick people out of your church for violating the Ten Commandments? Scouting is a learning organization. This is an opportunity to make a valid point with a kid when you have his undivided attention. Kicking out is for when conduct becomes so egregious that he is a hazard to others or himself. Stealing certainly qualifies, but one incident doesn't constitute that kind of behavior. I certainly feel stealing from fellow Scouts is reprehensible, but all kids make mistakes they later regret.

I have a somewhat different take on parts of this. I also have mixed emotions about the whole situation. I spent much of my youth scouting days in Europe, where there was no age restriction on sale or consumption of alcohol. In most European countries, children regularly drink alcohol at home with their parents. Only beer and wine, generally. The U.S. is about the only Scout organization that makes a big deal about alcohol. If you've been to an international event or world jamboree, you have probably been invited to have a beer with the leaders of some group or other. Also, I want to point out that it is NOT necessarily illegal for kids under 21 to drink alcohol. It depends on the law in your state. It IS illegal to purchase alcohol or serve alcohol to under 21's almost everywhere. The exception in many states is where the parents serve it at home to their own children. I don't know if this kid is getting it from someplace else or not. The parents are probably not telling the whole story (I wouldn't in their circumstances). So, bottom line, if he is getting it from outside, he may be breaking the law. If he is getting it from home, he may not. Otherwise, this is pretty much one of those issues like some of the religious discussions on other threads. Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of letting your kids drink at home, but it's difficult to see where he is violating the Scout Oath and Law if what he's doing is not illegal and done with parental consent. If I were the leader, I would check the law carefully and examine the facts. If he's breaking the law, he shouldn't proceed to Eagle. If not, I don't see it as a unit prerogative. You would not, for instance, deny a boy Eagle because he was Jewish or Catholic and took wine during some ceremonies.

Indeed and indeed! Spurge was 94, and apparently was active up until fairly recently.

I just learned of the death in late July of Spurgeon Gaskin, a retired professional, who started his career in 1936. He worked in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and was the Regional Director for Region Six and later the Southeast Region. Spurge retired in 1975. In retirement, he remained an active volunteer, receiving the Silver Beaver, Distinguished Eagle, Silver Antelope and the Baden-Powell Fellow of World Scouting award. I knew him during my days in professional scouting and he and my late uncle had worked together on camp staffs in Mississippi in the 1920's. I had tracked him down and was trying to contact him in June and July. I wasn't able to reach him due to his final illness. Just thought I would post this in case any other forum members had known Spurgeon.

It was my impression that the BSA had been following a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the criteria being if you were living an openly gay lifestyle. If so, and if the above is an accurate statement of the facts of St. Jean's case, they aren't following that at all. If they obtained a receipt from a gay resort (which in Key West doesn't mean much, there are many B & B's that cater to gays, but heteros stay in them as well) and used that as evidence of openly living a gay lifestyle, I'd say they are pretty thin in their "don't ask don't tell" position.