Kudu

> excluding godless heathens - while still allowing "god" to be defined so > broadly as to be able to include everyone except those who baldly use > the word "atheist" in conjunction with their belief system. Trevorum: It is the Scouts who baldly use the word "atheist" in conjunction with their belief system, who come back years later as priests, ministers, rabbis, etc., if their assertions are greeted with interest and they are required "to do their best" to define their terms. "What is this 'God' that you don't believe in?" Fuzzy: The BSA is a religious vampire organ

Kahuna: I understand, but lawyers usually come in twos :-/

> Would a religious organization treat the spirituality of its members as > casually as we do? Madkins: If you make a distinction between "religious" and "spiritual" it might be easier to explore the apparent contradiction expressed in your question. To me "religious" implies a devotion to "beliefs" and to a community that "acknowledges" a brand of "revealed truths." The outward actions of religious people can be characterized by church attendance and a belief in a specific creed, or interpretation of written scripture. The extremists are evangelicals and religious fund

Kahuna: If I understand you correctly, the BSA is just "saying" that they are a religious organization for the purpose of discriminating against children who are "saying" that they are not religious? The temptation to explore the hypocrisy of religious fundamentalism is overwhelming :-/ Is there a lawyer in the house?

> I don't think the BSA is admitting to being a religious organization in those cases. Kahuna, OK I just don't understand. In the first example, the BSA files some legal paper saying "Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization...." but you say that the BSA is not admitting to being a religious organization?

The BSA now positions itself as a religious organization. It is curious that the ACLU does not recognize that Congress has "established" a religious organization with a monopoly on Scouting. The following are from BSA sources: In case no. 92C-140, Riley County District Court, Bradford W. Seabourn vs. Coronado Area Council, December 16, 1992, the BSA filed a "Separate Answer" with the following as its "Sixth Affirmative Defense: "Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization, association or society, or nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised o

> Now, regarding clothing banks that people have mentioned. I don't mean > to sound mean, but why would a boy want to get rid of his uniform....? Um, $10 and 2 Reeses Cups. That's what we pay for used Uniform shirts. It motivates some of our Scouts to ask their friends and relatives for their old Scout Shirts. Sometimes they can find them in thrift stores for $5-$7 and make a small profit. We then ask a $10 deposit when we rent it out. Pants and boots are still $5. One time one of the Scouts brought in a Scout who had dropped out the previous year, wearing his old Sc

Speaking of inspiration, William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt used to run an annual Patrol Flags contest in Boy's Life during the 1960s, I think. Does anyone know what month they used to announce the winners? The photographs were truly amazing!

Prairie, I'm sure that the BSA would like to have it both ways, but apparently their current legal strategy is to position themselves as a "religious organization." As for the term "secular," the description of the BSA as a "secular organization" was one of the reasons cited by Lawrence Ray Smith, Ph.D (Chair of the BSA Religious Relationships Committee) in his May 7, 1998 letter to the UUA explaining the removal of the UUA's "Religion in Life" award from the religious awards approved for wear on the BSA Uniform. The term "ecumenical" is curious: "This version of Religion in L

> WOW how many different topics can you discuss in one post? I > thought this was about the BSA trademark not the membership > regulations. Membership regulations are only one symptom of what happens when the government grants one religious corporation a "dictatorship" over Scouting in the United States. Most, if not all, of the problems that people have with the BSA are caused by the BSA's monopoly on Scouting. The whistle-blower thread of this discussion is a result of the assumption that Scouting has be run as a multi-million dollar corporation. Alternatives to the BS

> How many other Red Cross-like programs are there in the USA with > the word Cross in them? Does the Red Cross deny blood to children who are agnostic about the existence of God? If it did, you would see Congress grant charters to alternatives. > How many other Royal Ranger-like programs are there with the > name Ranger in them? "Royal Rangers" is protected, "Ranger" is not. > What is the this thing some people have for wanting the BSA to be > like like other programs? Just because England does it do we really > have to? My apologies to Eamo

Apples and Oranges. Indian Guides, 4-H, Civil Air Patrol, and Campfire Boys and Girls are NOT Scouting. The point is that the BSA is only one brand of Scouting, in the same way that McDonald's is only one brand of burgers. People who do not like the BSA's corporate product should be able to practice Scouting as it is done in other countries. There are many advantages to a free market economy, Bob. Competition benefits everyone, including those who choose to stay in the BSA. The first benefit you will see is one of the largest outdoor youth programs in the world offer an

If that were true, then we would return to William Hillcourt's BSA program before it was gutted in 1972 and the numbers went down. On that we apparently agree :-/ Numbers aren't everything. Most of the organizations that you cite would rather embody certain values, than to be the most popular youth organization in America. Even the BSA is willing to sacrifice numbers to hold to its "deeply held beliefs," like the idea that kicking little agnostic children out of Scouting makes Jesus happy.

> the majority of Buddhists in the world worship the Buddha as though > he is a deity of sort, asking him for guidance and teaching, striving to > become enlightening so that they could be in nirvana (heaven of sort), > etc, eventhough he is no longer with the livings. Well, if religion means anything, it means not to trust the majority of any population. The majority of Christians seem to believe that kicking little agnostic kids out of Scouting makes Jesus happy. That is about as far from the compassion that Buddha taught, as it is from the simple Gospel of love th

> Kleenex has a trademark on their name are they the only tissue > company that exists? Pepsi has a trademark on their name, are they > the only soda that exists. The brand name "Boy Scouts of America" should have the protection of a trademark. "Boy" or "Scout" are the equivalents to "tissue" and "soda." Fortunately, through a lack of foresight, James West neglected to trademark the word "boy." In England the WOSM Scouts Association does not have an exclusive right to "Scout." In America the BSA was not successful in preventing the Girl Scouts from using it

> Kudu- you've mentioned several times that BSA has some kind of a > "monopoly" granted by the government. Would you like to give us > some specifics about what BSA does that no other group may do? In England, where Scouting was invented, if you don't like the WOSM "Scouts Association," you are free to join other brand names of Scouting, such as the British Boy Scouts, or the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association. In the United States we do not have that freedom, and so you get endless arguments of how the Scouting monopoly should be run. What neo-conservatives and liberals

> Why? because the Presbyterian Church is a private organization and > is protected by the freedom of association, as is the BSA. Is a > Presbyterian minister protected by the First Ammendment rights to > free speech? Absolutely. He can say whatever he wants. But if what > he says conflicts with the Presbyterian faith, he can be removed. Has > his rights been violated? I'd say yes if Congress grants the Presbyterian Church a monopoly on words like "church," "Bible," "God," "religion," etc, as they do with the BSA on words like "Scout," "Scouting," etc. Th

I am trying to find a quote about being prepared, possibly by Baden-Powell. The advice was to survey every situation with the question, "What could possibly go wrong here?" Does anyone have a source?

> But if the quality of your unit program is what you make of it (as you > say Kudu), then isn't the quality of every unit dependent on what it's > leaders make of it? Or is your unit unique from all others in this way? I don't understand what the quality of my unit program has to do with the topic of "Dictatorship or Democracy."

> But what is the point of being a member of an organization just to > ridicule it. I don't think anyone joins the BSA just to ridicule it, but he who doth not take delight in the hypocrisy of religious fundamentalists, hath smelt too much wood-smoke at twilight:-/

Apples and Oranges. The quality of my unit's program is what we make it to be. Most Scouting happens on the unit level. Which is the point, really. The question people have to ask is, does your unit need a local Council summer camp enough to put up with someone in an air conditioned office telling you that you can't go to Lasertron? Most people trade convenience for freedom. It is human nature. If I was concerned with my local Council's performance and wanted the power to influence it, I would move from Scoutmaster to organization representative. The position is open

Flame-bait much?

>> There does not need to be a specific cause, it's a PRIVATE >> organization. > I can't even fathom how a Scouter could think this way. It's flat out > un-American. Well, duh! I've seen a few references to Stalin in this discussion. If you want to invoke Stalin, then the correct analogy is: reforming the BSA is like trying to get Stalin to be Washington. If you don't want Stalin to act like Stalin, then work to build an alternative to Stalin. You are not going to reform Stalin. The BSA is the way it is because it is a "PRIVATE" religious corp

> I'm afraid I don't understand the argument that says "if they bring their > own, they'll take better care of them". If you apply that logic across the > board, we shouldn't have stoves, lanterns, cook sets, or anything else > -- the lads should bring it all. To keep things logical, just classify tents as personal gear :-) Tents are expensive and fragile, whereas most Patrol gear is not. The Scouts in my Troop really do take better care of their own tents. They seem to be more aware of the condition of their tent if no one else has ever used it. I'm sure that d

We still have about ten troop-owned Eureka tents, but we encourage the Scouts to buy their own. Sometimes the Scouts also borrow them from their families' friends, so now our campouts can range from 90% personal tents to less than 50% personal tents. They do seem to take a lot of pride in ownership, and in nine years, I have never heard of any of their own personal tents reeking of mildew from sitting under their beds for a week after a campout :-/ Inexperienced Scouts also tend to remain a lot drier in a cheap $50 dome tent than they do in $100+ Eureka tents that are not set up wit