littlebillie

Ah, Bob,

therein lies the rub, eh? I have become vaguely aware that the next SCOTUS challenge may address the charter and its verbiage - just exactly what does it mean by 'boys'? Kind of like the people's right to bear arms, I'd say.

So until then, I'd say we pend clarification. You read it as "select boys" and I, as "all boys".

Either way, it'll be interesting.

And remember - we are all caretakers, not owners! Exec can change its membership eligiblity list at any time to exclude anyone. Which is their right, however wrong!

Anyway - funding includes free use of any public land that is tax supported or maintained. Funding includes the public time of public officials at Scout functions. It all costs, so it's all 'funding'. This is Merlin's point, from a strictly legal standpoint (I presume to speak for him, and apologize for that if I err egregiously). And if a Scout is obedient, it is to the law as well. I personally figure this is just expected fallout from SCOTUS, and Exec must have expected it from the decision - I'm sure their lawyers let them know ALL the ramifications going into it.

And I see the UW as a different thing - rather than law, I believe any response to allow or withhold funding is theirs to make, either way. So of course their own professional directing body has to consider their own paychecks along with the on-going chatities they support.

Yep - it's a private house, but one built by - among others - gay tax dollars, and even gay membership participation. AND it's a house that sits in part on public lands.

So regardless of rhetoric, it's also a house that needs to learn to shore up those sands on which it stands. (oooh, rhetoric of my own! cool!)

'The Homeowner has the legal and moral right to say "You don't like my house that's fine...leave. I can choose who I invite to stay." "You don't have to like what I do, but I dont have to let you in."'

Bob, you left out the full statment that seems like it should need to be made. After all, there are some cogent differences between private properties and private organizations that have nevertheless received public support in various forms over the years...

"...even if you have paid my property taxes and contribute labor to my new additions. I don't even need to listen to your suggestions about the wiring - it's MY private house and I don't need to keep it up to any PUBLIC code."

"Oh, and even if I do have a Congressional Charter telling me I have to have boys as guests. I don't have to have just any boys..."

I mean, if you want the example to be a little more accurate, and a little more complete. After all, Scouting is not a house any of US built - we're all maintaining a house that's been handed down.

And moving along, of course, we all know that poll numbers don't really establish that which is truly right - polls on the civil rights of blacks, Jews and Native Americans would show a great deal of shift over the years, eh?

anyway, just some thoughts...

fboisseau,

I appreciate your clarifications, and thank you for taking the time to make them. it's kind of awkward here in the middle - I guess it'd be a good idea for me to periodically restate that a) I think Scouting is great and b) I want to see it open to mare kids than available to fewer...

Thanks.

OGE,

I'd also liken this to the Pledge of Allegiance. Some folks - most, I'm sure - say THE Pledge of Allegiance. Some, though, say A pledge of allegiance. Among these, some may go for the older (tho' not the earliest) format and just leave out "under god". Others may choose to substitute 'heaven' for 'God'.

And while these latter may not be THE Pledge of Allegiance, there is nothing preventing such persons from pledging allegiance using any words they choose.

Some disagree with freedom of speech, and some exercise it...

first, a wee bit of housekeeping - I think "hypocrite" would apply to Merlin if he HAD included God... see, THEN he would have professed something he didn't believe in.

Merlyn, I checked out that site, and - you're right - it's anecdotal and represents a single arbitrary decision on the part of someone who doesn't have a problem in making up awards, either. I'd really like to see a more in-your-face example - a la Lambert - where the nat'l org would pretty much have to comment. Again, the organization lets you certify yourself 'spiritual' - I am interested in a real test of that vs atheism at a media spotlight level. I still think the GSUSA has never been tested to that degree, and I'd be really fascinated by how they spin it. What would be your take on the situation athttp://www.diversityingirlscouts.org/ if the waiting game fails, it goes to court and the GSUSA wins?

Bob,

I chose a particular verb with full knowledge of a certain history, and full knowledge of the verb; I stand by it. "Abandoned" fits the situation that occurred better than you know, and it is used without sentiment. Just as one abandons a claim, a copyright, or even a lawsuit - contracts and cub scouts can be abandoned as well.

A petty cavil, perhaps, but thank you for your opinions. "The only people who abandon scouting are those who believe in scouting but who do not support it verbally, physically or financially." Assuming they have never supported scouting, this is not abandonment. They have chosen not to support it, they ignore its needs - but if they have never entered into a relationship with an organization, they cannot abandon it.

Merlyn,

So the GSUSA can meet at a public school while the BSA cannot? Or is there something about how the GS units are realized that makes the difference? Or...?

Additionally, does this mean that an atheist with a conscience is deemed spiritual by the girl scouts? Since this is something I'm interested in at a number of levels for a number of reasons, can you point me to any site that discusses girl scouts that have "come out" religiously - as total atheists, and self-declared as without a spiritual side - and what the national body response has been?

Thanks!

there's another safety issue, and that is the sheath itself hanging up. Some activities - rock climbing, say - just don't need that kind of possible problem. a pocket knife is just as available under most circumstances, and really should be the first choice for the boys.

notice I said first choice tho - not only choice. once you have a good p'knife, you can look at other blades. with sheaths, the adults need to be aware that more kids are going to say "show us THAT" - once you have that in mind, you can work with it.

Merlyn,

just out of curiosity, the GSUSA does not, contrary to popular belief, vary so much from the BSA insofar as religion goes. Their website - go to http://www.girlscouts.org/adults/beliefs.html - puts God in the picture, and explains that "The 'motivating force in Girl Scouting' is spiritual. Girl Scouts respects the spiritual values and beliefs of its members, leaving the interpretation of spirituality to each individual and the family."

Now, basically, I see this self-interpretation of 'spirituality' as an invitation to the atheist girl simply to lie about being spiritual if she really wants to join up... but maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age. Or maybe it's all just hypocritical window dressing. oops - darn, cynical again! gotta watch that!

Anyway, given its officially stated position, and standing "united by a belief in God", I'm just wondering - do you also address the GSUSA? They spin smarter, maybe, but they don't seem so different..?

And if not, what would the BSA have to do, in your view, to step back across that particular line?

fboisseau,

first, you tell me what my position is. when i clarify that, you then tie me to somebody else's position. I'm not sure I recognize that style of debate or argument. Can you let me know if you're talking about ME, or some group to which I do not belong? I'm getting confused.

About me, you need to know that I was an Eagle Scout when I participated at THAT level, that I have been Pack Leader and that I am currently an Assistant Troop Leader. My opinions are not shared with the boys, but I do write letters to Texas, and I have a set of core beliefs to which I hold true.

And on the other hand, my son's original Cub Scout Pack was abandoned by its CO as a result of the SCOTUS decision - and I have been fighting ever since to get Scouts back on that campus.

I sincerely believe that Scouting is a darned fine program - AND I believe that some of its policies should be changed. REGARDLESS of what other groups are doing or saying, I want to see Scouting continue and flourish - AND open up a bit more.

What, I should deny my son all the well-know, obvious benefits because I have an outlook that Executive doesn't share? Sorry - not gonna happen.

And should I keep myself totally quiet about a matter of conscience? Also not gonna happen.

And regardless of what I-me-myself does, don't you dare include me in the ranks of those who would destroy Scouting - I've gone through a lot of effort and grief trying to get Cubs back at a UC school - which, frankly, seems like another hopeless cause - but it's also one I won't give up.

So "why should those who agree with you attack the BSA for their opinion"? I don't know - maybe you better ask them.

And if you want to ask me about me - don't then drag others into the picture. And if you're gonna talk about the destroyers, don't compare me to them.

And realize that the original positions statements from the 70's were unilateral, arbitrary instruments issued without the solicitation of member input. Not saying that's wrong in and of itself, but anything like that certainly bears scrutiny. For those who say, where does opening the doors STOP, well - I gotta ask, where does CLOSING the doors stop?

"When they came for me..."

"How can one embrace Judaism, Christianity, and Wicca simultaneously?"

One PERSON would have a hard time; a non-demoninational but nevertheless faithbased GROUP - like the Scouts - should be able to embrace members who in turn embrace different faiths. Heck, that most recent atheist Eagle kid was asked if he couldn't even just profess a belief in Nature - which was probably good news for both Druids and Pagans!

" Do you know the difference between physical characteristics and sexually perverse behavior? I wonder? "

And I wonder if YOU are aware that the whole nature/nurture question regarding the origins of homosexuality remains unanswered? Those who say simply "it's a choice" would probably have a pretty unsympathetic view of stuttering as well... yeah, THAT'S a choice. (FYI, this was chosen because it may have origins quite as complex as homosexuality, with a range of causation from strictly physical to strictly psychological, with stops at all major stations in between).

fboisseau - "But according to your logic with the BSA I have to be made a member to your group." No - the 'have to be' would seem to be in your head. In mine, it's "should be" and in mine, the BSA should not be forced to change, but persuaded to do so. Basically, there are no exclusions in the Charter, and the BSA should realize it's closing the door on those kids who arguably need it most.

for those who then cry "where does it stop? the next thing you know we'll be letting it drunken left-handed rapists" - and you know who you are :-) - please, that really does both sides a disservice.

regardless, bird, the old "by whose standards" issue is also pretty hackneyed. It's ALWAYS an arbitrary call for some. others say, just go by the Bible, er, um, I mean the NEW Testament, just don't let the Unitarians have a voice. Or the Wiccans, ftm.

Sigh. e pluribus unum, excepting the ones we don't agree with...

Hey, should gays get a tax break for all the civil rights folks don't want them to have? forget scouting. Let's say a publically salaried JP? just a question...

a few names of openly gay public officials, probably all oxymoronic per ed, from http://www.victoryfund.org/public/office/office.cfm

Jarrett Barrios

State Senator - Cambridge, MA

Tammy Baldwin

U.S. Congress 2nd District - Madison, WI

Raymond Buckley

State Representative, District 56 - Manchester, NH

Scott Dibble

State Senate - Minneapolis, MN

Tim Carpenter

State Senator - Mil.,WI

Also look at http://www.lambda.org/famous.htm

Plenty more, actually. a whole list of folks whom some declare in knee-jerk fashion to be indecent and unethical simply because they're gay.

Is this mindset REALLY any different than racist and segregationist attitudes of years gone by? how many out there are still against interracial dating, I wonder?

And is this kind of truly prejudiced blanket statement what we want to teach youth? Whew!

Over the months - years, now? - various animal studies have been cited that noted increases in homosexual behavior in situations of overpopulation. Seems like a good 'natural' response to such a problem.

Oh, right. We're not animals. We're special - and even if God takes note of sparrows and lilies, I guess we're still not all part of the same family of life... esp. if you happen to be gay, huh?

(uh-oh - he's ba-a-a-a-ck!)

ed,

it stops when every decent, ethical law-abiding boy has access to scouting...

IF you are a very religious person, for example, wouldn't you think the reverence that is displayed at every scouting function would be a positive influence for a kid toying with atheism?

and for a boy who has no strong father figure, or father at all, scouting can certainly good provide role models.

regardless that, i think one giant step in the right direction would be for the BSA to authorize the use of the basic program - merit badges, rank, even access to camps - to a viable alternative youth group that can provide its own insurance. the BSA would provide guidance, a program outline, and resource access, but no direct funding; nor would it accept any liabilities.

let the para-scouts run for a while, even do some parallel events, maybe like co-camporees, and a few years down the road, let's all look at the possibility of uniting the groups.

I know the devil's in the details, but this proposal allows the BSA to extend a hand in establishing a "new program" while at the same time establishing a truly meaningful lab situation for an important social experiment.

Now, I am all for gay leaders in scouting, myself - decent, ethical gay leaders, ideally in committed relationships. AND I know there's a certain aspect of put-up-or-shut-up to the idea that could end up being its demise. Even so - it allows the benefits of scouting to a groups that wants it.

And come on folks - why wouldn't anybody want Scouting (once you strip it of its politics, ain't it the best!?)

Merlyn is right - and will always be right - about making sure that no public agency sponsors an exclusionary group. But if the BSA can help establish a similar group, even to the point of lending out its program, maybe that's the first real step towards healing for everyone.

The BSA could turn to S4A as a possible facilitator for such a program; if turned down, it's probably more appropriate to turn to a national GLBT group.

Frankly - and I don't feel this is in conflict with my basic position, tho' i expect some will - NAMBLA is OUT! This would not be an acceptable sponsor and I would prefer to see any member prohibited from participation.

Other than that kind of consideration, this can establish a meaningful local option while initially sidestepping some of the other issues.

And while it may seem like sidestepping a bigger issue, it's a sidestep FORWARD.

just a thot...

Ya know, I hope to heck (pardon my Freedom) that the kid doesn't stumble upon this thread. Too much Aspersioners Syndrome happening, I think, esp. about folks I doubt any of us has met...

But if so -

Jed, congratulations. You took on a Herculean task - Herculean squared, nearly! - and you completed it. You've done more now than some folks will by retirement - pretty impressive. Good luck with whatever you do next - and I know you'll succeed at it!

well, as long as we're just making guesses about stuff, and offering up opinions about a kid we've never met, let me jump in, again.

this boy and his family and his Troop and his friends and his counselors may all very well know that he's running against the clock. AND I'll guess they all know that this is/was something important to someone who won't have a lot of time on the planet to do quite so much as the rest of us...

God forbid, but if there's the least truth to this scenario, I'd say EVERYone was encouraging the boy, and working with him, etc. Is the kid's goal to learn something to take along with him into a long life? Nah - it's to get through something so he can he'd set and met a challenge before time runs out...

And IF there's any truth to this, then God bless everybody who helped this kid along. This may not be what Scouting's all about to most kids, and that's probably good - but I also think that Scouting needs to be something special for special needs kids, too.

And for this special kid, it really has been.

Mark, now I'm moving away from generalities (GENERALLY speaking, most boys DON'T get every merit badge) and stepping back to the specifics. Specifically, this kid.

This kid's got cystic fibrosis - read, probably gonna die young. This kid's got diabetes - read,early nerve damage and shortened life span.

Put them together and throw in asthma - I say God bless this kid if this is something that was important to him to get done in his probably limited time on earth. He set himself a goal, with less assurance than most of us that he'd see it through - and he reached it. And ya know what? Even if he skidded over half of them - I'd say that this goal IN ITSELF is pretty admirable, considering the strikes against him. Consider the goals of other kids his age - getting to the next video game level? Or tagging the most buildings with grafitti?

Do I KNOW this is on his mind? Nah. Do I KNOW he's gonna die early? No more than you know about an Amish kid doing oil changes, I'd guess. But I can build the same kind of limited case as others, and since the article mentions these ailments, I have some kind of basis, I think.

So in THIS case, and to THIS kid, I say, good on ya, mate! And God bless...

"...what did he learn?"

well, until anyone who asks that question ABOUT the boy can talk TO the boy and make their own determination, it's a pretty pointless discussion, at least in terms of this individual. pointless at best, and unfair as we move along THAT spectrum...

More generally, tho'...

Let's say the kid got Insect Study when he was 11, and today he DOES remember that only Hemiptera can really be called bugs, and all he remembers about Lepidoptera is the name - even so, he's already he's ahead of most Americans! Is the idea of a non-core, non-required Merit Badge really to turn a kid into a leading expert on a subject - or to provide an opportunity for exposure to a subject that he might otherwise not have?

Yes - I'd really like every Eagle to REALLY absorb Life Saving, and commit it all to his longterm skill set. But if a kid gets Landscape Architecture this year, and can't remember the names of half his list of shrubs next year, I'm not going to lament anything - instead, I'll be glad that he had the exposure to something he might never have even thought about before.

Would it be GOOD to be an expert in each and every one? Sure. But if THAT becomes a requirement - or even if a follow up test a year later is added to the merit badge process - well, I think a lot of boys will be discouraged from ever looking into some of these things.

Part of the really cool thing about merit badges is that they can provide a terrific overview not only of the natural world and survival skills, but of many, many areas of special knowledge and human endeavor. No need to maintain expertise in everything - the hope is that earning even 1 merit badge can spark a lifelong interest in something, some passionate pursuit that enriches the mental landscape through which we all pass...

ok, that's the GENERAL rant. As far as the kid goes - ain't met him, so can't say...

Taking this at face value, and making the reasonable assumptions - a bright kid, with enthusiasm, parents of a challenged child trying hard to 'enable' him (i.e., maybe providing a bit more direction than many want to see), maybe a few easy counselors - heck, you're bound to cover the full spectrum working on so many - even considering all this, it'd still take meeting the kid and looking into his eyes when he talked about it to convince some folks. Rightly so.

But if it IS all true, and above board, the kid's now at the point where you have to think about what he does next.

We've all known folks who immerse themselves to the exclusion of everything else in some new interest - and when that interest finally died, BOOM - there they were, listless, undirected, yearning, needing something to do. This kind of possibly compulsive behavior can have a really darkside, and there's nothing in the story to make me want to rule out that possibility.

What's next for this boy? Maybe a marvelous future - but maybe a lot of therapy. Or both. If finishing the list leaves some huge void, his parents need to be prepared to deal with it.

Still, let's hope for everyone's sake that it's all done fairly, that the kid's happy, and that no matter what other developing physical challenges he might endure (life is not knecessarily kind to young diabetics) that he can look back on THIS time, and these accomplishments and feel that he has indeed done something...

whew... so many considerations, eh? the widowed (or otherwised) single mothers of boys with NO adult male figures NEED a chance to participate in the program, esp. if that benefits the boy and the family dynamics. This is not just single-parent sentimentalism - that mom becomes the family's participant and adult voice in all the non-boy stuff.

then again, isn't it great for boys to be able to see competent, self-sufficient women in leadership? Role-modeling can be based on the quality of a person, regardless of gender, and if a boy really admires a woman's knot tying ability, and seeks to emulate it, well - good for both of them! The older boys theoretically are role models for the younger, after all. KEEPING WOMEN AWAY from leadership roles sends another message as well - and one that my wife doesn't allow me to agree with!

Too, from those lucky couples who can and do rough it together over on the grown-ups' side of the camp site, we can see wonderful examples of strong family relations, mom and dad REALLY investing in their kids. Good for them! And for those who trade off on campouts and meetings, good for them too - this still shows a family and balance AND gives some R&R or catch-up time to the stay-at-home.

Finally, there are issues and there are issues, and there are slants and there are slants - but whatever the issues and whatever the slants, scouting is a community within a community, and the more representative the mix of that microcosm is of the greater community, the better off the kids are going to be in the long run. (Frankly, I think we need to be MORE representative over all, but that's another thread! :-) Indeed, this is one of positions taken by those nations that have opted for co-ed scouting programs.

Women in leadership? Everybody can win.

whew... so many considerations, eh? the widowed (or otherwised) single mothers of boys with NO adult male figures NEED a chance to participate in the program, esp. if that benefits the boy and the family dynamics. This is not just single-parent sentimentalism - that mom becomes the family's participant and adult voice in all the non-boy stuff.

then again, isn't it great for boys to be able to see competent, self-sufficient women in leadership? Role-modeling can be based on the quality of a person, regardless of gender, and if a boy really admires a woman's knot tying ability, and seeks to emulate it, well - good for both of them! The older boys theoretically are role models for the younger, after all. KEEPING WOMEN AWAY from leadership roles sends another message as well - and one that my wife doesn't allow me to agree with!

Too, from those lucky couples who can and do rough it together over on the grown-ups' side of the camp site, we can see wonderful examples of strong family relations, mom and dad REALLY investing in their kids. Good for them! And for those who trade off on campouts and meetings, good for them too - this still shows a family and balance AND gives some R&R or catch-up time to the stay-at-home.

Finally, there are issues and there are issues, and there are slants and there are slants - but whatever the issues and whatever the slants, scouting is a community within a community, and the more representative the mix of that microcosm is of the greater community, the better off the kids are going to be in the long run. (Frankly, I think we need to be MORE representative over all, but that's another thread! :-) Indeed, this is one of positions taken by those nations that have opted for co-ed scouting programs.

Women in leadership? Everybody can win.

twin-wasp - do you think under the uniform example you give that the adults should or should not mention the problems that the boys will encounter during any 'competitive', inter-troop uniform inspection run by the books? should they point out the problem? or should they let the boys step into it and learn that way? or...

just curious. and if fact, we don't know if the troop in ? didn't already address this in a Troop meeting versus Camporee kind of consideration anyway.

hi, pack - good to see you around.

yeah, there are some inconsistencies, aren't there? my son just graduated Cubs, and our new Troop approached me wondering if I might be qualified to counsel certain merit badges - they query every new parent, of course. I ended up reading the Geology requirements, and based on some of the posts I've seen here, the option on fossils could raise a few hackles, as might the whole "8. Make a chart showing the geological

eras and periods and show in what geologic time the rocks in your region were formed" for the 60-century crowd.

Oh, well - all things, all people, I guess.

hmmm - ok, everybody, has THIS post gone off track enough?

Sorry y'all!

so - things are slowly sinking in but I'd just like to be sure - there's no jackhammer belt loop or chainsaw juggling merit badge?

I'd just like to confirm, is all...

Jark,

please, no offense intended here, but we all know there are 2 sides to every story. would you be able to put yourself on the other side of the fence and describe how your positions, comments and statements may have been taken?

I doubt we'd get the CC, ASM et al to participate in this thread, so can you provide an even-handed, true-color picture of their perspectives?

also, I'm curious - were the boys encouraged by adults in the dress code thing, or unchallenged or uncorrected or just ignored or... well, what?

finally, I'd be interested in learning what suggestions your boys made that were ignored, and by whom - boy or adult - they were disregarded...?

this would really help flesh out the picture.

when you point out the basic regs, how do you do this? self-righteously, self-deprecatingly, cheerfully, indignantly?

is it possible that some adult feels threatened or challenged by the boys in some way, and the action against you is a cover-up for something else?

thanks for any insight!