littlebillie

seeing ANY adult leader or come-along participating parent smoking, especially if te adult in question is in any way admired and respected by the kids, CAN ONLY HURT.

you have to be pretty lame to look for permission or justification for smoking around the kids when you are in this role.

it's unhealthy, it's obviously unscoutlike, and who out there wants to be responsible for a) encouraging any one - espcially a youth - to smoke or b) INADVERTENTLY CAUSING A FIRE?

gee whiz, it's a no brainer. you teach against it, you preach against it - and then you're going to light up where kids can see you?

yeah, I know it's tough - but character building is what it's all about. but us no butts!

i'd'a stayed in and argued with ed why it was the right decision! :-)

seriously, more important than this particular question is, what would the BSA execs have done? and, what would the chartering orgs have done? can anyone out there speak for a chartering body?

it boils down to the shoot-out at high noon.

the good guy doesn't go for his gun first - but he doesn't wait for the bad guy to fire first, either.

the hero's not waiting to see the villain's smoking gun, just a demonstration of reasonable intent.

i think most of the anti-war folks might shift if they see SH going for his gun - at that point, no one's going to say wait for him to fire.

and THAT is where it stops being simple...

ya know, once faith based initiatives get rolling (assuming federal monies are ever approved for suc), it'll be interesting to see what happens to the Scouts.

AND if such money becomes available and the BSA can start reconsidering its relationships to its religious cash cows, it'll be even more interesting to see what happens from there...

been away...

Bob White, the difference between a democracy (esp. a representative deomocracy, and NOT a full popular democracy) and our form of 'republic' is quite nearly negligible, esp. when members of the electoral college are forced to vote as their popular vote, and the selection of senators has been taken away from the state governments and given to the people). If anyone wishes to quibble that point, I consider it smoke when the real issue is NOT what tag is stuck on the thing, but the thing itself.

regardless, the main point that was sidestepped is that just because "most folks" agree with something doesn't make that something wrong. and just because a vocal minority espouses some position, doesn't make that position wrong.

oft and oft, that lonely bold holdout is flatout wrong, and leaving that side of the picture out paints it the way you want, but not completely the way it is!

ok, on to ROLE MODELS. The very term tells us that it's limited. heroes and ideals are more rounded. when we speak of a role model, we REALLY only look at the role. OJ's role to be modelled was 'football player'. that's it. he was not a model husband, and no one considers him a role model for that.

but when we speak of a hero, I think at least part of the common usage is for someone who is more fully to be emulated - Clinton is more of a hero for some than Nixon, say. May be a fine point, but I think one we need to make. a role model is good for the role - so what is that particular role? a hero is someone you want to be like all 'round.

I think it's hard for a parent to separate the two - your child has you as a model for MANY roles, with few distinctions. the edges blur, and a parent is a full-spectrum role model. Your kid will model spouse, parent, breadwinner, reader, sports fan, religion and everything else after you - so for a parent, it's hard to focus on the more limited utility of OTHER role models.

anyway - I felt like there was a distinction to be made, and I think it's important. Maybe it's like in Scouts where the Merit Badge Counselor can be a 'role model' for a certain limited discipline, but Patrol and Troop can be seen as a more rounded, ideal model in multifaceted demonstations of principles and skills - more of a hero (or, I suppose, a multi-role model.)

Regardless - when speaking of role models with your kid, make sure you help separate the role from the rest, the wheat from the chaff, if appropriate or necessary...

"They may not always be the opinions held by the

loudest or even the majority but then the majority is not always right, nor are the loudest."

However, it needs to be made explicit that the majority is not always wrong, and the assumption that democracy is built upon is that it usually is headed in the right direction...

(just to round out the picture, doncha know!)

Mark, thanks for the reminder. I get a little strident, I guess - and it helps to step back, exhale, and remind everyone that I am NOT someone who wants to see Scouting destroyed (tho' some'll surely disagree w/THAT :-)

It's a fine organization, and it has done a lot of great things - but I think there are populations of kids out there who may need the program more than most - and yet are turned away.

And it just doesn't sit right.

(hmmm.

Say, ok - instead of leaving the membership issue to the local level and the chartering organizations, how about putting it at the state level? A State executive body that sits over the councils and under Exec? Again, it's an unfleshed out thought, but - any takers?)

Anyway - thanks.

might as well quit now, then, Dan - they DO allow them, if they don't avow.

I wonder - as far as spin goes - if the BSA (exec) could somehow allow chartering groups to sponsor both BSA (youth) and Learning for Life groups to join together in a kind of joint-activities w/separate memberships. Just a thought, and of course the devil's in the details, but it COULD cover a lot of issues...?

kwc57, thank you - I hope everyone with good, decent loving parents (or parents who tried their darndest to be) reads your post and takes the time to tell them they love them. don't wait on this folks. never, ever wait on this.

http://www.diversityingirlscouts.org provides a slightly different perspective of the GSUSA

Also, please note that the GSUSA web site basically says it's up to the individual to decide if they possess the requisite spiritual nature - some folks spin that as atheist-accepting, and some see it as an invitation to tell a lie if you want to join bad enough.

and finally, since the whole sexuality thing is not supposed to be part of a leader's identity in the first place, it's in effect a don't ask/don't tell policy that's never had to be tested the way Dale was. Until the issue is tested in the same was, the comparisons are really apples and oranges.

I'm one of those folks in the gray zone between black and white.

I'm an ardent supporter of all that is good with Scouting, I am still pround of my Eagle, and I support my son's desire to go through the program all the way. BUT. I think that the gay ban is wrong, and hurtful, and unwise, though I understand it as a liability limitation measure. (Just so you know, I also support gay civil unions)

And while I beleive that the Scout's position on religion has greater legitimacy (God and reverence have been in the rituals since the inception), I feel that it also involves Scouting turning its back on some of the kids who need the program most.

In short - Scouting is good - it could be better - it's misguided - and it could be GREAT!

So.

I DON'T want to see it fade away - but I do want to see it open up to all boys. I don't think it should get any kind of preferential treatment or access to public monies or facilities - but neither do I think it should recieve anything less than, say, the Girl Scouts.

So - that said, I prefer to think of the BSA as in transition, not dying. The BSA and the GSUSA have been asked by World to look at becoming a joint group - obviously, their spin on certain issues is too far apart just now to allow that.

Not dying - just in transition...

I hope.

ScoutParent,

I've never met a non-mjaa Jew who thought that the MJAA were in fact Jewish. At best, they are described as confused Christians, and at worst - well, pretty much as some of the nastier things attributed to tj! Sneaky, deceptive, outsiders imposing themselves on a group to force their own belief system on others...

of course, if you insist that they are a legitimate group for Jews, then I'd have to guess that you'd also accept the UUA position as legitimate for Christians.

So for that - I thank you.

ASM7 - Rooster's already established that some versions of the Bible have mistranslations. The Leviticus question is one of long standing - some say it speaks of male temple prostitutes... (Rooster's not one of those, just for clarification :-)

so.

Quixote, my point is that some 'infiltrations' may be justified. If you choose to make something more of that, there's nothing I can do to dissuade you, I know. You may not think tj is justified in doing so, and you may believe the FBI was. I - obviously - think tj AND the FBI were justified. It's not to say that the BSA and the KKK have similar goals - we've already covered the shared umbrella issue earlier.

Parents Charged With Dressing Son As Cub Scout to Get Donations

The Associated Press

BETHLEHEM, Pa. Jan. 23

Parents of a 7-year-old boy pleaded guilty to scamming neighbors of nearly $700 by dressing their son in a Cub Scouts uniform and going door-to-door seeking donations for a nonexistent troop.

Anthony M. Herman, 46, and Sally Ann Gombocz, 45, of Bethlehem knocked on more than 150 doors between Jan. 7 and Jan. 18, collecting $667 as their son silently smiled, police said.

Herman said they perpetrated the scam because the family landscaping business was failing.

"What we've done here was a desperation act," Herman told a judge at the couple's arraignment Wednesday. "I'm not trying to minimize what I did. It was stupid, very stupid."

Bethlehem police arrested the couple after receiving tips from neighbors. Both were charged with theft by deception, corruption of minors, criminal conspiracy and related offenses.

Each faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Their preliminary hearings were set for Jan. 31.

The boy is not a Scout, though his parents convinced him he was when he put on the uniform,police said. He remains in the custody of his parents, who were released on $5,000 bail each, authorities said.

"That's awful ... using the child like that," said Sharon DeAngelis, who donated $5 Friday. "The

little boy had a smile on his face. He didn't talk, though."

The couple told donors they were raising money for a camping trip for Cub Scout Pack 351, which does not exist, police said. Herman and Gombocz acknowledged spending the money, authorities said.

Michael Stempo, who has two sons who are Eagle Scouts, became suspicious when his wife said the boy's neckerchief was knotted not held together with a Scout slide. Stempo also said Boy Scouts do not solicit for money door-to-door, though they sometimes sell popcorn or other items.

Rooster, I'm not saying that the BSA is directly responsible for these suicides - and I am sorry if I worded it in a way that was unclear. For so many adolescents, it's the perception of a cruel, uncaring peer group and the influence of family and other authority that can be blamed for many, if not most, suicides (at least those not caused by broken hearts).

The point that I really REALLY want to make is that the BSA is in a position to help out these kids and help prevent a great deal of tragedy. Uniquely so, I'd say.

When should you give up on a kid? Certainly not BEFORE you try to help him...

CubsRgr8 - you are absolutely right - there's nothing to stop the Church from presenting the award; the problem is that the award is not authorized to be worn w/uniform. I stand corrected and extend apologies for any misunderstanding I may have created. You are right when you say "The process of earning and giving the award is completely controlled by the issuing religious body, not BSA."

BUT - the authorization to wear the award with the uniform has been withheld by the BSA, and I do not believe that my comments stray to far from the real reasons therefor. If you look at a list of religious awards authorized to be worn - well, there are many, MANY so favored...

packsaddle,

in nature v. nurture, there's some tough calls to be made for any genetic analysis, aren't there? rat studies have suggested that part of the nurture is population pressure; the recent gay sheep mentioned here and reported elsewhere raise the question of what the nurture would have been in the first place.

still, while I'd guess that an experiment could be designed to determine - say, if a gene were set just so, and there were no nurturant influence - how much is genetic and how much environmental for non-human species, I'm not sure how it could ever ethically be applied to humans..?

finally, I'm confused about this. let's say something like imprinting is at work, at some particular, crucial point - is this nature OR nurture? when a duckling starts following a turkey around - now, what IS that, in these terms?

(hope I'm not off course with all this - you DID say that you have some expertise in this neighborhood, didn't you? if not, sorry!)

kwc57,

I think at its broadest, the text may be interpreted to suggest that a Christian should not keep a CHRISTIAN slave. And at its narrowest, it really did address this single situation, and Paul wanted O to go back to him to keep on helping him out in his old age.

In either case, it doesn't seem to condemn slavery itself, only a certain kind, with an overriding sense of "that which is Caesar's". Sending the slave back to his owner in the first place seems to recognize the Biblical legitimacy of slavery, as does the offer to pay.

just a perspective.

Mark, poke around at

www.uua.org/news/scouts/background.html

for an overview of the issue. Basically, the BSA has said that if the church teaches that gays are ok, then the church can't give sponsored youth a religious award - from my perspective, censoring and censuring that church.

Quixote.

"infiltrate an organization for boys to further the political agenda of another group..." certainly spins it one way. you might also have said "infiltrate an organization for boys to make sure certain excluded youth could be included", but of course, that's not the way you'd want to say it. and of course if those are the good ol' boys of the Klan, then the FBI should never have infiltrated...

from the position of "gay's just another way to be", there's no real issue about gay membership or leadership.

but let's just take a look from a different perspective.

I'm gonna take the position that gay is as bad, evil, forbidden and corrupt as some of the members here. AND I'm going to acknowledge there is a period of identity confusion in a bunch of lives.

SO - now I gotta look at sexually confused kids as kids at risk. And even some so-called avowed gay youth as not even sure about what they're avowing. So from my temproarily assumed perspective I have to see these as kids at risk, as well.

SO - who needs Scouting more than kids at risk? Whether sexually, morally, familially, ethically - DOES SCOUTING ACKNOWLEDGE AN OBLIGATION TO SUCH YOUTH? Does Scouting make itself available as a tool to chartering organizations who seek to help such boys? (Frankly, even tho' I recognize that Scouting is on firmer ground in its atheist exclusion, I still say from any faith-based perspective, kids dabbling in atheism should be seen as at-risk, and welcomed!)

Anyway. From that perspective - and especially for a 'faith-based' organization that presumably recognizes that even homophobic faith holds out the hope for redemption of some kind - these kids should be made welcome.

That said, we're halfway home.

NOW let's take it a step further. Let's say some of these kids don't end up straight or religious. They're still going to need role models - and frankly, a gay Scouter is probably one of the best role models such a kid could ever know, just as every Scouter should try to be the best possible role model they can. (And a truly ethical atheist, too, but that's a different soap box.)

Some folks just want to help the easy ones - but it's the hard ones that need Scouting most.

But no, some folks would rather have every gay kid grow up thinking he's slime, an abomination, and not worthy of associating with decent God-fearing folk - here's where some of the suicides come from.

I just wish the BSA would stand up and recognize that they weren't chartered just for certain select kids.

deceiptful? sure. but it's definitely not NOTHING but deceiptful. It is self-sacrificing, open-hearted, dedicated - and nothing but human.

tj, I can appreciate you wondering about bravery, but remember, that by staying 'in', you'll get closer and closer to helping all gay America. Coming out now will stop the ultimate good you can do for so many others - you may feel better about yourself, but you also end your efforts on behalf of folks who don't even know you!

Sometime, years from now, when they throw you a big ol' thanks-for-all-the-years dinner - THEN you can let them know who they're thanking!

'k, 'sjust a thot.

thanks to YOU, eisely, for posting this.

Done!

mk9750 - Mark, if I may.

See, part of the problem is that to date, when a religious organization has gone out on the gay limb like the UUA did, the BSA says, well - we don't accept your religion! (yeah, I've simplified it). In order to keep one door locked, they've themselves have locked another. Exclusion has thus given birth to religious INtolerance - which Scouting officially decries, but has in fact embraced.

The last time this happened, the Mormon Church re-evaluated its views on race; I suppose they hope they can do the same with sexuality.

Regardless; the issue is never whether or not a change WILL happen - it's always really about whether or not it SHOULD happen.

(ever notice how mythology is a term that applies to something you don't believe in?)

Anyway - I do appreciate your balance in consideration, regardless of any ultimate disagreement.

ummm - how many of y'all ever dip in here, read and post on your bosses' dime? you know - at work, without his knowledge?

trustworthy? loyal? obedient?

just a question, no answers needed...