BadenP

emb021 I really think you are beating a dead horse, since you yourself admit that there is no complete official Venturing uniform, since your crew uses whatever style and shade of grey pants they want, your whole argument becomes moot. The fact that you consider a crew in black jeans with the venturing shirt out of uniform when your own crew can wear a greyish shade of jean and be in uniform is nonsensical. The fact of the matter is that a Venturing crew can wear any type of uniform, except boy scout, they elect to, or no uniform at all. Most crews, my own included, usually pick something they can wear anywhere, like polo shirts or sweatshirt or jacket with some sort of symbol and ID sewn on. As someone else mentioned here uniforming is NOT a method in Venturing so any debate on the issue is not relevant.

From NW's post I think you can see why the Catholic Church and scouting had such a rocky start and still has a somewhat strained relationship. Unless the priest has a scouting background I can guarantee through experience they will not be open to scouts in their parish. The sad point is that many catholic parishes youth groups are floundering in both numbers and interest and a well done scouting program could help that, I know because I did just that in my former parish.

Willhi hits the nail on the head all these groups have some sort of secret rituals and handshakes. The KofC was created, in spite of what some may say as an fraternal organization for Catholic men who according to cannon law can not be members of the Masons, who refused them membership anyway until fairly recently. Masons are making inroads with Catholic members of the armed services promising them more rapid advancement etc., the bishop in our area published a decree to all the parish priests to read at Mass stating that any man in their congregation who acknowledges he is a Mason is to be refused communion and counseled into resigning from the Masons. The OA is in no way related to either of these organizations in their operations, however I have heard of a few lodges who do not exactly follow BSA rules and when something happens thats when these news articles come out.

Shortridge the answer I got was, "when the books talk about the official venturing shirt and then the pants, shorts etc., it is implied that these too are to be the official uniform pieces." When I mentioned that this was not clearly stated in either book the reply was, "it really should not be that confusing if your crew is going to wear the official venturing uniform then all the parts should be official down to the belt and socks." So you see my confusion even though I hate the idea I have to go with National as the final authority. In the real world of scouting however no one really seems to care one way or another so emb021 can do what he does with his crew, and I have to agree $60 venturing pants are just way overpriced and impractical for a crew member.

There is a lot of truth though in ScoutMom's post though, sometimes intolerance is disguised as playful banter or outright attacks.

Now who is picking a fight? OGE if a crew does pick the official venturing uniform as an option then they are subject to the same uniform code as cubs and boy scouts. That is why most crews do not use the official uniform, it is more of a headache then it is worth emb021 I know what I was told and your argument is basically faulty and illogical and it is obvious you do not like to be told that you are wrong about anything, so lighten up already. I too hate the official venturing pants and purchase them elsewhere. There is a crew in my council that wears black jeans with the venturing shirt who recently did the opening flag ceremony at a council function, the SE, Council Commish,as well as district reps were all present and no one said a thing to them about being out of uniform, instead they were complimented about what an excellent job they had done. So you see the whole issue is moot because nobody really cares one way or the other.

But Hops thats the way our political system has always been in this country, from early on. Even in times of economic hardship instead of coming together politicians always bickered along party lines, heck it took WWII to break us out of our last major economic depression.

First of all emb021 I stated that I agree with you about alternative pants amd shorts however when I spoke to National Venturing Division that is what I was told directly and succintly, no exceptions, now if you want to call it picking a fight your fight is not with me. It does however raise the issue if you are correct, that if venturers have an option, why does supply make the pants and shorts in the first place? Secondly, if venturers have the right to alternative pants why shouldn't boy scouts and cub scouts have the same right? Thirdly, unless your crew all get their pants from the same place you would have a myriad of design differences as well as a variety of shades of charcoal grey, not a very "uniform" uniformed crew.

First emb021, you seem to be interpreting the rule for your own mindset not the factual or official one. If a crew selects the OFFICIAL venturing uniform it includes all the OFFICIAL pieces not a knockoff on the pants or socks, otherwise your logic would also include troops and packs. Call National and talk to them you will see I am correct, I have and I know what I am telling you is true. Now if a crew decides on any alternate uniform, it can not include any OFFICIAL uniform parts from any scouting program, it can include anything else they want in the way of shirts and pants and hats, just not BSA uniform parts. Finally a crew has the right to select no uniform of any kind, I hope that clears it up for you SM Bradley. I too have seen at camps the mixing of parts by staff but viewed it as the problem of the camp director or the SE but it is not my place to complain cuz there are bigger things to worry about, and life is too short.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

But emb021 if you follow the exact wording if you elect to wear the green venturing shirt you must also wear the OFFICIAL venturing shorts or pants, just as a boy scout can not go out a buy a pair olive green pants that look like the official ones, the same is true for venturing it is either all or nothing. As one who is always citing the rules for venturing I am surprised on your slip-up here. The handbook and leaders manual both state, as does Venturing Leaders training, that if you choose the official venturing uniform it must be complete, including the belt and socks. I personally agree with you on the pants but those are the rules, and mmhardy's comment essentially correct.

Well for one thing they can post a step by step chart and guidelines of who to go to and what to do when the scouter has a problem with, a COR, adult leader, a DE, a parent, a district chair, a youth who has talked about wanting to or committing suicide, to name just a few, as these topics are continously debated and argued over in this forum. While it may be true to act scoutlike to each other we all know that is not the reality of the real world, and it would be nice to see some consistency in dealing with these situations from on high. Granted every situation is different, but there are some commonalities and methodologies that would be very helpful to all scouters in most of these cases.

Scout As one who has studied the encyclicals of the popes going all the way back to the middle ages I can tell you that what the Church teaches about sharing your wealth with the less fortunate is more than cursory donations to a charity, rather it was to embrace your fellow man as your equal and share ALL that you have so you are all one and equal strong community of faith. That idea started with Jesus and has carried down through the centuries by the popes, in our capitalistic system this idea would be considered socialism, and some would even say communistic in nature. Pope JPII also believed strongly that well to do nations and individuals had a moral obligation to share much more of their wealth with those less fortunate since we are all considered "one body in Christ". What the popes criticized through history were those countries who considered themselves to be socialistic or capitialistic and yet still allowed many of their own people and those in third world countries to starve and live in poverty. The Church has a long record of actively admonishing our own country as well as those of Europe and Asia who have not lived up to the ideal set by Jesus, rightly or wrongly.

Well I think its about time the Democrat/Liberal contributers have a voice in these forum threads that are usually monopolized by Brent, Gern, and Kahuna spouting their own brand of vile attacks on those who disagree with them, or as I like to think of them the Rush Limbaugh Fan Club. What worries me more is how much of this hatred spews down to the boys in their troops, but I am sure they are all long retired scouters who in their golden years just love to argue and fight, lol.

OGE Now you are just fearmongering, a favorite tool of the past president. You bet many people were fooled by the manufactured evidence which is a speciality of the Company.

KUDU Haven't you heard the Mazzuca plan, its all about MONEY and NUMBERS all the rest of the program will have to take a back seat. Why stop with Hispanic youth I am waiting to see what new ideas he has for seperate programs for African American youth and Asian American youth, oh and don't forget the Middle Eastern youth. Maybe the 2010 Jamboree can have an international theme. James West and Dan Beard must be rolling over in their graves.

OGE If you really are naive enough to believe that Bush did not know the truth about that intell then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you. Bush knew exactly what the truth was before he invaded Iraq, he wanted the world to believe in WMD's but it was truly all about his vendetta for threats against his dad by Sadam and OIL. Time to wake up and smell the coffee people.

The difference is Scout that this war was a personal vendetta to finish something his father failed to do. I am sure in time it will come to light that the intelligence used to justify going into Iraq was manufactured to get the worlds support for the invasion. The Iraq War unlike other wars was of our own making to insure an open supply of oil for the US, all the other reasons were a smoke screen.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

HMMMM, I guess speaking the truth is a censurable thing when it conflicts with a moderators right wing sentiments. It amazes me just how excessively right wing this forum has become lately. Freedom of speech is not dead in this country yet, just in this forum.

(OGE here, we really don't need this) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Narraticong As soon as Obama took the oath the Republicans in Congress were already planning how to block any bill he proposed and they did just that. They had no interest in coming to some kind of compromise so Obama pushed on with what he promised to do and many Republican legislators cried like babies that they were never ask to help, which is plain bull sh@#. The truth is that many of these same legislators wanted the package to be their way or no way and never considered being bi-partisan in the first place. The problem is most Republican voters get their facts from Fox News or Rush who contort the facts into a manufactured network of plain lies, like it or not. Try listening to the news on PBS for a change you might be surprised when you hear the truth for the first time.

All I can say is if Scout, Brent, and Nattirong are typical of the Republican party of today its no wonder Obama carried the election so easily. Anyone who thinks Rush Limbaugh is some kind of hero obviously doesn't have both oars in the water. The Repubilican party is dying on the vine, no real leadership, no real vision for the future, and constiuents who are so out of touch with reality its laughable. So is the Republican party doomed without some major changes, to quote their current party leader Sarah Palin, "You betcha!", lol.

Scout I was refering to a comment in your post about being a policeman after rereading it I see you were quoting mile high, however your and Brent's arguments are really straw dogs with no real validity and typical of the last eight years of poorly thought out arguments of those conservatives in the White House. Brent I think we established a long time ago how pathetically equipped you are to enter into any intelligent discussion, so you resort to going off topic with name calling. I see you still have to resort to such childish behavior since you have no real valid argument to defend your outlandish positions.

The Scout I think that MileHigh did a great job dismantling your and Brents arguments and misunderstanding of Constitutional law and history. Kudo's to you MileHigh!!! Scout, you state you are a former police officer and yet you advocate the sale of assault weapons to the public, just what kind of cop were you? How many of your brother officers did you see slaughtered in the streets by criminals with assault weapons? And then you have the audacity or maybe the stupidity to state assault weapons are a constitutional right. As you know assault weapons did not exsist in 1776 and most of the colonists muzzleloaders misfired, were not very accurate, and broke down or exploded after continual firing as the barrels overheated. So what the he#@ are you even talking about. I think you and Brent should take some law and history classes so you can get your facts straight. I really hope you don't spread this type of bull to your boys in the troop. Sad, sad, sad!!

Gern The blithering idiocy and vile hatred that spews out of you, compounded by your innaccurate stereotyping is so pathetic that it would be funny if I did not know that you really believe the stupid things you say. Time to come back into the real world dude, your type of logic went out of style over 50 years ago. "It is better to be perceived as ignorant by others than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

I understand where many of you are coming from it just seemed to me that vcrew66 was being sort of a voyeur. What is his relationship to these scouts, he never said he was their leader or friend of the family? Just a warning sign as a former federal investigator his behavior of targeting certain boys on the internet mirrors the actions of pedophiles I have dealt with in the past. You have to question his motives as well as the boys actions.