NJCubScouter

Stosh, it's "Reform" Jews, not "Reformed." A tradition I am familiar with, as evidenced by the fact that I am sitting at a computer and typing on the Jewish Sabbath - not to mention that I am at work. By the way, in addition to Orthodox and Reform, there is a third major group, Conservative, and smaller groups such as Reconstructionist.

Wow, do I feel old. My YOUNGEST child graduated from college on Sunday. (Although I can assure you, I felt old before that, it was just another marker on the road.) So he would have joined his new Scout patrol... 11 years ago. Wow.

Sentinel: A state could not have a law prohibiting atheists from being judges. That would violate both the First Amendment and the "religious test" clause, I am sure Merlyn knows what Article that is in, I just know it is in there somewhere. As for gay judges, at this point there is no federal constitutional restriction on a state government barring gay persons from employment. Some state Supreme Courts have interpreted their own state constitutions to give persons "equal protection of the laws" regardless of sexual orientation. I know that New Jersey's has; not sure about California; and I know that some have not. However, I think it is fairly safe to guess that California DOES have a state statute forbidding discrimination in employment (including employment by the state) on the basis of sexual orientation. New Jersey does (and a different section of that same NJ statute is what led to the Dale case.) Some states do not. As for federal employment standards, I am not sure how those would apply to state judges, but at this point the federal statutes forbidding discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc., do not include sexual orientation in the list.

Putting my seldom-used moderator hat on here. I second Sentinel's statement that the insults need to stop. I also went a little further (or maybe just faster) and deleted the one word in this thread that was clearly over the line. It happened to be in one of Merlyn's posts, but I just want to make clear that I was reacting to the word and not endorsing or criticizing any ideas. (I may do that in a separate post, after I take my hat off; but if I do, it will be a response to the original post and not any of the tangents.) I also will say that I think that the post by Eagledad (which prompted Merlyn's post that now has a redaction in it) crossed the line into insulting the beliefs of others... and beliefs do include lack of belief, non-belief and every other way of thinking. It just didn't contain any words that rang the bell.

So I guess the question is, is the three-walled treehouse more like a "cabin" or "sleeping under the stars." I would probably have to go with "cabin." If a boy really needs those nights for Camping or OA, I don't know of any rule that says he can't put up a tent or tarp on the ground, or just put down a groundcloth and sleep under the stars if weather permits. When my son was a younger Scout we had a cabin camping trip in about 5-below weather in January with snow on the ground, and three of the older Scouts camped outside in a tent, just to be hotshots. They all came home alive, and I think the other Scouts were impressed. (Though not impressed enough to join them or to repeat that stunt on later cold-weather camping trips.)

quazse, you say that "belief" is not an explicit criterion for exclusion. Maybe not explicit, but implicit. The bylaws say: "Any individual who agrees with the purpose of the Secular Student Alliance is eligible for membership." And earlier it says, "The purpose of the Secular Student Alliance is to bring about a society in which the ideals of scientific rationality, secularism, and human based ethics flourish." Actually, that is pretty close to explicitly requiring a specific belief for membership. Having written a few bylaws for student and parent organizations myself, it's clear to me what they really are trying to accomplish is to prevent people who are hostile to their purposes from taking over their organization. I have seen that happen. You have a quiet little club with 20 members, the "We Believe in X" club, and then 40 people show up who believe in "Not-X", elect new officers, and then suddenly your club is opposing what it was created to support. So there is nothing wrong with requiring new members to support the purposes of the organization. (Of course, in a large and complex organization like the BSA, the members can get into debates about what the purposes of the organization really are, which is exactly what has happened in the BSA.)

Stosh, I am not sure what your point is. Who (if anyone) are you accusing of acting in a bigoted or hypocritical manner, and who is the victim of their bigotry or hypocrisy?

Stosh, the Constitution is the Constitution, regardless of what kinds of shorts people are wearing. The Constitution prohibits discrimination by the federal and state governments on the basis of religion. The BSA discriminates on the basis of religion, by excluding people who do not believe in a supreme being. Your local public school is owned and operated by the government (or more precisely, a local subdivision of your state government, but still the government for purposes of the Constitution.) Therefore, it cannot own a BSA unit, which by BSA national policy is required to discriminate on the basis of religion. As you point out, schools no longer charter BSA units, but the only reason they don't is that they can't, for the same Constitutional reasons. As Merlyn points out, a BSA unit can meet in the school (if they are chartered to an organization that makes arrangements to use the school.) The Secular club (or whatever it is) also can meet in the school. So, contrary to Skeptic's original point, both organizations are being treated the same. Is this a great country, or what?

Although I have been out of the Cub-Scouting game for more than 10 years, I can recall that some years the district did a push for Tigers in the spring and some years they didn't. The one year I can recall that they did, it worked out pretty well. By the time the fall came around there were already Tiger Den Leaders who had stepped forward, received their orientation to the pack (part of my job as Assistant Cubmaster), had their boys and adult partners uniformed (I think it was still the orange t-shirts back then) and everybody had their books, ready to launch as soon as the new school year started. Other years, when recruitment was in the fall, it took a while for things to get going. (The story of one of those roundups that year, which was held two days after 9-11 (and our area is about 30 miles from downtown Manhattan), is beyond the scope of this topic. Suffice it to say, it was a little different from the usual routine.)

I understand that he could quit the troop, and if what you have written is correct, it would not matter. If on the other hand, he had to do his 6-months active and POR in the unit in which in which he is "primary", it WOULD matter. You are saying this is not the case, and the G2A does not say it is the case, so it seems (so far) that he has already passed these requirements, in the crew. (But, for whatever it's worth, he does not want to quit the troop, for which I am grateful for a number of reasons; he is a good Scout, excellent at Scout skills and teaching them to younger Scouts, not to mention that his parents are two of our most dedicated leaders. He just wants to "make Eagle" in the crew, not the troop.)

Thanks for sharing, Packsaddle. The one time I remember an adult leader sleeping in his car, it had nothing to do with cold or rain. Apparently, the other adult in the tent was snoring SO LOUDLY and incessantly that this leader fled from the tent and found quieter pastures in his car. I only found out about this incident the next morning when I woke up in the tent and found my tent-mate missing, and put two and two together. (Get it? And what made me feel really bad about it was, we were both using HIS giant-size air mattress, and I ended up using it by myself.)

We do not try to standardize the colors of the unit numbers and loops in our troop. With our "uniform bank", the red items could be hanging around for many years - although most of our families seem to buy new shirts after a year or so, I guess the parents want to wait to see if their sons are really interested in staying in Boy Scouting before shelling out the bucks for the shirt. So after a few more years the boys will probably be 90 percent green numbers and loops. And then there are the 7 or 8 "lifer" (or semi-lifer) adults, most of whom also have the older shirts with the red numbers and loops (including me, although these days (as a troop committee member) I wear my uniform only at COH's and other ceremonial occasions.)

Ok, this is not really a hypothetical question. The topic heading is just me poking a little bit of fun at past threads where a person asked a "hypothetical question" that was obviously not hypothetical. I have, however, "generalized" some of the facts because it actually does concern a real person, but none of the generalizations should change the answer. I should also say that the person(s) directly involved are seeking an answer through official channels, but I just wanted to see what kind of reaction I get here. I suppose I should also say that the young man involved is not my son, who aged/Eagled out of the troop several years ago. Part of the reason I am asking this is that I am not really familiar with "cross registration," that is, a person being a member of a Troop and a Crew at the same time. I only know that it can and does happen. I also have heard that one of the units will be the Scout's "primary registration" and the other will be his "secondary registration," but I don't really know what the consequences are. (I know adults can be registered in multiple units/district/council positions as well, but that has no impact on advancement, which is what this question is about.) So, let's just say (heh heh) that Joe Scout is a member of Troop 1, in which he has earned all the ranks through and including Life. Currently he needs a couple more Eagle-required merit badges, has an idea for a project that has been approved by the owner of the project and is about to begin the process of writing up his project plan, getting the required approvals for that (hopefully), and proceeding with his project. While a Life Scout, he has been active in his troop for well over 6 months, and during that entire period, he has continuously served in a series of POR's (all of which are listed as POR's for advancement), for well over 6 months. After earning Life, he also became a member of a newly formed Venture Crew, Crew 10. It is my understanding that Troop 1 remains Joe's "primary registration." He immediately became one of the officers of the Crew and served in that position for (let's assume) more than 6 months, and obviously was also active in the Crew for that same time period. He has, at least temporarily, stepped down from his POR in the Crew, but remains in his POR in the Troop. (Which is going to make what comes next perhaps sound a little bit odd, but it is my understanding that there are good reasons for all of this, and the reasons are not part of this discussion.) Joe has now decided that he wishes to earn Eagle as a member of the crew, not the troop, but he will remain active in both units. So here is the question, in several parts: Does he need to change his "primary registration" to the crew? And if he does, does the time he has already spent in a POR with the crew "count"? Or does he need 6 more months after switching his primary registration? I looked at the Guide to Advancement (2013 edition), and section 4.3.1.4. seems to be the section where I should find the answer. It says that if the young man is registered in two units, he and the unit leaders decide which unit will "oversee" his advancement. (And let's assume that, at least, the Crew Advisor agrees to this plan.) It does not say anything about "primary registration." It does say, "Position of responsibility requirements for Boy Scout ranks may be met by the Venturer or Sea Scout serving in crew or ship positions as outlined in the Boy Scout Requirements book." (I note the word "may", as opposed to "must", but it is possible that whoever wrote that was not thinking of the situation I am posing.) So it seems to me that if he does NOT have to switch his primary registration before proceeding to earn Eagle in the crew, he has already passed the 6-month active and 6-month POR requirements in the crew. If he DID have to switch, what I am wondering is whether the 6 months BEFORE he switched would "count." Or, since he already fulfilled the 6-month requirements in the troop, does the Scoutmaster's signature on those "count"? (And then he would switch and have all future signatures (on blue cards, project workbook, unit leader conference, Eagle application, etc.) come from the Crew Advisor and Committee Chair, and the Crew Committee would participate in his EBOR.) I would appreciate any answers on this, with references to the official source of the answer, if possible.

I moved this to Open Discussion.

While you're trying to respond, I'll just say that I cannot imagine why the camp would write a refund check made out to anyone other than who they got the money from in the first place. The camp director does not know who Mrs. Smith is, and received no money from her, so why would they be sending her a check? Sounds to me like a dangerous way to do business.

Welcome to the Forums, Recycle! Great user name by the way, especially under the circumstances you describe.

Moderator Note: A spam post at this location was removed from this thread by me. If anyone has anything to say about it, I'm your guy.

Oh, Basement was referring to the Duck Dynasty guy. I get it now. I have never seen the show and never knew the guy's name before, so it really means nothing to me. (When the thing first started, I kept seeing "Robertson" and thinking, oh, Pat Robertson said something anti-gay, what else is new? Oh, Phil, not Pat.) I don't care what he says, or whether he does or doesn't have a tv show. (Now, if one of Pawn Stars guys said something stupid, I wouldn't be happy. But from the random comments they make when they are talking about historical items, I am guessing they are pretty middle-of-the-road, or at least that is how they portray themselves.)

As I have said in this forum on those few occasions when it was relevant, I am Jewish. When I think back to when I was a younger person, it probably DID bother me a little when someone wished me a Merry Christmas. It no longer does. If a person does not know I am Jewish, Merry Christmas is fine, Happy Holidays is fine, and I once got a Happy Winter Solstice card from a friend, that's fine too. All of them are good wishes, and who I am to reject a good wish? As for what I say back... unlike one poster above, I do not believe it is against my religion or beliefs to say Merry Christmas back. I am not "celebrating" Christmas (although I do that too, in a sense - stay tuned) when I say Merry Christmas to someone who has said it to me, nor I am I participating in any sort of religious ritual that is contrary to my beliefs. I am just wishing THAT PERSON a Merry Christmas for him/herself. They have indicated to me that THEY celebrate Christmas, and I am just wishing them a good one. (That all assumes that Merry Christmas is being used as a greeting; unfortunately the original post is evidence that more and more, Merry Christmas is being used as a challenge rather than a greeting, which I think is regrettable.) Now, as I suggested above, perhaps my acceptance of Merry Christmas, although it relates to a religion that is not mine, is due in part to the fact that (as I have also said before) I have been married to a Catholic woman for more than 30 years, and have "celebrated" Christmas with her and her family since shortly after we met. (And my children were "raised Catholic," although one is now in a different Christian denomination and the other two appear to be not much of anything, religion-wise.) For me it is not a religious holiday, it is more of a "family holiday." When Christian prayers are said at the dinner table, I remain respectfully silent, as I do when I find myself in a Christian church for Scout Sunday, or a wedding, or for any other reason. I find Christmas (at its core, leaving aside the shopping frenzy) to be a nice holiday, full of wishes of peace and joy. As I said before though, it is regrettable that in the past few years, some people (like the Oak Ridge Boy quoted above, apparently) have tried to turn Christmas into a political issue.

Who is being prevented from sharing their opinion, Basement?

At one time we had the boys going to the designated Troopmaster data-entry person (a committee member), who was present at every troop meeting with a computer, EVERY TIME they had a requirement signed off in their books. It should not surprise anyone that this system broke down after awhile (especially after that guy left the committee when his son Eagled/aged out of the troop, and the current holder of that position does not attend every troop meeting, but also because it is hopeless to expect every Scout to actually go see an adult each time a T-2-1 requirement is passed.) The system now is that one of the procedures to be followed when completing a rank, and before asking for a Scoutmaster's Conference, is to arrange with the current data-entry person to have the sign-offs entered into the computer. That also means that the Board of Review members have a mostly up-to-date report (printed from Troopmaster) of the Scout's advancement status, merit badges, POR if any, etc., for review at the BOR, plus there is usually a reasonably up-to-date backup available if the Scout loses his book. All that will have to be reconstructed are the requirements passed since the last BOR. (I actually have suggested to some Scouts that they also photocopy the requirements pages from their books every couple of months or so, especially those Scouts whose books look like they have been left out in the rain too many times, but I doubt that many photocopies have been made.)

Due to time pressures elsewhere I have been virtually absent from the forum recently, except to read some posts, but I just wanted to chime in here. I have no reason to believe any human being is intentionally removing topics around here. With the Trail Life topics that vanished some time ago, I know that an inquiry was sent to the "developers" to confirm that it was a technical glitch and hopefully find out the cause and put a stop to it, but I don't know the results. But I am sure that a technical glitch is what it is. Just a few random added comments: Sentinel, you make the Moderator Team sound almost organized. But I agree with what you say about what the moderators generally believe we should be doing and not doing. The one exception I would make is to your statement that if something "crosses the line", we request that the poster make the edit before taking action. It depends on how far over the line it is, or if you prefer, maybe there is more than one line. If something is sort of in the "border area" over the line (or the first line), yes, a request should be made before the Heavy Hand of Moderation takes hammer in hand. But recently there was a post that had a certain four-letter word (the one the narrator of "A Christmas Story" describes as "the Queen Mother of Dirty Words") sprinkled throughout, and that post was edited by a moderator without a lot of discussion. Hopefully we can all agree that that is the proper action in that situation, in a "family forum." Packsaddle, when my son was somewhere around the preteen years, he took the "I didn't do it" routine to another level. He took the idea of "Whatever it was", but he actually said that - when it seemed like he was about to be blamed for something, he would say "Whatever it is, I didn't do it." It became sort of a family joke, but of course it was only funny if he actually DIDN'T do it, or if "it" wasn't too serious.

With what I've seen from Trail Life USA, I can say that as a Catholic I would not want my sons to join. It seems like it is basically a Protestant organization. Horizon: John Witherspoon, a New Jersey guy. (And a somewhat comic figure in the movie "1776", because everybody likes to make fun of New Jersey. But looking at his portrait on Wikipedia, he seems like a pretty serious person.)

I thought they did this already. I would have no problem with the BSA doing something like this. I know a lot of others in this forum would disagree. I also know there's a snowball's chance in you-know-where of it happening.

That is what I do too... when I remember to do it.