NJCubScouter

BadenP, it seems to me that it is up to the parents to act in accordance with their own beliefs, which they presumably know better than the SM.

I don't know about that, NeverAnEagle, I just found this page and most of the items suggest that the judiciary is dependent on Congress for funding. http://news.uscourts.gov/topics/funding I do not have the figures, but I suspect that fines and fees are really just icing on the cake and that the bulk of the judiciary's funding comes from the same place as every other part of the federal government. That page also tells me something I didn't know: The decision to keep the courts open is only "good" for about 10 business days, and they will do a reassessment on or around October 15. I doubt that the judiciary would ever be completely shut down. People have to be able to file cases because legal rights can be lost if they are not filed by a certain date. Criminal cases need to be tried, because if you have a huge backlog of criminal trials you end up with all kinds of problems (including constitutional ones.) Some civil cases (and many bankruptcy cases) really do require certain kinds of orders to be entered RIGHT NOW. A lot of the rest of it could be put on hold for... I don't know how long. A couple of weeks? Longer than that and it becomes a very big mess. In the shutdown in the 90s I think the federal court system remained completely open the whole time.

I have been a little confused by the news reports (and by the past few comments.) Are there some federal employees who are working AND getting paid as usual, some who are working and getting paid but only after the shutdown ends, some who are NOT working but will still get paid when the shutdown ends, and some who are not working and won't ever get paid? I have heard of all these different scenarios but do not know whether they are all "real", or whether there might be some other categories I don't know about. In my office I have been getting notices that the federal courts are open for business as an "essential service" and I had sort of assumed this meant the judges and staff were getting their regular paychecks. Is that incorrect? One of the notices also says that if you have papers due to the Court, they are still due, unless you are an attorney in a federal government agency, in which case your time will be extended to a date after the shutdown ends. I guess the judges and their clerks (etc.) are an essential service, but the lawyers are not.

I have also taken both Venturing YPT and Venturing Fast Start through myscouting.org and my only registration is with a troop.

Well, NeverAnEagle, you have now "met" at least two Jewish Scouters online. It is unfortunate that the one Jewish Scout you met had to endure bigotry because of his religious headwear, which is called a kippah (Hebrew) or a yarmulke (Yiddish.) Even worse is the fact that some of the intolerance and ignorance was coming from adults (which is where it almost always starts anyway; show me a kid who is a bigot and I already know something about their parents.)

I don't think we know that with absolute certainty, or at least I don't. I am not a Jehovah's Witness nor am I an expert on that religion. Going by what is on the Internet can often lead us down the wrong road, and in this case most of what people are looking at on the Internet seems to be written by ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. Has anyone found a direct statement like that on the web site of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization itself?

I said this: "Besides, females sleep elsewhere in seperate campsites/areas" Um....what is the difference? It's seperate. A campsite can be on the other site of a trail or 15 feet away. And that's how you split hairs.... Joe Bob: Sure, if you're sleeping under the stars. By the way, I am noticing that after dropping this question on us, comchair seems to be letting us just chat among ourselves. Please come back!

dfsccott, Sorry to hear you got the "I'll get back to you" line from your DE, but it isn't too surprising. Hopefully he understands that there is a young man hanging in limbo (note intentional use of lower-case "l", no religious reference intended) and really will get back to you. The fact that he went on your troop hike with you sounds like a good sign generally, even apart from this particular issue. I don't think I have ever once seen a DE when he/she was not "on the clock". In reading the various posts on here, one thing that stands out that it is up to the Scout and his parents, not the troop, to make sure the Scout abides by his family's religious beliefs. That means the family's actual beliefs, not necessarily the "orthodox" beliefs of his religion. So if my parents thought it was ok for me (as a youth) to eat bacon on camping trips, it was - and my father was right there eating it too. But in this particular case, we know that the Scout is aware that he cannot recite the Pledge of Allegiance and intends to abide by that restriction - he said so himself, and he was the one who brought it up. So it's not a question of the Scout/parents not following the rules of their religion, they seem to be following them - at least as far as the Pledge goes. Now, as some others have brought up, there may be other issues - what about the Scout Oath (or Promise, if that helps). What about the requirements regarding flag etiquette, folding, etc. (We do still have those somewhere, right? I'm the advancement chair but I admit I don't know all the requirements by heart). Maybe there are some requirements for Cit in the Nation, for example, that might be a problem. I think I am coming around to partial agreement with qwazse that AFTER you get the "official line", you sit down with the parents and the Scout together, and go over them what the Scout will be expected to do throughout the advancement program, including any information about "accommodations" you might get from your professionals. Then they can decide whether the program is for them.

Happens to me all the time, berliner. It seems most likely to happen when I have written a long post, but I am not sure if that is a function of number of lines (or words), or of time. I know of at least one other forum I have participated in where the "comment" function times out without telling you, and while you are still logged in. Something similar seems to happen here. But I find, as you did, that when I get the error message, if I "copy" the text of my post, log out, then log in again, it works. I also find it works best if I am posting in "Posts" view rather than "Latest Activity" view. For some reason the system is finicky about trying to post in "Latest Activity" view, at least for me.

I think there are some groups that prohibit an "oath" but are ok with a "promise", and that is what I have always understood to be the reason why we have the "Scout Oath OR Promise". Maybe I am thinking of the Quakers? I am not sure where the Jehovah's Witnesses stands with that. If a "pledge" is prohibited, the "Oath or Promise" probably still doesn't work since it is a "pledge" regardless of whether you call it a "promise" or anything else. And then there are some groups that prohibit the wearing of the flag, and I believe the official BSA policy is (or at least was) that if religious obligations prohibit you from wearing the flag on the uniform, it is ok to take it off. I think there was even a short period of time when the uniforms came without the flag, and you had to sew it on.

Berliner, you are correct that we still have a way to go on "cleaning up" in this country, but I have seen substantial progress in my lifetime. I can remember riding in the car with my parents on the New Jersey Turnpike and seeing the smoke from all the factories billowing into the air. (This was in the 60's.) You could see the smog hanging in the air. You don't see much of that anymore (and that's not just because a lot of factories are closed.) The same goes for the water, the bays and rivers in Northern New Jersey were basically chemical dumps. And they probably did catch on fire sometimes, they just never got the publicity that the river in Ohio got. Today many of the rivers are essentially pollution-free and the bays, well, you still wouldn't want to drink out of them but they are a lot cleaner.

qwazse, I understand that the professionals aren't perfect, I just think that in fairness to the Scout and his parents, some attempt should be made to get the "official" word on what accommodations the BSA makes in situations like this. As I said, I am sure it has come up before and I see no need for the leaders of a troop to have to wonder about what to do, when there may be a solution already in place. It's worth a try, isn't it?

Wait wait wait. Before you talk to the boy or his parents and tell them the "rules" based on what a few anonymous people told you on the Internet, I would call my friendly local council office and talk to one of the executives about this issue. I am SURE this is not the first time this has come up, if not in your council, then in other councils. Your question might get bumped up the chain of command somewhere, but someone has to know the "official" answer. I would do that before you tell this enthusiastic young man, or his parents, what is and is not absolutely required of him if he is to remain a Boy Scout.

Comchair, are either of the adults in question leaders in the Webelos den or Cub Scout pack? Are there going to be other "families" there, with tenting by family rather than the Webelos sharing tents among themselves, so that this becomes more of a "family camping trip"? I am not saying the answers to these necessarily answer the question, though they do suggest some possibilities depending on how the rules are interpreted. Nevertheless, I think the INTENT of rule #8 (quoted by Moosetracker) is not to have unmarried adults of opposite gender tenting together under any circumstances, even though that is not exactly what it says. (It says "leader" but I think it means "adult", whether a "leader" or not.) And let me ask you this, can't someone just lend "girlfriend" a small tent she can use by herself? It could be put up right next to Dad-and-son's tent. Isn't that a reasonable compromise?

CalicoPenn, where are you when we need you?

I agree with all of the above. I don't think the BSA has any rules on this, but it seems like common sense. If the committee really wants to dine together during meetings, chip in yourselves. At times I have attended committee meetings in someone's home, and whatever refreshments were there were provided by the host. I don't think I was ever asked to pay because I ate some pretzels or a little club sandwich (if the person was being really fancy, I think that only happened once.) As for child care, I could see that being a different story IF all other avenues have been exhausted. (I think Moosetracker recently posted about a situation exactly like that, somewhere in the forum.) But you can almost always find someone willing to do it, if not a sibling then someone else. And if you want to offer the teenage "watcher" (sibling or just a "volunteer") a few bucks after he/she has spent 90 minutes making sure five little kids do not damage themselves or each other, again, those whose children are being watched can fork over a couple of dollars each.

The plain fact is that 14-year-old (and younger) Scouts have been earning Eagle from the beginning. If they pass all the requirements, they should not be held back. I will admit that a 12-year-old Eagle (which is theoretically possible) would set off my alarm bells as to whether he has actually passed all the requirements. I have never seen a 12-year-old Eagle, so the subject does not come up. In my troop I have never seen anyone make Eagle until he was past his 15th birthday, but that is not due to anyone being held back. In fact, until about two years ago the youngest Scout to make Eagle was about 16 and a half. (All of these statistics are for the past 10 years, I don't know about before that.) We have had three 15-year-old Eagles since then, two just in the past few months. Of those two, one was just re-elected SPL for a year and the other was re-appointed ASPL. We also have an Eagle as our JASM, though I think his BOR was either right before or right after his 17th birthday. That track record sounds pretty good to me, that they don't all just run off when they make Eagle. Of course we have our share of last-minute Eagles too, like my son who was 17 years and 363 days when he got the last signature he needed before his birthday, and was 18 when he had his BOR. But at least he was participating actively the whole way through, no leaving and coming back -- it just took him a long, long time to get his project together.

KDD, unless I missed something, I don't think JoeBob said he was Catholic. He said his three wives have been Catholic. One can be married to a Catholic without being one, or even being Christian, as I personally can attest. (Just one for me though, and 32 years and counting.)

Personally I do not think that viewing marriage as a "lifelong commitment" necessarily means that a divorced person would be excluded from leadership. (And if TL decides to do so, quite frankly, so what? It's not my organization nor is it going to be, so it doesn't bother me.) All religions that I am aware of, and ALMOST all people I have known who have gotten married, also view it as a lifelong commitment, and yet different religions and different people have different perspectives on divorce and what the divorced person should or shouldn't do (or be allowed to do) after the divorce. It does depend on the circumstances. If someone applied to be a leader and I know he has been divorced several times and the cause of the divorce was that he cheated on each wife with the next wife, and this is known throughout the community, I would probably conclude that he is not a good role model for the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Law. (Does that language sound familiar?) But if a guy has been divorced once because he and his wife just couldn't get along after years of trying, or if he was faithful and she cheated on him, I wouldn't have a problem. That assumes that I even know the details of the person's personal life, which normally I prefer not to.

Kudu, I am not sure exactly what you are suggesting. There already is a "Patrol Method" sub-forum (or forum, depending on how you look at it.) As for a "repository" of information, as you know the forum itself is mainly for discussion. I do not know whether there is a place on this site to "store" documents, and if so, how they would be linked so people could find them. There is the "NetCompass" area, but that seems to be for external links. Maybe you should contact Scouter-Terry to see what the options are. RememberSchiff, as far as I know all of the moderators have the ability to make topics "sticky". (Or at least, I have a "button" to do it, though I have never done it, and there are some sticky topics, so I am assuming all the moderators can do it.) I looked through the forums and we seem to have three "sticky" topics: This one, which is for discussion of technical issues in the forums; the one about the passing of OGE; and the announcement about Packsaddle giving away maps, which I assume will be "unstuck" when the maps are gone. I will leave it to other moderators whether the topic in questions falls into that limited category.

We have one Scout who went to Jamboree this summer and evidently they talked about the World Jamboree in Japan there, because he came back talking about how he would like to go, if the finances can be worked out.

I did a little digging on the Internet and found this in a description of the 5th edition of the Scout Handbook, which was published from 1948 to 1959: First of all, this means that the reference in a previous post to the "minds in Texas", assuming that is meant to refer to the national headquarters of the BSA, is incorrect. The BSA HQ was in New York City until 1954 when it moved to New Jersey, so depending on which printing of the 5th edition introduced the actual "Outdoor Code" with its current title and wording, the minds in question were located in either NYC or NJ. More to the point, it is interesting that the original version (called the "Conservation Pledge") started "I give my pledge as an American to...", which was then shortened to "As an American, I will..." Personally I think they should have kept the beginning from the first version. They switched to a wording that is, well, kind of awkward. The "As an American" does come out of the blue, kind of. I don't have any problems with the word "American."

As the advancement coordinator for my troop, this is "somebody else's problem." I could bring it up in my capacity as a committee member, but I don't see any reason to. No other leader, committee member or parent has mentioned that they have any concern about it, as far as I am aware. None of the Scouts in our troop are "openly gay" (to my knowledge) and I have no reason to believe that any of them are non-openly gay, either. (There was one who once made a statement that made me wonder, but he has not been in the troop for four or five years. Although I briefly considered telling his parents what he had said, I decided it wasn't necessary. The only person other than me who heard the statement was my son (age 13 or 14 at the time), who did understand the possible implications of what the other Scout had said but did not seem concerned about it, so the matter ended there.) I suspect that my troop will follow its usual route of dealing with the problems we actually have (which are enough to deal with) and not going out and looking for new problems, until a "situation" actually presents itself.