NJCubScouter

Skeptic, I think that if you provided proof that this Scout was the reincarnation of Lord Baden-Powell himself, that still wouldn't be enough for Beavah. Or to paraphrase a line I once heard a Protestant minister speak, if the Scout walked on water Beavah would probably say, look, the kid can't swim! As for "red flags", I guess everybody has their red-flag-o-meter set a bit differently. If you told me that half the kids in the troop were making Eagle two days before their 13th birthday, I would say that would be a "red flag." The first thing I would want to know is, are those Scouts really passing all the requirements? Assuming the requirements were really being passed, I would still wonder about the troop's program, specifically whether it is so narrowly and single-mindedly focused on the requirements that the Scouts were really missing out on a complete program. But according to Skeptic, that is not the case. Most of the kids making Eagle, he says, are at least 16. In my troop, most Scouts are making Eagle are 17 at the time, and almost all of the rest are 16. (I'm counting the ones who have EBOR's at age 18 as still being 17 because that is when they passed all the other requirements.) So in my troop, one Scout who truly passed the requirements for all ranks and made Eagle two days before his 13th birthday would not be a "red flag" regarding the program. It would be a source of amazement, but it would not be a "red flag."

Eagle732, I did not "estimate" anything. I started from this one unit that the article was about and and went up from there, wondering what number or percentage of units would cause the BSA to reconsider the policy.

Beavah, my point about "natural law" is that it is invoked to justify anything, so it is really not worth much more than "in my opinion." If it were applied in a consistent way, it might have some value. But it you have your "natural law" with certain elements, and someone else has their "natural law" with some different elements, what good is it? And if you are referring to me as one of those who merely "dismisses" it, that's not the case. I have heard and read more than enough about it to conclude that it isn't really useful. Murder is a good example. I don't need "natural law" to tell me that murder is wrong. For that matter, I don't need a book that tells me that God issued a commandment against murder, to know that murder is wrong. I sure don't need a recitation of natural law that tells me that "Murder is 'natural,' but the natural law condemns it." That tells me absolutely nothing.

He was one of my heroes. I remember that when the first moonwalk was coming on TV, it was the first time my parents let me and my brother stay up "really late" (I don't remember what time it actually was) so we could watch it. (I was 11 years old.) Although the picture was very jumpy and the sound (at least as I recall it) was barely audible and the broadcasters had to repeat what Neil Armstrong said so TV viewers could actually understand it, it was an inspiring moment. As an adult I have come to be inspired by it even more.

Murder is "natural," but the natural law condemns it. A man who commits murder is not acting according to his nature. Can anyone reconcile those two sentences? I sure can't. And that is a good example of why I think "natural law", as a means of trying to justify one policy or law or another, is bull-you-know-what. It's really just the same as saying "in my opinion", but gives a false sense that the opinion comes from nature, rather than from the person with the opinion.

Eagle732 says: "but what if this happens 100 times? 1,000 times? At what point would National say this is not sustainable, and we have to let the units make this decision for themselves? " BSA would do the same thing they did about those couple of Eagle Scouts that sent their medals back, nothing. Really? You don't see a difference, from the BSA's perspective, between a few people sending back some medals and 1,000 units giving up their charters? What if it became 10 percent of all units in the country? 20 percent? 30 percent? I think the BSA knows the difference. Eagledad understands, in other threads he keeps talking about how it's a matter of the BSA's survival, though he's only talking about one side of the coin. He thinks changing the policy is a threat to the BSA's survival. But this coin has two sides, and I'm talking about the other side.

Chances are that the CO of this pack will have their charter threatened if they don't change their local policy, and I suspect that if they don't change, the council or national will make good on their threat. That will also happen the next five times this happens... the next ten times... but what if this happens 100 times? 1,000 times? At what point would National say, this is not sustainable, and we have to let the units make this decision for themselves? As Seattle says, time will tell.

AZMike, I have a question for you about your hypothetical adult brother and sister (or brother and brother) openly living together in a sexual relationship: Are you aware of any national BSA policy that prevents them from being adult leaders? I'm not. I don't think there is one. I don't think there needs to be one, because the local unit's authority to select it's leaders takes care of it. My guess is that 100 percent of local units would, and will continue to, choose not to have a leader in that situation. My guess also is that if given the option, somewhere less than 100 percent (I have no idea how much less, I would guess 20 to 40 percent less, though it's not really important) would choose not to have an openly gay leader (and not your two hypothetical brothers.) So if the hypothetical and most-likely non-existent situation of which you speak does NOT require a national policy (other than the policy that units choose their leaders), why does the issue of gay people require a national policy? That's the real issue here. It's not about who should be a leader, it's about who decides who should be a leader. And that is almost never National.

I kind of think the current separation between youth recognitions (ranks and MB's) and adult recognitions (knots and medals for adult leadership and service, plus a couple knots corresponding to the highest ranks earned as a youth -- with some overlap for things like Mile Swim, 50 Miler, religious awards, etc., works pretty well. I don't think we need to have adults working on merit badges. Interestingly, I know that my father did earn a few merit badges as a young Assistant Scoutmaster, in the late 1940's (between the two wars in which he served.) I do not think he earned any ranks as an adult, and his highest rank was Star. So he could have potentially earned Eagle as an adult, but I suspect that his military service, getting a career started, being an adult leader, and he also was a volunteer firefighter for awhile, was probably enough. And by the time he finished training to go to Korea (where he never actually went), adults could not participate in the youth advancement program. I probably should have asked him if he ever thought about going for Eagle as an adult, and if it was something that was really common, or looked-down upon, or what. I suspect it was probably somewhat controversial, since the era in which he could have done it was the same period in which the BSA did away with it.

Thanks for that image, Pack. Thanks a lot. My skin is crawling now.

I think "natural law" is one of those things that you can use to make just about any argument you wish. On the issue of homosexuality, for example, some people look at homosexual acts and say that "natural law" suggests that procreation is a good thing and homosexual acts don't result in procreation, so that's bad. But then others can look at it and say that the human race has done a pretty good job reproducing itself with only 95 to 97 percent, rather than 100 percent, participating in the reproductive process. In some places and at some times, way too good a job. Maybe God (or whoever or whatever entity or process or whatever you believe is responsible for how things work, if any) designed things in such a way that a small percentage would not be interested in the opposite gender, and another small percentage would be heterosexual but physically unable to reproduce, and another small percentage would be heterosexual but uninterested in reproducing, and so on... until the percentage of people actually reproducing somewhat matched the capacity of the land and resources to accommodate the resulting population. I don't know. I'm not a scientist and I've never really studied the subject. Maybe someone else here has. But it just sort of has a logic to me. When I look around and ask why some people are gay, I figure it can't be because they wanted to choose an easy or pleasant life for themselves. It must be because this is just the way they are. And maybe this does, as suggested above, fit in with "natural law."

Calico knocked it out of the park... or hit the nail on the head, depending on whether you prefer your cliches to be of the sports or home improvement variety. That's the answer.

I could say a lot about this, but life is too short. If I want to discuss issues like who should be allowed to get married to each other, there are a lot of other forums I can go to, which are not Scouting-related. On the Scouting aspect of the issue, I think Calico has it right: To answer Eng's question, I believe the Boy Scouts isn't even thinking about it because it's not on anyones radar. There is no political party using polygamy as a wedge issue, and there isn't a significant portion of the public questioning the illegality of it, unlike same-sex marriage. Nor is anyone sending letters to council saying "I'm a Scoutmaster and I'm married to six women at the same time." Nor, I suspect, is anyone who is known "around town" as being involved in a "plural marriage" also the Scoutmaster. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt I am. I think another factor is that to be involved in a plural marriage (or whatever you-all wish to call it), you have to be, well, married. Right there you've got an ongoing violation of the law, and maybe you get excluded from the BSA just for that. Without a marriage (whether it's recognized by the law or not), a guy living with more than one woman is just a bad 70's sitcom, updated to be called "Seven's Company", I guess. Being openly gay, on the other hand, does not necessarily mean that you are in any particular kind of relationship or that any government does or doesn't issue a license for it. It doesn't even mean that you are engaging, or have ever engaged, in any type of behavior (even behind closed doors) that anyone would get upset about. It just means that you identify yourself as being oriented to persons of the same gender.

Thanks Hal, I missed that they are from different councils. Doesn't change my main point though.

Beavah says: I think that they are better served by uppin' the challenge, rather than the speed. Mentorin' the lad and usin' goals and challenges from da other 7 methods to balance and complement those of advancement. Yah, that's a personal preference, but as Eagle92 describes, I think it also gets better results. Too often adults and especially BORs confuse a youth who is articulate with one who has really developed deeper skills and habits. In so many ways, a boy who hasn't even entered 8th grade has yet to have his Scout Spirit really tested, let alone confirmed. You have got to be kidding me. Beavah, whenever some posts about a situation in their unit and says or implies that the leaders (or the other leaders) are doing something wrong or incorrect, you are the one who always stands up for the leaders (sometimes in spite of the facts presented) and says we should give them the benefit of the doubt, folks on the local level are good people, they're doing what's right for the unit, etc. etc. Am I exaggerating? I don't think so. That's what you say. As you or I might say in another "forum", you accord the local leaders substantial deference, draw all reasonable inferences in their favor, and would reverse their decision only on a showing of clear error or abuse of discretion. And all those sorts of things, which in non-lawyer-speak just means giving them the benefit of the doubt. Except now! Now, because some kid made Eagle faster than maybe you think he should have (based on no knowledge of the young man, of course), you are assuming the opposite of what you usually assume. You leap to the conclusion that there was a lack of "mentoring the lad and using goals and challenges from the other seven methods to balance and complement those of advancement." (Sorry for translating you into English.) But how do you know that? You don't know that! Skeptic didn't say any of that. In fact, based on what he did say, the evidence seems to be just the opposite, that the leaders did a good with this Scout (recognizing that they had good material to work with in the first place.) And why do you assume that the "other seven methods" were not given their proper place in the development and growth and mentoring of this Scout? Especially when the advancement requirements incorporate, and require a boy to experience, most if not all of the other seven methods anyway? Do we have to go through them all one by one and check? Advancement is not some separate method out there, at odds with the other seven. They all go together, and it is probably the advancement requirements that weave them all (or mostly) together more than any other method. And then there's this doozy, a boy not in the eighth grade "has yet to have his Scout Spirit really tested, let alone confirmed." What does that even mean? And again, how do you know. In any event, it's kind of irrelevant, because the requirements have time factors that have to be met, and this Scout met them. Go convince National to change the requirements if you want them changed. As for Scout Spirit itself, well the handbook defines what that means, living the Oath and Law in your everyday life. In the case of this Scout, leaders stated at least six different times, when they signed his handbook for "Scout Spirit", that he showed that he lived the Oath and Law. In fact, assuming he was using the "new" handbook all the way through, when he went for Tenderfoot, Second and First he had to show how he lived the specific points of the Law, all twelve of them. Or are you assuming he didn't really pass the requirements? Because, as you always say, those local unit leaders never do their jobs, like making sure the requirements are really passed. Oops, that's the opposite of what you always say. But not this time.

I am still waiting for the part about how all the neighbors are shocked, this guy was such a good family man, wonderful marriage, nobody had any idea that he could possibly do anything like this, etc. etc. I do agree with Eamonn at least partially... it sounds like some more parental supervision would have been a good idea here.

Ah, the old comma in the link trick. You have to cut and paste the entire link to get to the article... ...which turns out to be yet another confusing and non-informative article about a council that has some sort of policy or practice that sounds like it might possibly conflict in some way with National's policy. Or it might not. Let's see what we have this time. First we have a quote from the "head" of the council (I thought at first they meant the SE, but later in the article a different guy is identified as the SE, so who is this guy? The council president?) in which he says there are gay leaders in the council. Well, demographically speaking, chances are he's correct. But are they "avowedly" or "openly" gay? That's what the National policy is about. So we don't really know what the council is doing about "openly gay" leaders, if anything, that is different from what National wants them to do. Then later we have a quote from the council's new SE, who does an acrobatic routine around the whole issue that would have earned him at least a silver in London, but does little to shed light on what this council may be doing that is out of step with National. None of the rest of the quotes are from anyone in any leadership position in the council, as far as I can tell. So what have we learned? Mainly that, once again, a lot of people are engaging in "wishful thinking" on this subject, in my opinion. The idea that there are councils in open rebellion against the policy sounds like something some of us might want to hear, and even has kind of a patriotic, Washington-crossing-the-Delaware sound to it, and I think it is fairly clear that at least some of these councils would like to do something different from what National is doing, but I really don't see enough evidence that they actually do.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Who was that directed at, BSA24? You know, maybe I am being silly, but perhaps we might consider cooling it with the "colorful metaphors" (credit: Star Trek III), whether expressed by way of gesture or otherwise, unless they are really relevant to the discussion. Role model for Scouts reading the forum, and all that. Just being silly, like I said.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I just re-read this article and a couple of things strike me as curious: First, this guy wrote to "BSA leadership" and told "them" he was gay, and then the BSA leadership... did what? They wrote him a letter back and said his registration was terminated and he couldn't be involved with any unit? That's the letter they wrote to James Dale. That's the letter that I think most people have assumed they would be writing to anyone else who announced he was gay. But that isn't what they seem to have done here. The council's statement says that "council leadership met with him and he made the decision to resign as a volunteer leader." What? Did they ASK him to resign? Did they TELL him to resign? How does the word "resign" even come into it? But at the same time, they seem to have threatened the CO with a loss of charter if he wasn't removed or "resigned". So what actually happened here? Is there a change in approach, if not in policy, going on here? Or is it just that the Lincoln Council tries to do things more diplomatically than the Monmouth (NJ) Council (the one in Dale's case)? Second, it sounds like the IH, a Catholic priest, was ready to let this openly gay man remain as a leader until the council told him that the church would lose its charter for the troop. What's up with THAT? Has the Catholic church adopted the local option on openly gay leaders in Boy Scouts? Or did this particular pastor just not get the memo? (No offense to Catholics meant here, some of my best friends, not to mention my wife, are Catholic. I just didn't think that this is the way a Catholic priest would be dealing with this situation.) Just wondering.

That's right, acco. 57 years old and never been married. What's up with that? After all, you can't be too careful. Who's next, Associate Justice Elena Kagan? (Now, do I really have to put a smiley face here so one or two people won't think I'm serious?)

Hal, do the Scouts (and their parents) in the Vietnamese troop read and write in English as well as Vietnamese? I think that's the issue here. In my troop there are a couple of families where the main language spoken at home is Spanish, and one where the main language spoken at home is probably Arabic, but I believe that all the parents (and definitely all the Scouts) can fill out a form in English. That's not true for everybody everywhere, though.

acco says: So ignorance of the law is an excuse! Yes, but only if the Judge is God. Or OGE, I guess.

Beavah says: Da goal is to teach children that various homosexual relationships are normal and acceptable, and somethin' for lads to consider. Whose goal is that, Beavah? Me? Lisabob? Acco? Horizon? Calico? The rest of the dozens of people in this forum who think there should be local option? To whom exactly are you ascribing the goal of teaching children that a particular lifestyle is "something for the lads to consider"? Or is this some theoretical "lobbying effort" that I bet nobody on "my side" of the issue in this forum has ever seen or heard of? So, whose goal, Beavah?

Pack: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one? I know you will know where that's from, others may not. Please note that I am not trying to engage in a serious philosophical discussion here, or in a discussion of big government vs. medium government vs. almost-no government vs. no government. The subject just reminded me of that line, so there it is. I'll also say that most philosophical discussions really boil down to what one person believes vs. what another person believes, which is one of the problems with Ayn Rand's "Objectivism." It is one thing to say that you believe in a minimalistic role for the government or a more expansive role for the government. It is quite another thing to say that through the application of "reason", the only possible belief is... whatever you say it is. That is what Ayn Rand did, and among her believers, she has gotten away with it. (Even though she's not around to see it.) It's a cute debating tactic, but hardly the basis of a philosophy. Another issue is that Ayn Rand said that her philosophy of almost-no-government went hand-in-hand with atheism. That is where Paul Ryan is getting tripped up now. I don't think she was right about that, either. She just had a knack of convincing people that all the various things that she believed (or disbelieved) necessarily went together in a coherent philosophy, which obviously I don't buy. And I will add that I think this is a big mark against Paul Ryan. By tying himself to a particular person's beliefs (rather than emphasizing the beliefs themselves) early in his career, he is now "stuck" (in a political sense) with whatever else she believed, that he may or may not have known about. It does not leave me impressed with his thinking skills.

I have no problem with a version of the form being in Spanish, or any other language if enough people need or want it, but two languages on the one form doesn't really work. It is too cluttered and confusing.