NJCubScouter

I don't know, Beavah, we have never had elected judges (or retention elections) in the New Jersey state court system either, and when I hear what goes on in other states that do, I am very happy we don't. That is not to say there isn't politics in the appointment process anyway, in fact I have heard people argue that New York has LESS politics in its judicial appointments because judges are elected, but I don't buy it. There are politics either way, but it just seems so much more unseemly -- not to mention more prone to corruption -- to have judges depend on an election for appointment or retention. (While I realize NJ has a reputation for corruption, the vast majority of that is the elected officials, not the judges. Sort of a lefthanded expression of pride in my state I guess, but there it is. And besides, I think other states are just as corrupt. Makes me want to start singing the state song, if we had one.)

I'm sorry if it's boring, but there's nothing wrong with 5 or 10 minutes of honoring the adult leaders at a COH. In our troop we do that very briefly, the CC just calls out the names of the adults who are there and says what they do, and each of us gives a little wave, and then (since the parents are there) she puts in a plug for more parents to volunteer. It probably takes less than 5 minutes. Let the kids hear, now and then, that other people are spending their time for THEM -- and while they obviously know their SM and ASM's, they may not know some of the committee members or about what they do. Occasionally and briefly reminding the boys that good things do not happen by themselves, but happen because someone cares enough to make them happen, is a good thing even though it might make the 11-year-olds restless for a few minutes.

I'm not sure whether this thread is about what we're "aspiring to" (as mentioned in the first post), or what we are actually succeeding in doing. In advancement at least, National is clearly "aspiring to" a national standard, which is "Satisfy the requirements." The fact that there are differences in the level of success in meeting this standard does not mean there is no standard or that we shouldn't try to meet the standard. There are a lot of things working against achieving uniformity in enforcing the advancement requirements as written: The size of the organization, the fact that the unit-level leaders are all volunteers, the fact that district- and council-level leaders who might wish to enforce uniform standards and mostly also volunteers, the fact that many units seem to have "traditions" that seem to involve something other than enforcing the advancement requirements as written (no more, no less), and perhaps also the fact that units are "owned" by other organizations that have their own things that they want to stress or de-emphasize, which may result in some "warping" of the requirements. Beyond just advancement requirements, I see some possible sources of non-uniformity right here in this forum. When someone asks a question, especially about things like the patrol method, several posters in this forum will often direct the person to an older version of a BSA publication, such as a Scoutmaster's Handbook from (when? I'm not sure, probably the 40's or 50's.) Or older versions of the Fieldbook, PL Handbook or some other book. Leaving aside the question of whether the older book may have "better" information than the current version, it's a certainty that if you have different people using different versions of handbooks because the current ones aren't "good enough", you aren't going to have one standardized national practice. Now, some might see that as a good thing; if you don't like the current versions, the fact that some are using older versions at least means that the "old ways" are being practiced in SOME units. But it's not standardized. As for "quality unit," the Centennial QU program really did NOT enforce a nationwide "standard." It emphasized certain areas and basically you had to improve in those areas, with the amount of improvement determined through the "goal-setting" process. Under "Journey to Excellence" this has changed. The new program states some very specific standards that have to be met, though they now have different levels. So I guess the Bronze level is now the National Standard, though you could also say that the Gold and Silver levels (or is it Silver and Gold?) are additional standards for "higher" recognition.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Personally I think it would nice if it was the responsibility of the parents who don't do anything for the troop, to get up as a group at a COH and thank the parents (and "alumni parents", a group into which I now fall) who do volunteer and provide and support a program for the sons of the do-nothing parents. But of course the do-nothing parents don't get up and say thanks. They don't do anything! By the way, perdidochas, I almost actually fell off my chair when I read your post. I just became advancement chair, and that's why I do it too. For the power.

Brent, I think it has very little to do with "liberal" or "conservative." It has to do with the economy. People are angry and afraid and they want to blame the president who's there now, never mind if it's his policies that got us here or not. If John McCain had won the 2008 election -- first of all, if McCain were president now, I sincerely believe the economy would be considerably WORSE right now than it is, though I obviously can't prove it; and while I'm here, if McCain were president, it's likely that no health care bill would have been passed, and the majority of people would be screaming -- SCREAMING -- for health care reform that would make President Obama's bill look positively conservative by comparison. Where was I? Oh yeah, if McCain were president right now, the Democrats today would be expanding their majorities to two-thirds veto-proof majorities in each house, instead of losing one majority and in danger of losing the other. So in my opinion, it's not about deep-seated ideology and people changing their fundamental belief systems. It's about, when things are really bad and show no immediate sign of getting much better, people want to throw out the people in charge -- never mind if the "new boss" really has any hope of changing what people are really upset about.

I thought something seemed strange in Beavah's last couple of posts, and then I realized... Beavah, do you realize that, except on the issue of safety, you have now contradicted everything you said in your first post in this thread, four days ago? It's on page 3. Four days ago, everything the LDS troops were doing was fine, except for safety, now there are all kinds of problems. What gives?

Shortridge asks Gary: As a hypothetical - could a Jewish Scout serve as SPL or PL in a LDS troop? Is one of the requirements to be "called" a belief in the divinity of Jesus? Before we get to Gary's answer, let's realize that there are two questions here, and they go in opposite directions. In other words, if the answer to the first one is yes, the answer to the second one will necessarily be no. If the answer to the second one is yes, the answer to the first one will necessarily be no. Gary's answer is: Of course not. Do you really think the LDS are that insensitive to others beliefs. But which one are you answering? I don't want to make any assumptions.

Packsaddle, I knew there was a major one I was forgetting!

Gary, I have answered those questions a number of times in my posts over the last eight years, and I don't really have time to rewrite the "standard essay" right now, but I think ScoutLass's post pretty much hits it on the head. For the moment I will add that I think that the BSA has always generally been a "welcoming", "for all boys" kind of organization (the latter was the tagline on the cover of Boys' Life when I was a boy, I don't know if it still is), that only excludes people who NEED to be excluded for the protection of the boys. Fifty or 100 years ago, it would have been a foregone conclusion that a gay person fell into that category. After all, homosexual conduct was probably illegal in every state. It is no longer illegal in any state (with some help from the Supreme Court), except among active-duty military personnel, and that will probably not be the case for very long. Back then, no state outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing or public accommodations. Now, about half the states do. Like it or not, society is changing. Society is divided on this issue. It is time to allow units to make their own choices. Additionally, to take ScoutLass's point a little further, the BSA has turned certain religions into second-class religions. Such religions as Reform Judaism, many Episcopalian Churches and the United Church of Christ not only do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, they believe such discrimination is wrong -- or if you will, immoral. These organizations cannot charter a unit without violating their own moral beliefs. I think that's wrong. And I don't think it is consistent with the BSA's core beliefs. I guess I had a few more minutes than I thought. But that's basically it. I do not want your troop to be forced to accept a gay leader, but I do not want National telling my troop that they have to discriminate on that basis, either. (Edited - I misspelled the name of my own religion!)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

But the BSA does need to look with in it's self a bit better to see what's really hurting the BSA. I don't think it's gays. But the sad image that a few out there are giving it. And there can be hundreds of great stories about how good the organization is and does, but let one situation like this happen, and it feeds those few who are against the BSA. Scoutbox, the issue is not "a few out there" or "those few who are against the BSA." The issue is the BSA's own policy. Many of those who think it should be changed (including me and a number of others in this forum) are not "out there" or "against the BSA" -- we are Scouters who think the policy is hurting the BSA and should be changed. And when I say "hurting the BSA", I don't necessarily mean in terms of numbers or dollars -- the impact of the policy on those is debatable and, to me, not really relevant. I mean hurting the BSA because it's a policy that is contrary to the fundamental values of the BSA, despite what the current temporary leadership in Texas might think. I'm FOR the BSA, so "for" it that, like many Scouters, I have stayed on after my son has moved on to college and other things, and have become even more involved. Since I'm "for" it, I want to see it improve.

Yes, you should be worried but I do not think you should go to the DE (or anyone else outside the troop) yet. (Emphasis on "yet.") First I think you should have a discussion among the concerned parents and try to agree on a course of action. There is strength in numbers. The course of action I would recommend would first to be to sit down with the CC, however "unfriendly" she may be. It would be nice if everyone were friendly, but her primary job is to make sure the troop is well run, so the real question is whether she is doing her job, and her demeanor is secondary. Ask her to sit down with your group of parents, or three or four representatives. It can be at a committee meeting, or it can be elsewhere. Obviously it should be away from the boys. Tell her your concerns. Maybe she knows and has already decided she isn't going to do anything about it, but give her a chance. Just be very matter-of-fact, here are our concerns, one-two-three, pretty much the way you spelled them out here. You can make a statement regarding the possible consequences if your concerns are not addressed satisfactorily, but in a diplomatic way, such as "We really have to consider whether this is the right environment for our sons." If she refuses to meet with you, or tells you that you are wrong, acting on misinformation, etc., you could go to the CR, the representative of the organization that owns the troop, and express your concerns. Or you could just decide to leave. (Or go to the CR, and then if that doesn't work, leave.) I'm not sure I'd even get to the DE, because by that point you have a war going on within the troop, and it would probably be best just to find another troop.

Scoutbox says: I as a Straight male don't talk about my sexual preference to any of the boys. Same should go with any body. Leave sex out of Scouting. That's fine. I agree with that. I doubt anyone in this forum disagrees with that. If the BSA policy on sexual orientation was, in its entirety, "Don't discuss your sexual orientation with the boys," there would be widespread applause, my local United Way would restore funding to our council and people would stop asking me things like, "How can you be involved with that hate group?" But that's not what the policy is. So far as anyone knows, James Dale never discussed his sexuality with the boys in his troop. In fact, the Supreme Court case does not specifically say that he discussed his "sexuality", by which I mean what he does in private, with anyone. He was identified in a newspaper as being the president of a college gay rights organization. For that he was terminated as a leader. The "policy" itself states that an "avowed homosexual" may not be a leader. It's irrelevant to the BSA whether "the boys" even know about it. So that would be a great solution, basing the policy on what's discussed with the boys, and not on what someone somewhere knows.

I had not yet opened the magazine when I saw this thread, and I have to admit that I looked at the picture for awhile and didn't get it, until I looked at the picture online. What did strike me about the print version (which should have then led me to the answer) was that the whole shoulder/arm area of the Scouts, especially the one in front, is drawn very strangely. Human beings generally are not shaped that way. This also was corrected in the online version.

VigilEagle says to Merlyn LeRoy: By the way, I must complement the name, and not only an avid reader and fan of the Arthurian legends, but also as a Celtic spiritualist. You may not connect it to the man of legend, but it stuck out to me, lol. Perhaps less Arthurian legend and more Moose and Squirrel, Vigil.

Concernedparent, have the boys (or their parents) requested that the requirement be interpreted differently? Or that some accommodation be made? Or asked the Scoutmaster if he has some suggestion to resolve this problem? In other words, do we know for sure that the SM is being unreasonable? Or is this just a matter of poor communications?

It's already part of the Life requirements (as of 1/1/10), with the EDGE part of course. I think so many people are focused on the new Tenderfoot requirement to teach the square knot (which, using EDGE, would be pretty much the same as teaching it using any other method, but I guess EDGE has become a bad "word" around here), some may be missing the major new teaching/EDGE requirement that was added for Life. As I said elsewhere, my main concern about this is an administrative one: Most of the kids currently going for Tenderfoot have the new handbook (12th ed.) with the current requirements in it, but most of the kids going for Life still have the 11th edition, so they have to find out about that requirement elsewhere. As far as how EDGEy the kids have to get when teaching others these skills, that's our Scoutmaster's issue, not mine. In BOR's I do not plan to ask about EDGE, just about what skill you taught to a younger Scout, how difficult it was, etc.

Hey Beavah, if you want to have an actual discussion, I have a question for you: Do you think the BSA should change its policy to allow units to appoint openly gay leaders? Yes or no. You don't even have to give a reason for your answer if you don't want to. I'm just wondering where you stand.

Yeah Beavah, like you never called anybody in this forum a name. You're too funny.

Beavah says: Just throwin' some more logs on da fire, packsaddle. I think there's a word for that on the Internet... starts with a T. Beavah, you've gotten upset when I've used that word in connection with you in the past. But if the bridge fits, wear it. (Or, lurk under it, to keep the analogy going. Eh?)

Beavah, I fully understand the context of that decision and since it was mentioned by someone else before me, I am sure everyone else does as well. I was simply reacting to the statement that marriage is not a "right." It is, it is just a right that is not extended to everybody in every combination. In 1967 it was declared to cover a man and a woman regardless of their race. As of 2010 several state supreme courts have declared it (based on their state constitutions) to cover two people regardless of gender. But as I said, I was responding to the simple and incorrect statement that it's not a right.

Some people are forgetting that the BSA policy only deals with those who are openly gay. If someone is an adult leader in the BSA and is not openly gay, and abuses a child, he didn't violate the policy against being openly gay, he violated the policy (and law) against abusing children. So if the BSA were to allow openly gay people to be leaders, it would have nothing to do with the incidents of child abuse. (And whenever there are articles about child abuse incidents, they always interview the neighbors who say "We never suspected a thing, he and his wife and children always seemed to so happy, he was a pillar of the community, etc. etc.")

Beavah, so when the Supreme Court says marriage is a civil right, you just ignore that? Gern, you should know very well by now that a "right" is something "I" have, while a "privilege" is something "you" have. Especially for some people in this forum.

And both are even better than that, and now she has both.

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." U.S. Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia, 1967. (Now I see The Blancmange beat me to it with this quote, but I decided to leave it here, because it bears repeating. It does not necessarily mean the federal courts will decide there is a federal civil right for same-gender couples to marry. But marriage in general is a civil right, and several state supreme courts have decided gay marriage is a state constitutional right.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Pi? Is it March 14 already? Oh. Never mind.