NJCubScouter

I guess I should point out when I post in the Cub Scout forum that I have not actually been a "CubScouter" in about 8 years, despite my account name. I do not recall hearing about this issue back then, and I did not know that a Tiger adult partner not residing with his/her son has to fill out an application. I can understand the CO (CR?) not wanting to sign the application. I would be reluctant to sign it too. But that's one of the reasons why this seems unfair. Tiger adult partner is not a leadership position. This man is not asking to be entrusted with other peoples' children. He is merely asking to be able to participate with his own son, and it appears from the facts given that the boy's Mom is ok with that. If there was an issue with whether it is appropriate for this man to be in charge of his own son, that would would be an issue for his ex-wife, and/or the child welfare agency (or whatever it might be called in your state), and the courts. And of course if there were a court order limiting the man's contact with his son, that would be a different story. But there is no suggestion that that is the case, and therefore I don't see why this guy is treated any differently from someone who lives with his child. What really surprises me the most is not that the man has to fill out the application, but that it requires the normal signatures as if he is going to be a leader, or the son can't join. He is not going to be a leader! There might be some benefit to having the application filled out, by ALL Tiger adult partners, whether residing with the boy or not, BUT only for informational purposes -- not submitted to council and not signed. Otherwise you have the CR put in the position that yours is being put in, and it's not really fair to anybody.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

So perhaps one of yeh can explain how chanting in a dead language that nearly none of your faithful understands is somehow conducive to faith in the Lord? I'm a fairly ecumenical and understanding fellow, but that just strikes me as complete balderdash. Isn't there something in the Scout Handbook, under the 12th point of the Scout Law, about respecting the religious beliefs of others? Beavah's comment above does not strike me as particularly respectful of the religious beliefs of others.

Good points, Scoutlass, and I'll add that Carl Gustaf, the King of Sweden (the number 1 country on the atheists/agnostics list), is very involved in Scouting worldwide, being (among other things) honorary president of the World Scout Foundation and a regular visitor at World Jamborees. He also visited the 1981 U.S. National Jamboree in Virginia; although I wasn't there, I have a newspaper (the Jamboree Times or something like that) showing him there in his Swedish Scout uniform. Also notice that Vietnam, a Communist country and number 2 on the atheist list, apparently does have Scouting. And that one of the countries that does not have Scouting, Myanmar, is not on the "Top 50 Atheist" list, and is predominantly Buddhist. Another country that does not have Scouting is Andorra, which according to its Wikipedia article is 90 percent Roman Catholic (and actually has a Catholic bishop as one of its two nominal monarchs.) So I think the lesson we can draw from all this is that countries that have Scouting, have Scouting, and countries that do not have Scouting, do not have Scouting. That's about it.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

NJCubScouter - what, you've never been to Atlanta and heard somebody order a "rootbeer coke"? Never been, never heard. In fact it looks like I have been in "Coke country" exactly once in my life... well, for about a week and a half. (At Philmont, but since most of the people around me at any given time were also from New Jersey, and I was 16 years old, I probably didn't notice.) My son has been to Atlanta a couple of times, but he is usually oblivious to things like that so I am not even going to bother asking. I can also add that the "learning curve" is about 20 years. Sounds about right, based on people I know from Michigan, Ohio, etc. who are living in New Jersey. What I don't get is, why the huge enclave of soda-speakers around St. Louis, in the middle of "pop" country and on the edge of the Coke belt? And the smaller enclave in eastern Wisconsin. Also, is there a colony of Texans in northwest California? But anyway... As for LDS, they are the elephant in the room - they have the numbers, dollars and rightly so, the influence. Now, let's get our animal analogies straight. If they have the influence, they are the 800-pound gorilla. They would be the elephant in the room only if they were the crucially important issue that nobody wants to talk about. One problem the LDS Church does not have, judging by this forum, is that nobody wants to talk about them.

OGE, I remember news coverage from a few years ago about an announcement by the Pope that supposedly expanded the instances when Latin could be used in Catholic services. (And if I do not seem to have the terminology quite correct here, it may be because I am not Catholic.) There was briefly some controversy over it until the media was diverted by the next shiny object, I mean the next Big Story. I think that what I am talking about is what is discussed in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summorum_Pontificum (I know, I know, it's Wikipedia, but it seems to be written by people who know what they're talking about. It's certainly way over MY head. Hopefully you and some of your co-religionists can make better sense of it than I can.) (Edited to fix link, hopefully.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Wow, that's some map. (Not to mention the county-by-county statistical breakdown, that's amazing.) I guess I can see why I've called it "soda" all my life. I never realized the regional divisions were that pronounced. What I don't get is why people in the South call any "soda" a "Coke", if it is not a cola. Or don't you-all have lemon-lime soda, root beer, Dr. Pepper etc. down there? And what is "Other"? Notice I am studiously ignoring the topic of the thread (LDS), which as I said in the other forum, I am staying away from for now. Live and let live, that's my motto...

When my son was applying for colleges he told me of at least one that did specifically ask if he was an Eagle Scout, and this was a state institution. I believe it is still the case that someone who has made Eagle can skip the lowest enlisted rank in the military. I am sure there are enough military-types here who can tell us whether that is a myth or not. I too have heard stories of people whose resume stood out because they were an Eagle Scout. At the very least, as my grandmothers used to say, "it couldn't hurt." More generally, the idea that an achievement as a member of a "religious organization" (leaving aside whether the BSA is one) cannot be considered in employment decisions sounds like the personal preference of the person you were speaking with, and nothing more. I can see if someone held an important non-clergy position in their place of worship, under (at least) some circumstances they would want to put that on their resume. It shows ties to the community, respect in the community, leadership, etc. Why would a company be required to ignore that?

I have to admit that I "pushed" my son somewhat, and other leaders "pushed" him as well... and I have assisted in "pushing" other Scouts. BUT in almost all of these conversations, the first sentence was something like, "Do you want to go for this or not", and if the answer had been No, that would have been it as far as I was concerned. In my son's case (and the other Scouts) the answer was always Yes, which justifies moving on to the issue of "Okay, what do you have to do to get there." So, No to pushing someone to do what he doesn't want to do, but Okay to some pushing (let's call it helping instead) someone to do what he does want to do. Within reason, of course. When I think back to my own Scouting years, my father (whose example I try to follow on these things) did exactly the same thing. When I said I did not want to go for Eagle, he was disappointed, but he did not "push." He was a Star for Life, and I am a Life for Life, and it would have been nice if he could have seen his grandson make Eagle. At least I got to see it!(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Five pages on a hoax, still doesn't come close to however-many pages it was on whether someone had filed an appeal to get his Eagle.

I just want to "second" the idea that we are not wearing the flag "backwards", nor is the military wearing the flag "backwards." We are each wearing it in the manner prescribed by our organization, whether it be the BSA or the military. I used to think that the BSA uniform "always" came with the flag sown on, until I read a thread about it in this forum that said that is something of fairly recent vintage. At my next opportunity, I checked the uniform I wore as a youth (vintage 1973-ish, no collar, "Scout BSA" strip over the pocket without the "Boy") -- and found there was no flag patch at all. (Well, it has one of the bicentennial patches which has a flag on it, but that's a temporary patch that I chose to put on because of the bicentennial.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

No problem, Lucy.

Good grief. Both of you.

That sounds like encouraging news, Engineer61. Hopefully Mom will let your stepson choose his own merit badges, at least for now. Making Eagle, if that's a boy's goal, is not a race against other Scouts. If it's a race at all, it's a race against yourself (i.e. the boy himself.) Even if the youth's current reasons for "going for it" are the superficial reasons such as college applications, job applications, etc., there is unlikely to be anything on an application that asks how old you were when you made Eagle, or whether you got any palms. When my son was applying to colleges, there was simply a box to check if he had made Eagle. They didn't want to know when, or whether he got any palms. I doubt that most admissions directors or personnel directors know what a palm is anyway, but they do know what an Eagle is, and what the Girl Scout Gold Award is. So as I said, even with the "wrong reasons", there is no rush, and as I said in a previous post, I wouldn't worry too much about a boy having the "wrong reasons" now. They are likely to turn into the "right reasons" before he's finished, and that's what counts.

Ed, I did not say anything about you being "ineducable." I try to stay away from name-calling and I usually succeed. What I did say is that your need to be on the other side of Merlyn on every issue sometimes blinds you to the facts, and what is correct and incorrect. In this case, Merlyn is correct.

Scoutfish hit the nail on the head. Councils love the popcorn sale because they get a cut of the sales. So, CPAMom, in your council someone at the council may have said something to someone that was intended to encourage the popcorn sale and discourage other kinds of fundraisers, and by the time the statement went through the "telephone game" of five other people before it got to you, it was a ban on other kinds of fundraising. There is no such ban, or even a limitation on times of the year for product sales. Many units do other types of sales, in fact if you look at any issue of Scouting magazine (an official BSA publication) you will see page after page of ads for Scout units to do other types of sales. In fact, let's look at the latest issue, on the back cover we have "Take Your Troop's Profits to New Heights Selling Holiday Greenery", inside front cover we have another company selling a holiday evergreen fundraiser... and we're not even past the cover! Moving on to the actual pages we have chili seasoning and barbecue sauce... Vermont greenery (of course at other times of the year there would not be so many wreath etc. ads)... Krusteaz pancakes (though that is a little different because they are trying to sell you the makings of a pancake breakfast for fundraising, as opposed to selling pancakes door to door... now that would be interesting...oh, there's one for Trail's End, see they have to advertise too... Interstate Batteries ("Now a Preferred Vendor of BSA", it says)... in the middle is a 4-page glossy spread for DirecTV, this seems to be a fundraising sales pitch as well, although I haven't studied it to see what it is really all about... yet another company selling wreaths... Dr. Du-More's Quality Toothbrushes and Flossers ("60% Profit on Every Sale!)... Dutch Mill Bulbs... oh I love this one, another wreath company with the tag line "It's beginning to look a lot like... Profits!", doesn't that just warm your heart?... another full-pager for Trail's End Popcorn... the hundredth wreath ad... flower bulbs ("The Healthy, Low-Cost, Earth-Friendly Fundraiser!", as if the exclamation point puts more money in your pocket)... there's still about 10 pages to go but the ads are getting smaller now so I'm going to stop... oh wait I missed the inside BACK cover, "Nuts for Scouting", yet another "Preferred Vendor of the National Boy Scouts of America." I think you get the idea. No fruit, unless I missed it in the tiny ads in the back. But the point is, the BSA (National at least) seems to fine with units selling stuff besides popcorn. They certainly are getting enough advertising dollars from companies pushing this stuff on local Scouters.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Studentscout, you explain how you deal with the word "reverent" in the Scout Law, and I personally find it a reasonable explanation, although probably not what BSA National has in mind. I am wondering, though, what you think of the fact that every time you recite the Scout Oath, you promise to do your duty to "God." Do you find a contradiction between that and your beliefs? I guess I should make clear that I ask that question not to challenge you necessarily, but mainly because I am curious. Maybe I should also explain that for a couple of years during my teenage years, I thought I was an atheist. (In retrospect, whether I actually was an atheist, or just rejecting the "Western" conception of God, especially the idea that God influences events on Earth, is a question I cannot answer.) And yet every week at troop meetings, and at other Scouting events, I recited (and often led) the Scout Oath and Law, and as far as I can recall I never saw a contradiction. I don't know if it was just a teenager's rationalization, or whether deep-down I knew that I actually believed in a higher power, just not the one written about in books, or what. But I'm curious as to what your thought process has been, especially regarding the specific reference to "God" in the Scout Oath.

I guess I never responded to the original post in this thread by Beavah, and I don't want it to seem like I am singling out Ed. Beavah writes: Merlyn wrote, once again, that public school chartering of a BSA unit is a civil rights violation in his opinion. Merlyn is so obviously correct in that position that it is hardly worth discussing. As I mention above, I don't think even the BSA disputes that. Local government runs school, school owns troop, troop excludes atheists (because BSA says it has to), hence local government is excluding atheists. Federal law, and as far as I know the law of every state, prohibits discrimination by the government on the basis of religion, which includes the exclusion of atheists. I mean, if you can't admit that, you're just trying to be difficult.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Ed asks: If atheists can't join, how are they being denied their rights? Ed, I realize that you have a need to contradict everything Merlyn says, but you probably ought to keep in mind that there are other people reading this forum as well. Asking a question like that indicates that you aren't really thinking about the issue, but just being contrary. But I'll answer it anyway: If a public entity owns a unit that does not allow in atheists, the public entity is discriminating against atheists, which violates both state and federal laws against discrimination (by the government) on the basis of religious beliefs. You don't really disagree with that, do you? The BSA itself doesn't disagree with it. I mean, make believe Merlyn doesn't exist for a minute. This is a fellow Scouter here, telling you what is obvious.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

The domicile of the corporation is the District of Columbia. Funny! I didn't know that D.C. had annexed Texas. Many corporations are incorporated in one state (or the District of Columbia I guess) and have their headquarters in another state. Due to favorable tax and other laws, for example, many of the largest corporations (and many smaller ones) are incorporated in Delaware, but headquartered elsewhere.

I hope they end up NOT changing the names of the advancement committees to "youth development" committees or anything else. That sounds like a pointless and confusing change. I think National has better things to do than that. You can see signs that this was just a draft, because it is pretty sloppy and not well-edited. On page 5 alone there are references to "district advancement committees", "district youth development committees" and, my favorite, "district youth development advancement committees." And then on page 9 is a reference to the "district youth development and recognition committee." Hopefully these inconsistencies show that, at least as of that draft, they had not definitely decided to make that change. I also noticed words missing here and there, as well as sentences that are repeated (not consecutively, but within a few paragraphs of each other.) What this document needs, in addition to any legal and policy review, is a good copy-editor.

Your last post also made me remember one thing. Unfortunately there are a lot of parents who see Scouting as a competition and as a resume-builder more than anything else. I was talking with the mother of a girl who was involved in a school activity with my son, and we got to discussing our respective childrens' Scouting activities. Apparently this girl had been heavily involved in Girl Scouts and got the Silver Award, but sometime during her junior year decided not to go for the Gold Award. Why? Because, by the time she actually achieved it, during her senior year, it would be past the time when her college applications would be due, so she could not put the Gold Award on the applications. This woman was saying this as if it made all the sense in the world, in fact I would not be surprised if this woman had told her daughter, why bother wasting the time going for Gold, since you won't get an immediate tangible benefit out of it? (Or words to that effect.) I successfully resisted the urge to yell at this woman. But, I mean, how short-sighted can a person be? How focused on the wrong things? And there are a lot of parents out there, and THIS is the attitude they are teaching their children. It sounds to me like your son has at least one parent who is focused on the right thing, so he's ahead of the game already. (At least in a long-term growth sense, not the immediate, make-Eagle-right-now-so-you-can-put-it-on-your-resume sense.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Engineer61, it sounds from your last post as if your son has now decided to "go for Eagle", but probably for the wrong reasons, which have been provided to him by the family. If that's the case, and you were to continue to "fight", what you would be fighting over is not what he is doing (since apparently he will be advancing), but why he is doing it. It sounds to me like a battle you can't win, but even more importantly, you may not have to win it. Remember your son is growing into adulthood and will be increasingly able to figure things out for himself, regardless of what pressure may be put on him or what incorrect or ill-advised things he might be told. As he advances, he is going to learn things he would not otherwise have learned. He is going to overcome challenges. He is going to have to fulfill positions of responsibility, and he may decide that he likes doing so enough that he wishes to have a leadership position(s) in the troop. Perhaps he will decide to take leadership training. Maybe as he goes along he will decide to get involved in the other things Scouting has to offer (OA, High Adventure, etc.) beyond just what is required for Eagle. ANY of these things (much less all of them) will benefit your son in intangible ways -- the kind of benefits Scouting is SUPPOSED to bring, not just something to go on a job application -- far beyond his teenage years. I guess what I am saying is, the wrong reasons are being fed to him now, but he will figure out his own reasons as he goes along, and they may turn out to be the right reasons. The only fight that may still be worth fighting is the issue of people "pushing" your son to advance at a particular rate. He needs to choose his own pace, as long as it is one designed to meet the goal he has apparently now decided to set for himself. If "the family" are absolutely convinced he needs to be Eagle by (say) 14, there is going to be more drama and unhappiness. He has more than 5 years to make Eagle, although as I alluded to earlier, I have experienced close-up and personal what happens when someone ends up taking almost every minute of that time, and it isn't pretty. But there is a happy medium, and your son has the time to make a plan and follow it, and if he falls behind, still have time to make it. But as I said, this all assumes he doesn't have people yelling at him because he only got 5 merit badges when he was 13, or whether at the age of 12 he decided to go for Dog Care or Reading instead of Emergency Preparedness or Citizenship in the Nation. He doesn't need that. (But again, I'm preaching to the choir.)

Do people really want to discuss "flags in church" again, or was this thread re-started because one person thought the rest of us might have forgotten about the Free Exercise Clause? Either way, it's fine, people can talk about whatever they choose, I was just wondering.

Why is council not thrilled with being chartered to a PTA? The pack of which my son was a member (back when I really was NJCUBScouter) has been chartered for many years to a PTO (virtually identical to a PTA except that it is not affiliated with the National PTA or any other national organization.) As far as I know the council has never said anything. I can understand the PTA having an issue, because the National PTA has been recommending to its chapters for many years that they not be CO's to BSA units, because as the "owners" of the unit they may have liability issues they don't want to have. (Whether their concerns are justified is not the issue; that's just their policy.) Moose, Elks, Eagles, etc. are fine organizations and I am sure many local lodges are good CO's, the only issue I would point out is if you were actually going to be meeting in their facilities, and there is a bar down the hall, which may actually be open in the evening while your unit is meeting, that might be a concern. I don't know if this is true everywhere, but in my area every lodge of this type has a bar, and I assume they are generally open to members weekday evenings. I do not think this is an issue with the Lions, but on the other hand I do not recall ever seeing a Lions building. I do not know what kind of facilities they have.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Just noticed this part: All new parents filled out applications at sign up whether they thought they wanted to be registered leaders or not. Wow, how do you get them to do THAT? Free cake?