NJCubScouter

I'm particularly interested in what you do with new adults not really known by anyone currently in leadership. I think the last part of the sentence is the key here. We really have not had this issue in the troop or pack I have been involved in, because all new applicants have been parents of the boys in the unit. In the troop, that means they are generally known by other parents in the troop through Cub Scouting, and in the pack, it meant they were almost always known through school, PTO, etc. I realize that might not always work in every unit. If someone is NOT a parent of someone in the unit, or otherwise known to leadership, I would definitely check both the references on their application. In those situations where the applicant IS the parent of someone in the unit, but for some reason not known at all to the other parents (such as someone who just moved in), I would check the references. The part about the illegal drugs is amusing because in this forum we have had some past discussions about what to do about an applicant who had a drug arrest many years ago but claims to be "clean" and the references check out... in other words a situation of a FORMER (and long-ago) drug-user. If someone says on their application that they are CURRENTLY using illegal drugs, that seems pretty easy, and I'd probably miss the part about their driving record too!(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Eagle92 says to me: There are some religions and Christian denominations that do view homosexuality as immoral. Hence the the splintering of the Anglican union over this topic and an exodus of Episcopalians and Anglicans to Roman Catholicism as well. I am aware of that. Some do, some do not, and I suspect some do not have a doctrine either way. Many of those that do not believe it is immoral go even further and believe that discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation is immoral. That is what I believe as well, although my beliefs on the subject are not religiously based, and I tend to speak in terms of "right" and "wrong" rather than "moral" and "immoral." In light of the divisions over these issues within society, and within and among religious groups and other groups, I don't see any reasonable solution other than local option. And that is the last I will post in this thread, because some seem to be claiming that I am one of those "blaming" the LDS church for this controversy. I am not. I do not really know which individual churches and groups have exactly how much influence in the BSA, and how they wield that influence. It does seem pretty clear to me that a GROUP of organizations, most of which are religious, including but not limited to the LDS church, exert a very large influence in the BSA, including on this issue. I also know (generally) what the LDS church said in their brief to the Supreme Court, in which other churches joined as well. But the problem is not what religion people are, the problem is that the decision-making body of the BSA has made a decision that needs to be changed, and they refuse to change it. I will make further comments on the issues in threads that do not have 800-pound gorillas, or any other zoological metaphors, in the title. Oh, and Happy Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) to all.

bacchus says: "So now you're equating being gay with murder?" NJ, you sound like USA Today and CNN with the way you are twisting words. No, being gay is not the same as committing murder. It is a different immoral act. Just like any other immortal act - it should exclude the leadership from choosing that individual to be in front of the youth as somebody they should aspire to be like. So you're equating them, in terms of their effect in the context of Scouting.

The fact that a Scoutmaster gets dropped off and picked up by his boyfriend says a lot to the scouts. First of all, if a troop has chosen an openly gay Scoutmaster (in the hypothetical world where they are allowed to do so), presumably his orientation is not a secret anyway. (Even less so if you happen to be in one of the states that allow gay marriage or gay civil unions, and the person is actually being dropped off by his or her spouse.) But when you talk specifically about Scouts (the youth members), I don't think the Scouts need to know the details of anyone's adult personal relationships. So one adult male is dropping off another adult male. So what? There are straight people with roommates of the same gender. Some people get dropped off by friends. I remember one time I was having car trouble and got a ride from one of my daughters' (adult) boyfriends. What did it say to the Scouts? Nothing at all, other than that my car was in the shop and I happened to get a ride from a man. The fact that a Scoutmaster gets dropped off and picked up by his 14 year old girlfriend (I guess her mother drove) says a lot to the scouts. (I hope this is not an actual situation, but in any event...) I guess it would say a lot to the Scouts, but so would the likely consequences of the SM's actions, which would be that he would soon be arrested and hauled off to jail. After all, the Scouts know what the relationship is, then so do some of their parents, and one of them is probably going to call the cops. (This is assuming that the word "girlfriend" implies an intimate relationship, which is illegal between an adult and a 14-year-old regardless of gender.) The fact that a SM is finally out of prison after serving 10 years for killing somebody while robbing a liquor store says a lot to the scouts. So now you're equating being gay with murder? That aside, there have been past discussions as to when certain crimes might be "long enough ago" to allow a person to be selected as a leader. One factor is when National will step in, and when the local unit gets to make the choice. I would assume that in the case of a murderer, when the results of the background check come back, National says no, period. A more interesting case is that of someone who was convicted of drug possession 15 years ago. As far as I know, National would let the unit make the choice. The fact that a SM is dropped off by his pregnant girlfriend that his wife still doesn't know about says a lot to the scouts. All the Scouts know, but the wife doesn't know? But again, this is up to the unit. Why can't the issue of a gay leader also be left up to the unit?

Engineer, maybe I missed this as I did not read all the posts above, but what rank is your son, at age 12? It seems to me that if he is progressing along with the lower ranks, and especially if he is already First Class or above at age 12, what your wife is doing is the best way to ensure that he does NOT continue through Eagle. (It seems you know that already.) A parent meddling in what merit badges their son goes for at age 16 is one thing -- still not a great thing, but understandable. At age 12, it is inexcusable. I would regard any boy with sufficient time to make Eagle picking out ANY merit badge pamphlet as a great thing. So he gets Coin Collecting, or Pet Care, or Reading (the one I kept pushing my son to get, he met all the requirements just by doing what he did anyway, he would just never get the card and go see a counselor), or Farm Management (do they still have that one) or Law (yay, and my son DID get that one, without me even knowing until he had it) or any of the others, instead of First Aid or the Cits or Personal Management. That's great. Kids find those kinds of badges fun (remember fun, Mom?), partly because you DON'T have to do them. (And not just because the Law counselor showed the kids (it was a group getting the badge) scenes from "My Cousin Vinny" as an example of courtroom technique.) And if, at the age of 14 or 15 or 16 he decides he does want to go for Eagle, the decision will be much easier because he'll have all his non-required badges done and can just concentrate on the requireds. Personally I think some of those required badges are more age-appropriate for high school students, for example the Cits and Personal Management, not that younger boys should be discouraged from going for them, but they may seem like less of a chore for a 15 or 16 year old boy. On a more general note, I think your wife and other family members need to understand that there are all different ways for a boy to make Eagle, or NOT make Eagle. I quite frankly almost fell off my chair when I read that all this fuss was over someone who has more than 5 years remaining to work on the requirements. Someday maybe you and I and Eamonn can stop at his local watering hole, and over a round of Stoneys (that post I did read) I can tell you the long and almost-tragic story of how my son spent the 40 days or so prior to his 18th birthday, how he got himself into that position, and how many other people were inconvenienced as a result of it. But I can also tell you that if I had been pushing him to get Eagle-required MB's at age 12 instead of what he wanted to do, he might very well have stopped right there.

Maybe it would be best if we tried to discuss all of the issues in this thread, and all the other threads, without using metaphors. No more 800 pound gorillas or elephants in the room or whatever else. It's just getting the discussion totally confused. How about just plain English? After the metaphor battle is won, we can go on to trying to discuss issues without using analogies. That's more difficult and trickier and might not work. But this is the place to start. (I do realize that with this suggestion, I'm swimming upstream, rowing against the tide, spitting into the wind... oops.)

I appologize. I didn't know you were the one who decided what was right. Maybe I'm just trying to blend in with the rest of the forum. Most people here seem absolutely sure of what is right or wrong all the time, why single me out? And all I'm saying is, with such a contentious social issue, just let each unit's CO decide. It's not a big deal. I've given the reasons so many times I'm tired of doing so, but I think Bando did a very good job of it a few posts earlier. Heck, even California voted to keep marriage as a social contract between a man and a woman. If California feels that way (federal judges not withstanding), the bulk of Scout parents have to be to the right of the Hollywood State. How do you jump so quickly from non-discrimination against gay people in joining an organization, to gay marriage? For whatever reason, people are a lot quicker to drop discrimination against gay people in employment, places of public accommodation, etc. than they are to allow gay marriage. My state government banned discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation about 20 years ago, but still does not allow gay "marriage." (Civil unions, yes, but not "marriage.") You can discuss gay marriage if you want, I'd rather discuss Scouting.

bacchus says: To all the people who want a different program - just start one up. I don't want a different program. I want the BSA national leadership to do the right thing with the program that already exists.

(Double post)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I don't think this thread is really about anything anymore.

This ain't New Jersey. Your loss, Brent. For whatever it's worth, I have never (to my knowledge) seen any "Scouting for All" knots here, either, nor have I known anyone who was (in real life) an "activist" on the issue. I have had a couple of professionals comment privately to me that they wish the policy would change, as it would make their job easier. Also, I recall a couple of unmarried (middle-aged) Scouters from when I was a Scout, and for about 10 years my son's troop had a middle-aged never-married leader who worked with the boys. I don't know anything about his personal life. Don't ask, don't tell.

Dennism, others have posted good suggestions, but I actually do not see a big problem with what happened in your den. You threw both the decision and the process open to a bunch of boys, they discussed it a little, and they came up with a MAJORITY decision. Fairly quickly, it sounds like. It also sounds like you decided (either consciously or by default) that a majority would be enough to make a decision. (There are other ways to do it, such as a supermajority which would be two-thirds, which is a little technical for a bunch of boys, and 4 of 6 meets that test anyway; or a consensus (aka unanimity), which is growing in popularity among decision-making models but has the disadvantage that any one member may block the decision.) So once you let a majority make the decision, and they made it, I'm not sure what more you need to do. Scout # 5 could have spoken up, even after the vote was taken, and try to change the minds of his fellow den members. It sounds like Scout # 6 did not have much of an opinion either way, so essentially he let the others decide for him. I'll also tell you that the decision-making process you describe sounds fairer than a lot of ADULT meetings I have attended (and I am mostly referring to meetings outside of Scouting now.) I have seen the "silent majority" get steamrolled by an aggressive minority. At least in this case it was the majority that did the steamrolling.

Beavah, forget it. I'm not playing your games anymore. Go play with someone else.

Beavah, denying there is a victim is part of your blame-the-victim approach.

Annual dues of $150? That is twice the highest amount of troop dues I have ever heard of. It is three times the amount of dues in "my" troop. I would have difficulty believing people would be willing to pay that... except for your implication that ALL of the money from fundraising (popcorn) goes into the Scouts' accounts. I have never heard of that either. With the various kinds of fundraising done in my troop, the amount that goes into the Scouts' accounts (though we don't call it that) ranges from about 20 percent (which to me is about right) to about one-third (which to me is too high.) I suppose that in a sense it balances out, but only if everybody sells their "fair share" of popcorn. Personally I think our way is better, because the dues and the fundraising work together to benefit the troop, rather than offsetting each other. I know there are budget forms for troops, a Google search should turn one up.

REA and TVA are socialist programs. Government ownership of General Motors is socialist. Public (actually "government") schools, fire protection, police, military are definitely NOT socialist. They are services provided by taxes. Ah, but Woapalanne, there are some people who do consider things like schools and even public law enforcement to be socialistic. They would, however, not be me. As I said earlier in this thread, "socialism" is a philosophy and a system, not a characteristic of individual programs or government activities. Just because the government may own a company here or there, in the context of an overall capitalist system, does not mean there is socialism going on. Let's take General Motors, for example. If the government owned all auto makers, on a permanent basis, well, I would begin to think we are going down the road of socialism. But that is not is what is happening. The U.S. government bought about 60 percent of a scaled-down GM (with some divisions being spun off to private companies), on a temporary basis. The paperwork for an initial public offering of stock, so the stock can begin being sold back into the regular market, has already been submitted to the SEC. Now, was this whole thing a good idea, or should the government have let GM just fail and be liquidated to pay its creditors? I don't know. But I know that the government intervention was not "socialist."

Speaking of nonsense, Beavah, your post is a prime example. Blame the victim. How original. Nobody should care if the troop in the next neighborhood or the next town has a gay Scoutmaster, if that is what the CO of that unit wants. As far as I know, nobody in this forum is advocating that LDS or Catholic or any other COs be required to accept gay leaders. We just want all COs and all religions to be treated equally. Not like the current situation where some religions (mine, for example) are treated like second-class religions and basically leave the program because they believe it is wrong (I guess that would be ''morally'' wrong) to exclude people based on sexual orientation.

Scoutfish, some of the recent "opinions" (not yours) have had a "tone" to them which I believe is unhelpful. Of course, that's just my opinion.

I realize this is kind of crazy-talk given the usual pattern of things in this forum, but we could all give the adults in RedFlyer's troop the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming they are complete idiots. Actually, most of us have given them the benefit of the doubt. Only a couple of people seem to be assuming they are complete idiots.

Mikeb, your concerns are legitimate, and I had raised pretty much the same concerns earlier. BUT I think the proper approach is to (as I said earlier) ASK THE QUESTIONS designed to determine whether he is ready. None of us here (other than possibly the original poster) know whether this particular young man is ready. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. And if he is almost ready (which may also be the case with some of the the other boys going on the trip), maybe he can become ready, and maybe he can't. But it's an open question. I disagree with your (Mikeb) assumption that the answer is "No."

Here is an article discussing the LDS Church's threat to leave the BSA if the Supreme Court had decided that the BSA was required to allow local units to choose leaders without regard to their sexual orientation. http://www.mormonstoday.com/000430/N1GayScouts02.shtml The threat was right in the Church's legal brief to the Supreme Court, and it referred not only to the LDS Church, but others as well. Now, that was before the Supreme Court decision, which means it was before the "local option" issue became an issue. A quick Google search did not find any explicit threats regarding the "local option" issue, but then again, they don't have to make threats. And when I say they, I mean the combination of the various churches (including the LDS) that want to control the actions of ALL units in the BSA. They have sufficient votes in the BSA leadership to prevent "local option" from occurring, they prevented it in the vote taken in early 2002 (if I recall correctly; there are threads discussing that resolution in this forum, and I remember it because it was right around the time I started posting here), and therefore they don't need to keep making threats about it.

On many outdoor activities in the cooler months I have worn a sweatshirt under my short-sleeved uniform shirt, because I wanted the shirt to be visible. Obviously if it is the middle of the winter, a coat is going over the uniform, but if all I need is a sweatshirt I have usually worn it under the uniform shirt. Even if you're indoors, I think if someone wants to wear something like a turtleneck (regardless of color) under the uniform shirt, it's fine. It says to the boys, "I am being a good example by wearing my uniform, and wearing it proudly on the outside, I just want to keep my arms warm!" Not everybody's internal thermostat is exactly the same.

I am curious, Why would a doctor write a the boy can't swim excuse?????? The dumbest thing I have ever heard. Just guessing here since I don't know the facts in this particular case, but it's probably because the boy can't swim, or shouldn't swim, due to some physical condition. As I say, it's a guess, but I think it's a pretty good one. By the way, I assume you realize that there are some boys who obviously can't swim. We had a boy in our troop who has no use of his legs whatsoever, and very little use of his arms. He made Eagle. He needed a number of doctor's notes along the way, which in his case stated what was fairly obvious to anyone who looked at this young man sitting in his wheelchair trying to make the Scout sign as best he could -- but he still needed the doctor's notes.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

And what does all this about AIDS mean to the discussion anyway? Are gay people necessarily "bad people" because they are at higher risk of a particular disease? And yes, I know that behavior is part of the story here, but how far do you want to take that? Do you realize that a woman who becomes pregnant is at infinitely higher risk of dying in childbirth than a woman who never becomes pregnant? How reckless of these women to get pregnant, to put themselves at that kind of risk. (/sarcasm off)

Eagledad, it appears that they forgot to send me the questionnaire.