NJCubScouter

Eamonn, I wouldn't worry about the BSA changing its policy, it probably isn't going to happen anytime soon. And I know they don't listen to "NJCubScouter", if they did there would already have been changes to one or two other policies that are discussed in a different part of the forum from time to time.

I agree with everyone, but I think Lisa raises a good point, or two. Is there a rank requirement for the Venture Patrol? Even if there isn't, what I would want to do in this case is make sure that the young man has some background and experience in hiking and camping, and some knowledge of first aid, map and compass etc. consistent with the difficulty level of this particular trip. And also that he knows how to pack, how to dress for the weather, etc. In other words, do his outdoor skills prepare him for the trip, or can he pick up what he needs to know before the trip? If the answer to one of those questions is yes, and even if there is a rank requirement, I might be inclined to waive it. The real question would be, is he ready? If he is, then I don't think its necessarily relevant that he hasn't passed the Tenderfoot physical exercises, the First Class citizenship requirement, and that sort of thing. It would be nice, before he goes on the trip, if he would pass the Scout badge requirements, so at least he has some idea of what this Boy Scouting thing is all about.

By the way, I do realize I am kind of a hard-liner about this smoking thing. I apologize if I have offended anyone, and I do not mean to start any arguments. So if you are a smoker and easily offended, or just offended by anti-smoking viewpoints in general, stop reading here, because I want to explain myself. If I were King of the World, smoking would be banned (and I realize that as a result, shortly thereafter, I would probably no longer be King of the World.) I have just seen too many peoples' lives destroyed, or in the process of being destroyed, because of it. I have a daughter who, as a teenager, unfortunately became hooked on it (unbeknownst to her father for more than a year), and through a lot of effort and purchases (by me) of expensive gum and other stuff, not to mention her own desire to quit, she quit. I am convinced that everybody can quit, although I realize that my personal experience helping someone who had smoked for a couple of years is not the same as someone who has been smoking for 40 years. Unfortunately, for most of the people I have known who smoked for 40 or 30 years, quitting is no longer an issue. This is why I think the BSA should simply ban smoking at any BSA activity, period. OGE's concern about driving away even more leaders is a reasonable concern. But I balance that, along with the right to decide things for yourself, and other anti-smoking-ban arguments, against the harmful effects of smoking, and I come up with a different result than OGE and probably most readers of this forum. I know that the kids know when a leader is a smoker, and I also know that the kids are prone to emulate the behavior of the adults around them. I also realize that kids have tons of other influences prompting them to do all kinds of things that aren't good for them. I just don't want to see Scouting (through the actions of some local leaders, though discouraged by National) contribute to a problem that destroys lives. And I know that nobody will be offended by this, because I told you that if you were going to be offended, you should stop reading two paragraphs ago.

SR540Beaver: Right, if they smoke, which they don't have to do. It's pretty clear that the writers of the G2SS would rather that Scouts not smoke at all while at any BSA activity. But let's look at what they actually say about where smoking can take place: "All Scouting functions, meetings, and activities should be conducted on a smoke-free basis, with smoking areas located away from all participants." Has anyone ever seen a camping trip with a "smoking area"? I never have. Fortunately, none of the adults in my son's troop has ever smoked while on a camping trip, as far as I know. I have seen Scouters smoke at district events, but there was no "smoking area" there either. As I recall, the usual "smoking area" of choice is behind a troop trailer or similar vehicle, where any Scout could come walking around the back at any time, which I don't count as "away from all participants."

Perdidochas says: A smoker can function quite well as a leader while smoking. That's a matter of opinion. I think the leader is setting a poor example for the kids by engaging in an unhealthy activity. Apparently the BSA agrees, but they won't go to the next logical step. And the idea that leaders can smoke "away from the boys" is not much of a help in my opinion. I have seen leaders try to do this, and they usually don't make enough of an effort. The boys usually know what is going on anyway. And why are leaders doing things that they have to hide from the boys? (Other than those private activities covered in the YP guidelines, I mean.)

Ok FScouter, I guess that's why the BSA doesn't have any rigid rules, but just lets adults reflect and figure out what is "right" and teach the boys accordingly. No need for rigid rules... ...oh but wait. Here's the section of the G2SS that is right next to the "rule" on smoking: "The Boy Scouts of America prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages and controlled substances at encampments or activities on property owned and/or operated by the Boy Scouts of America, or at any activity involving participation of youth members." Sounds pretty rigid. Not a lot of room to reflect on the mission there. No drinking. No drugs. Period. You don't need to figure out what's ethical; the BSA tells you in no uncertain terms. Same with this: "The BSA does not permit the use of corporal punishment by unit leaders when disciplining youth members." Sounds rigid to me. You don't get to decide whether corporal punishment is right or wrong. It's not permitted, and that's it. And how about this: "Male and female youth participants will not share the same sleeping facility." No need to reflect there either. No need to sit down with your Venturers and discuss what an ethical sleeping arrangement would be. Joe tents with George over here, and Cindy tents with Sue over there. Otherwise, here's my cell phone, call Mom or Dad to pick you up. And there are others, but I focused on rules that involved ethical choices. These are rigid rules. Why then, in the area of smoking, does the BSA lose its nerve and forget how to write a simple declarative sentence?

But FScouter, what is the rule in this case? Is smoking by adults on a camping trip, "away from the boys" (which never really works) allowed, or isn't it? Sorry TwoCubDad, I guess we are getting into the issue again.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Yes, we have had this discussion several times before and yes, it is a poorly worded policy. The interpretation of this policy has ranged all over the place. My position in those past discussions was that with the words, "may not allow the use of tobacco products at any BSA activity involving youth participants", the BSA meant to ban smoking by both adults and youth at all functions where youth are present. However, I realize that different interpretations are at least plausible. I wish they would just come right out and ban smoking at Scouting activities completely, using similar wording to the ban on use of alcohol which is also quoted above.

There is a big difference between a troop setting a minimum age for an MB (other than the joining age for the troop) and a summer camp setting such a policy. A troop that does so would be adding to the requirements, and therefore it's not permissible. A camp, on the other hand, has to manage its available resources, including counselors, facilities and time. It is my understanding, for example, that the camp our troop usually attends only allows Scouts of a certain age (maybe 14 and up) to do the "Cit's". (We need not discuss whether these badges should be done at camp at all.) The reason, I am told, is that younger Scouts have more difficulty with the writing requirements. Ok, so the camp doesn't want to deal with younger Scouts and writing requirements. The younger Scouts have 51 or 50 other weeks during the year to earn the badge. But only if the Scoutmaster follows the rules and doesn't prevent the Scout from getting the badge because he doesn't meet a nonexistent age requirement.

Yes, SA, I read about that earlier. Former chairman of the Republican National Committee and Bush-Cheney campaign manager, now openly gay and supporting gay marriage. Very interesting.

Which, in turn, would lead 'em back to considering more seriously d possibility of God. I'm not talking about belief in God. I'm talking about a belief that the Bible is the word of God, or inspired by God, or is otherwise something other than a book written by people. These are not the same thing. There is a also a big difference between a book being influential, useful, etc. and it being the Word of God.

Well Brent, I can think of one reason why those involved with "outdoor education" (especially public-school connected outdoor education) would not be getting involved with the BSA, but you're probably not going to like it.

And then there are people who don't believe God had anything to do with the Bible (or one or more testaments), and that it was just written by people, like any other book.

Acco says: I think we are wasting some time here. In this forum? I can't believe it!(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

No, Beavah, I "reckon" it's the result of twisting. That's why I said so.

Beavah and Eagledad, you have both twisted what I said so badly that I don't even recognize it. And as for this, Eagledad: You are lucky that you have a choice of staying with an organization that doesn't represent your principles, OR not. I am fine with the principles of the BSA. I don't think those principles include banning all openly gay people. The problem is that the current BSA leadership is not following the BSA's own principles, on this one issue. That's not enough to get me to leave.

Eagledad, So if divorce is a sin, does that mean the BSA should ban divorced people from being leaders? Some units may do that now, especially if the circumstances of the divorce suggest other immoral acts by the leader, such as adultery. But other units don't care, and there is no national policy prohibiting divorced leaders. In effect, there is a local option. This is in contrast with homosexuality, where units don't get a choice. Gay leaders are banned regardless of whether they, or their unit, thinks a sin is being committed, and regardless of what the local unit wants. So to paraphrase George Orwell, it looks like some "sins" are more equal than others. Although I have to agree with you that in some cases divorce IS "wrong" (whether you use the word "sin" is up to you), but in many of those cases the real "wrong" may have been the two people getting married in the first place.

Is bullying a form of torture? Or is torture a form of bullying? Or neither, unless the person doing the "torturing" is a government official or acting under the authority of state or federal law? Notice that the first two definitions limit "torture" to acts by government officials, or someone acting "under color of law" (which can be a little broader but still requires some association with the government.) This suggests that the same kind of pain-causing act, when done by one (non-governmental) person to another, is the crime of assault or aggravated assault (or similar terminology), but when done by the government to an individual, is torture. I think most people use the term a little more broadly than that.

But in da free, civilized, and moral world we don't subject people to torture based on suspicion. Even if it costs lives. I could be "misremembering", but didn't the prior administration do exactly that? Or at least say it was ok to do exactly that? I thought that's what the whole controversy over torture in connection with the "war on terrorism" was about.

BDPT00, no, Beavah is not "out front" in this discussion at all. I think a lot of people are just tired of discussing this. Beavah is very clever in using analogies, but they don't work. I don't need a big discussion to know that a gay person is not doing anything inherently wrong, while a thief is. Beavah is just trying to use "logic" to justify what he thinks the Bible says. To respond to somebody else, I don't know who, I find that the expression "hate the sin, love the sinner" is often used as a cover for hatred of both. I don't really detect a lot of love flowing around, when people are explaining why it's ok to exclude and oppress gay people.

A few years ago I was listening to two people on the radio debating this exact same subject. One (who I guess you would call the "pro-torture" side) said exactly what has been argued here, torture is ok if you capture a terrorist who knows when and where the bomb will go off, how to defuse it, etc. The other one said ok, if you accept that torture is acceptable in that situation, what happens if along with the terrorist, you capture the terrorist's 5-year-old daughter, and the terrorist won't talk. Is it ok to torture his 5-year-old daughter in front of him in the hope that he will then talk? In other words, how far do you go? Or you might say, how much like a terrorist is it ok for us to act in order to protect innocent people from terrorists? The first debater, by the way, really had no answer to the question about the 5-year-old girl. I think most people would draw the line between the wrongdoer and an innocent person to whom the wrongdoer has an attachment. But that doesn't bring back the thousands of people who died in the (hypothetical) explosion because you wouldn't torture one innocent child. It's really a horrifying example, isn't it? I have to tell you, I had almost a physical reaction of revulsion when I was listening to this discussion on the radio. But it shows how tough an issue this is.

It looks like the United Church of Christ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_church_of_christ) has a policy of equality for gay people also. This is the church that ran the tv ads a few years ago showing various kinds of families being welcomed into the church and saying "God Is Still Speaking" or words to that effect. I'm not a big fan of their view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as described in the Wikipedia article, but you can't have everything.

Being the only member of my household who is not Catholic... well, me and the dog, she was bred in Virginia so she's probably Protestant... and also not liking to comment on other peoples' religions... I think I'll just stay out of this.

Sherm, I believe it represented a mistake that had virtually no real consequences, though I suspect you would disagree with the last part. Specifically on the issue of Camping merit badge, it would be an interesting exercise to take the current T-2-1 camping requirements, add them up into a list of what the Scout must do by the time of making First Class, and then see what more has to be done for the Camping MB. From my vague recollection of the requirements when my son was passing them, there may be some additional nights of camping required, but probably not much more than that.

bacchus, I do not know of any religions that "worship" homosexuality, but there are some that treat openly gay people equally to heterosexuals. Some have openly gay clergy, I know of the Episcopal Church (though there are some dissenting individual churches) and Reform Judaism to name two. I would assume that Unitarian Universalism makes three, though I don't know that for a fact. Some Conservative congregations accept gay rabbis and some do not. (In Judaism, "Conservative" is the "middle" of the three main movements, Orthodox being the most traditional.) Individual churches of other denominations also do not discriminate against gay people. And in addition to gay clergy, some places of worship will perform gay union ceremonies, marriages or whatever the correct terminology may be in that place. I am not sure which religions will do those ceremonies other than Reform and (some) Conservative Jewish congregations. It's probably also safe to say that the Wiccan religion has the same policy, though that is an assumption.