NJCubScouter

Yes Gonzo, because a "Friends of" is by definition a private organization. But as has been discussed in this forum several times, it is not a panacea. Some posters have written in the past that their council will not even allow this type of CO (or maybe just not for a new unit.) Such an organization, formed solely to be a CO, will not have its own place to meet (unless there are some very wealthy and generous "friends"), so it is dependent on a "real" institution (school, church, etc.) that will allow the use of its facilities without having the "benefits" that come with being a CO. (Not that all, or even most, CO's make use of those "benefits" anyway.) Such arrangements do exist (there is one in my school district, where the unit meets in a public school), but they are inherently unstable. There is also a larger risk of instability in the CO's leadership, which in most such setups will be drawn from current and recent-past parents of unit members. It's definitely a "CO of convenience", but it's better than nothing -- assuming the council will allow it. What is more common in my area is for the PTO/PTA for the school where the unit meets to be the CO. Having been in that situation myself, I'd say it is better than the "Friends of" situation, but not by much. It has some of the same problems, just to a lesser degree.

Yes Ed, that's the rub. And isn't that what Merlyn is saying? I mean, if you forget all the stuff (from Merlyn and you and others) about who's lying or not lying, and whose fault it is or isn't that some public entities have (or don't have, or would or wouldn't have) BSA charters, and who said what, and all that other stuff that just clutters up the issue and this forum with a lot of nonsense. A public entity can't own a program that excludes people on the basis that they don't believe in God. It's that simple.

I'm deeply offended by that comic and this entire discussion. Unfortunately, based on my experience in this forum, I feel compelled to say I'm just kidding, otherwise at least a few people will think I'm serious. (No offense.)

Scoutfish, I suppose you are entitled to your own interpretation of our Constitution, but you need to be aware that in our system, the interpretation of the Constitution is done by Courts. You don't have to agree with their interpretation, and you don't even have to agree that they get to do the interpreting, but it is their interpretation that is authoritative. I am not aware of any Court decision, at least not one that is considered currently valid, that would agree with the interpretation stated in your last post. More specifically, the First Amendment does not require the government to run any program, it merely prohibits the government from doing certain things (which would include running a program that discriminates on the basis of religion.) In fact, without re-reading the entire Constitution, I can only think of one "program" that the government is required to carry out, other than the operations of the three branches of government themselves, and that is... anyone want to guess? It is actually going on right now. And actually it is contained in one of the sections of the Constitution which prescribes the composition of one of the branches of government. The Constitution does not even require the U.S. Government to have a defense program, to print money, to regulate commerce or any of those things that it has the power to do. It does those things simply because a majority of Congress votes for those things to happen. So to say that the government must run a club or violate the Constitution... it just doesn't work.

Merlyn: Ok. I guess it just puzzles me that whenever this issue is debated on here, it always seems to turn into a debate over what "establishment of religion" means, when the 14th amendment equal protection clause would seem to be a more direct route to the same result. It seems to me that you are agreeing with me, and that the "establishment" issue is really kind of beside the point.

This issue generates a lot of debate in this forum, but it seems pretty clear to me. If a government owns and operates a program, it can't say, "To participate in this program, you must believe in God (or some other higher power(s)." That would clearly be an establishment of religion. (Aside to Merlyn, it seems to be that it would even more clearly be a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause, since religion is a "strict scrutiny" classification. I wonder why this isn't the main argument, since it avoids some of the trickiness involved in interpreting the 1st amendment religion clauses.) And yet, when an organization (whether governmental or non-governmental) charters a BSA unit, and agrees to abide by its membership policies (including the exclusion of non-higher-power-believers), it is saying exactly that. As we all know, a CO owns and operates its Scouting units. The unit really becomes a "program" of the CO. So a public school (which is part of "the government") simply cannot charter a BSA organization without violating the 1st (and unless I'm wrong, the 14th) amendments to the Constitution. Allowing Scout units to meet in a public school (such as my son's old Cub pack, and about half the other units in the area) is an entirely different story, as long as the school itself is not the CO, because in those cases someone else is the owner-operator.

"Like awesome." That must mean, "similar to or of the same kind as awesome, but not quite awesome."

First of all, we are talking about ScoutING magazine here, right? I believe the current edition is the one with the uniformed man with the camera and the strange look on his face on the cover.

Well said, Acco.

Ed, there's no evidence of a lot of things. I prefer to stick with the facts I know, and not make up some other facts that might fit some theory that I have. Or in the words of a character in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, life can be wretched enough without making up more of it. (That's a paraphrase.)

Was everybody unable to access this forum for a few days, like I was? I see a gap of a few days in the posts, at least in Issues and Politics. But it's nice to see that a little roadblock like that does not stop the constant bickering, which just picks up where it left off. Ed, unlike Merlyn, I do not call you "dishonest", but you are wrong about this. There is no evidence that James Dale deceived anyone. Apparently, while he was a Scout, he was in the process of figuring out his own sexuality. There is no evidence that he was an "avowed homosexual" while he was a Scout. Even after he "came out", there was no "policy" that prohibited an "avowed homosexual" from being a leader. If you think there was, show it to us along with the date it was published. If it was just an internal memo, it was not a "policy."

Ed, in addition to what Merlyn said, you are wrong because the BSA does not have a policy against being gay. It only has a policy against being openly gay.

Unless I am missing something, it sounds to me like the Scout is doing, if not everything he should be doing, when he should be doing it, then almost. He is 12 years old. As you say, if there is a problem, it is his parents -- who, if I read you correctly, are BOTH going to Woodbadge, meaning they have presumably both already devoted a lot of time to the Scouting program and are committing themselves to volunteer more time and energy. (I say volunteer, because I assume you would have mentioned if one or both were Scouting professionals.) The way you want to do things seems reasonable, and you are probably going to have to keep reminding these parents of that, but it seems to me this should be a minor annoyance.

Ed, that's irrelevant. Just because you have a legal right to do something doesn't make it "right." It's a bad policy. The fact that it's legal doesn't change that. DYB-Mike, I think we agree on this, but a disputed biblical interpretation cannot be the sole basis for a BSA policy, when the BSA does not take sides in matters of religion. And of course this issue is a tough nut to crack. I didn't say it's easy. It should be easy, but it isn't. Eagledad, the Dale case is relevant today not because of how it could have turned out differently, but because the story of James Dale itself shows how bad and wrong the policy itself is. So the BSA won the case. It also won the case that said it didn't have to allow women to be Scoutmasters -- and shortly after that, allowed women to be Scoutmasters. It should do the same thing in this case. There is no reason why Dale should have had to "change" in order to remain an Assistant Scoutmaster. As for the part about what is or isn't stated on the application, that was a response to something Scoutfish said. I think there are many Scouters who know nothing about the "gay issue." Sometimes we forget that only a tiny fraction of Scouters read forums like this. Most of them just go about their business.

Scoutfish, there is nothing about sexuality on the membership or leader application forms. As you have pointed out, there shouldn't be any discussion of sexuality within the BSA. But I don't see how that fits in with your apparent belief (and the belief of those who currently, temporarily run the BSA) that one of the values of the BSA is that you have to be a heterosexual. I don't think that is really one of the core values of the BSA. There is nothing in the Scout Oath or Law, or even anything that can be inferred from them, about not being gay. This "policy" is not part of what it means to be a Scout or Scouter. It has been added on due to politics. It should be removed and each CO allowed to make its own membership policies as they do for almost every other aspect of membership and leadership.

As I recall the facts as stated in the Supreme Court case, James Dale was in the Boy Scouts in his hometown, made Eagle, turned 18, became an ASM, then went to college, in a different county in the same state. If he ever told anyone in his troop that he was gay, that is not reported in the facts. Sometime while he was at college, he joined the gay student organization, and became its president. The group participated in a conference, which if I recall correctly dealt with the problems faced by teenagers who are in the process of discovering they are gay. The largest newspaper in the state covered the conference, quoted Dale, and identified him as president of the gay student organization. (Meaning, it didn't say anything about his conduct, it just said he was president of a group, but people did make the reasonable inference that the president of a gay student group is gay.) Some people somewhere in his council saw the article, and Dale got a letter from the council terminating his membership in the BSA. So there it is. He wasn't "in the closet", he didn't "come out" (because he was already out), but he also didn't make any sort of big deal about his status "back at home." I don't see how it could be said that he did anything wrong, or anything that justified a nationwide ban from membership in the BSA. He was just being who he was, and at the time he became statewide news, he was just trying to help other people. (Hmmm... to help other people at all times...)

JoeBob says: No way, no how, are they/we going to want to send our children into the woods with a leader of indeterminate sexuality. "Indeterminate sexuality"? I have news for you, you (and I) already do send our children into the woods with leaders of "indeterminate sexuality." You never know for sure what someone else does in private. But the policy in question really has nothing to do with protecting our youth from abuse. It only deals with "avowed homosexuals." Someone whose sexuality is a secret (whether gay or straight) isn't affected by the policy. So it might be said that the BSA policy requires that leaders be of "indeterminate sexuality". The phrase 'two deep leadership' shouldn't mean having a look-out or a watchog. This really is irrelevant to the thread for the reasons stated above. But I can't let this go, because I think you have a misunderstanding of the Youth Protection policies. If your statement means that you don't think that part of the reason for the two-deep leadership policy is to have the leaders "watching" each other, you are incorrect. That essentially is one of the main reasons for that policy. It doesn't mean you are supposed to be standing there videotaping your co-leader or anything, but it does mean that each leader is supposed to be generally aware of what those around him/her, both adults and Scouts, are doing. In the Youth Protection Training course, two-deep leadership is listed as one of the "external barriers to abuse", and I believe it is second on the list, after no one-on-one. In order for it to be a "barrier to abuse", then yes, some level of "watching" is involved. The other main reason for two-deep leadership is to try to provide some amount of protection against false accusations by a youth member, although obviously that isn't foolproof. Hopefully, none of us in our "watching" will ever actually see anything where we then have to report one of our fellow leaders, or have a situation where a false allegation is made, but that is what the policy is about.

Although I can see all sides of the issue, my real concern is that, over the years, the Scouting program has shifted more towards "keeping the boys' interest" (read that "entertained"....) than teaching the boys to Live the Law, through participation in Troop activities. When it comes to boys over the age of 14, there really has been no "shift". The BSA has always had a problem maintaining the interest of older boys. There is a good synopsis here (http://www.troop97.net/bsahist2.htm) of the "older boy problem" and the various ways the BSA has tried to deal with it over the years -- starting with Sea Scouts almost at the very beginning, through Senior Scouts and the Leadership Corps when I was a Boy Scout, to the Venture Patrol today -- plus other opportunities outside the troop such as Exploring back in the old days, Venturing Crews today, plus through it all there has been the OA. Yes, ideally Scouts in the OA will remain active in their troop, but if the choice is between them being OA-only and leaving Scouting entirely, I would rather have them in the OA. Of course, to address OGE's point, if they are in Scouting only to be in the OA, they need to be doing what the OA is supposed to be doing, and not just hanging out. And the adults are a different story -- they need to be setting the example of being involved in their troops (or other Scouting positions) first, then the OA, except for those very few such as lodge advisers who can legitimately focus their efforts on the OA. (As for those who "don't have a clue", maybe it would be better if they just left.) I don't really know whether my council has the same problems that OGE describes -- for whatever reason, my son's troop hasn't "done" OA for years, in fact I don't think there has been an election since he joined the troop, seven years ago. I was in the OA as a Scout but was never really active in it, and have not re-involved myself as an adult. The "older boy" focus in my son's troop is on an associated Venturing Crew, which I have my own feelings about, but that is another topic.

Rooster says: So I am but one voicebut my one voice is joined with others and our voices are just as legitimate as those who views are not driven by faithor as those driven by a different faith. and Because even if my voice and others like me are ignored... Rooster, the legitimacy of your voice is not questioned, and it is not your voice that is ignored, particularly in the BSA. I would love to see a BSA in which the views and voices of those who favor (for example) a local option on the gay issue were given as much attention or legitimacy as yours -- or even any at all. You and people like you are in control of the BSA, Rooster. You're in charge! And yet you seem to be complaining. Cheer up! You run the show! (Though, I guess technically, you yourself don't actually have any current connection to the BSA. But those who agree with you on this issue run the show.) Rooster also says: Hopefully, collectively, well figure it out together. Hopefully, we support organizations, vote for leaders, create laws, and build a society centered on Truth. If we dont, then our society and its future will be randomand the meanest dog will win the day. I don't want to impugn the motivations or internal emotions of any particular person here, and I don't want to call anyone "mean"... but... one might argue that the problem of the "meanest dog winning the day" is what has already happened, at least on the "gay issue" within the BSA. A policy change such as I advocate would make things a little less "mean", in my opinion.

Hey, look who's back. Since this thread is about BSA policy, and not about peoples' beliefs in general, it needs to be pointed out that BSA policy is not based on (or perhaps more accurately, it's not supposed to be based on) the Bible. So we don't even need to get to the issues of which version of the Bible (Jewish, Roman Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox) you prefer, which interpretation of any particular passage you prefer, whether you take all or part of the Bible literally, figuratively, symbolically, or whatever else, and many other choices. From past posts, I think I know what Rooster's choices are on these subjects, at least as far it relates to whether "an avowed homosexual cannot [or can] be a role model for the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Law." But that has nothing to do with BSA policy.

There's obviously something wrong here. Some people are sure the requirements aren't official, yet at least one person has gotten the merit badge from their district (or council, in my neck of the woods districts don't have separate places to keep merit badges, but whatever.) National itself doesn't seem to know what it's doing. This isn't just the left hand and right hand not knowing what each other are doing, it's like some kind of poly-octopus with many hands going in all different directions and no brain connecting them. Clearly the BSA can do better than this.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I think I have mentioned this in past threads on the same subject, but my son is one of those Scouts who was slowed down in his advancement by his inability to swim. He did not pass the swimming test until his third year at summer camp, and finished First Class at the same time (when he was a couple months short of 14.) Somewhere along the way he had passed the Second Class swimming requirement, probably just barely. At the same time, I think there were 2 other Scouts who had similar issues, and they ended up quitting Scouting. (Which I suspect is much more common than the Tenderfoot aging out of the troop with 60 MB's.) In my son's case it was not a fear of water, it was just difficulty with the mechanics of swimming. (Actually I have always had the same problem.) He overcame it simply by "toughing it out", and passed the requirements -- eventually including Swimming MB -- without a lot of room to spare, and without great technique, but he passed them. He still isn't a very good swimmer, but he is an Eagle. He even won the "Polar Bear" swim award in his last year at summer camp -- but that was for being willing to be in the water at the crack of dawn every day, not for showing Olympic form once he was there. In my son's case, the system worked in the way we all hope it would: He had to pass the requirements to advance, and he had to go "beyond himself" and experience "personal growth" in order to pass the requirements. But I think a distinction needs to be made between someone like my son, who has to overcome some difficulty, and someone who has a medical problem (whether physical or psychiatric) that makes it impossible, or close to impossible. As for the "permanent" requirement, I really don't think the BSA intended that to mean that if you may be able to overcome the problem at some time during your life, you don't qualify for alternative requirements. We had a Scout in our troop who was given alternative requirements for many requirements and Merit Badges, because he has a serious neurological condition, is wheelchair bound, has very limited use of his hands and arms, and great difficulty speaking. (Very bright, and a good writer, though the actual physical part of the writing is done either by someone helping him, or by machine.) He also needed a few extra months, and he got them, and made Eagle, and now attends a college for students with special needs. Now, is it conceivable that sometime during his lifetime, medical science may progress to the point where he would be able to walk, run, swim and do all the other physical activities that he has never been able to do? Sure. I'd like to think there is some hope of that happening. It is very unlikely, but it is conceivable. That doesn't change the fact that his condition is "permanent." I realize this is an extreme example, but it just illustrates that "permanent" is usually not an absolute, at least as long as you are alive and have some brain function. Without an absolute, there is a line to be drawn, and it is just a question of where you draw the line.

I have seen some utterly pointless threads in these forums in my time... and this is one of them.

If my district has such a position or committee, I don't know about it. Each unit does its own recruiting. The functions mentioned by GKlose seem to be done by a combination of the professionals and the commissioners.

If it is a "clinically diagnosed phobia" that has not been resolved after three years of working with a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist is able to certify to this as stated in the rules for Alternative Requirements, I would think that the Council Advancement Committee should seriously consider granting the request. The rules draw a distinction between a condition that is "permanent" and one that is "temporary", but there are conditions that fall in between the two; or stated another way, what does "permanent" mean? I think what the BSA is aiming at is limiting exemptions to situations where the condition cannot be overcome with a reasonable amount of time and effort. Three years of psychiatry, in a program that only lasts between 6.5 and 7.5 years, is a lot of time and effort. To me it seems like enough to grant the alternative requirements. The story about the 18-year-old Tenderfoot with 60 merit badges almost seems too strange to be true. (Or maybe, strange enough to be true.) That young man must be truly extraordinary to do all that work, and not gain the recognition that one normally gets from doing it. (Of course, he presumably did benefit from all those merit badges.) But I can't help the feeling (admittedly without knowing all the facts, so it's just a feeling) that he was not well served by the system.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)