NJCubScouter

Good grief, Ed. After reading only the last few pages of this epic (in which I don't think I've ever posted), I would suggest that you let it go, already. I would suggest that, except that in light of the fact that you have just basically promised to keep posting in this thread FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, it seems unlikely that you will let it go. But really, don't you think you've made your point?

Scoutfish, I'm not even sure what your point is or exactly what issue you are talking about. Can you say it in one or two sentences?

Scoutfish, nobody is asking you to celebrate anyone else's sexuality. Nobody is looking to have "Gay Scouts." The issue is whether the BSA should exclude someone from leadership merely because they are openly gay. Some of here don't think so.

Ed: So what? As has been pointed out to you many times, two wrongs don't make a right. And it's not the same thing anyway. The government employing a chaplain, and the government excluding someone from one of its programs because that person doesn't believe in God are two completely different things.

Ed says: One of the reasons the Framers left their homeland and came here was to have religious freedom. They didn't want the state dictating their religious beliefs and visa versa. Which is exactly why they created a "wall of separation between church and state." How is the government practicing religion by sponsoring a BSA unit? I didn't say it is. When I mentioned the government practicing religion I was talking about the meaning of the First Amendment religion clause in general. I wasn't talking about the BSA. I think I've explained pretty clearly above why it is unconstitutional for the government to own (not just "sponsor") a unit that excludes atheists, and why in some states a government entity cannot legally own a unit that excludes gay people. As for the exclusion of atheists, it's really more of a problem of denying equal protection of the laws, rather than the government practicing religion, in my opinion. And since the government employs priests and ministers, is that practicing religion? I don't know. Maybe it is. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. If you are talking about chaplains in the military, I would say probably not, the government is not practicing religion, it is providing for the spiritual needs of those in the military. If it was doing so on an even-handed basis (which I guess would include providing a chaplain to lead a Winter Solstice service for atheists, if that's what they want), that should be ok.

Scoutfish, I have a number of issues with things you said, but don't have time to deal with it all, so let me just address the big picture as it relates directly to Scouting. The Government (whichever level you choose) is not merely made up of people. It is "THE people" -- religious people, atheists, everything in between, gay people, straight people, every other kind of people, not just as a crowd of individuals, but as one entity governing whatever area is involved. We have a federal constitution that says the government shall not "establish" "religion." Various states have laws that say that nobody shall be denied the benefits of government programs based on a variety of factors, which in (I believe) all states includes religion, and in some states includes sexual orientation. Now we get to the BSA, which has a system in which the chartered partner of each unit OWNS that unit. The pack, troop or crew is a program, or division, or subsidiary, or whatever term you wish to choose, of its chartering organization. However, that unit must also follow a national BSA policy that says gay people and atheists are excluded. As a result, the CO is running a program (the Scout unit) that discriminates on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. If the CO is a private organization -- a church, the American Legion, a parent-teacher organization, whatever -- then it can choose to be part of this discriminatory conduct. (Even if state law would say otherwise; that's what the Supreme Court said in BSA v. Dale.) And some organizations have chosen not to charter Scout units for exactly that reason. But a Government entity cannot make that choice. By owning a Scout unit, the Government entity would be discriminating on the basis of religion by excluding atheists. In some states, the Government also would be violating its own laws by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. And it actually is just common sense. A public school or a police department, for example, cannot refuse to hire a teacher or officer on the basis that that person is an atheist. In my state, they are equally prohibited from refusing to hire a teacher or officer who is openly gay. So let's say the same school or police department owns a Scout unit, and agrees to follow BSA policies. Someone volunteers to be Scoutmaster, and the CO wants to appoint the person, but they can't, because the person is an atheist or is openly gay, and the BSA doesn't allow them to be a leader. You can see why that doesn't work, don't you? The government entity is now discriminating in violation of the law. And I didn't pick schools and police departments by accident -- at one time many schools did charter Scout units, and at one time many police departments chartered Explorer posts, when Exploring was a "traditional" Scouting program. The school issue has been mostly resolved by moving (almost all of) the units to other CO's -- some of which still involve meeting in the schools, but that's a different issue. The police issue has been mostly resolved by moving Police Exploring out of "traditional" Scouting. So the issue of separation of church and state really isn't the issue. Its really much more simple: You can't own a discriminatory organization if it is illegal for you to discriminate, and if "you" are the Government, it's always illegal to discriminate against atheists, and sometimes illegal to discriminate against gay people. So if a volunteer fire department is considered a government agency, the same thing applies.

Beavah, I had assumed that Gern was joking. Maybe I assumed incorrectly. Ed, "separation of church and state" is exactly what at least some of the Framers meant, as indicated in their writings. In any event it doesn't really matter, because that is how the religion clauses have been interpreted -- correctly, in my opinion. Why would we want it any other way? The government should not be practicing religion, should not be imposing religious practices or beliefs on anyone, and should not be interfering in religion. The "wall of separation" metaphor seems as good as any a way to describe this concept.

I have been thinking about the same thing, as my son's Eagle COH is next month. I have noticed that in our troop, leaders who normally wear uniforms to meetings wear their uniform to their own son's ECOH about half the time. So, the only help there is that it's up to me. I think I will be wearing my uniform.

This is what I thought, especially where he says the focus of the film is not on the Boy Scouts. As for him being "one of us", yes in the sense that he is a fellow Scouter, but as I said earlier, I don't think he has done Scouting any favors by including the Boy Scouts in his political statements.

a wretched hive of scum and villainy Oak Tree, I took this statement by Beavah not as being an "extreme representation of FScouter's positions", but rather as an amusing bit of tongue-in-cheek on Beavah's part. Of course, it might help if you know that the phrase used by Beavah is not his own, but is lifted from the movie "Star Wars IV: A New Hope." (The first movie made in the series, even though it was retroactively re-numbered; when I first saw it, it was just called "Star Wars.") It is a phrase used by Obi-wan Kenobi to describe the Mos Eisley spaceport. (Maybe I shouldn't let on that I know this much about this, but I assume Beavah was assuming people would know where the phrase came from, or at least that it came from some movie somewhere. Maybe next time you are going to do that, you should at least put quotation marks around it so people at least know it came from somewhere other than yourself.)

Whatever one thinks of Congress, what these members of Congress are saying is nothing different than what some members of this forum, including me, have been saying for years: The BSA should change the policy. I don't know anything about the two particular "moms" who prompted this letter, but if the CO wanted them to be leaders, considers them to be suitable for a leadership position, of good character, etc., I don't see how their pack is helped by national saying they can't be leaders.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Nike, I don't think the CO's are really the issue here. Some would accept a gay leader. I know that the CO of my son's troop would. Many CO's, of course, would continue to exclude gay leaders. I wish National would give all the CO's, the pro and the con, that choice.

Merlyn must be traveling somewhere where there is no Internet connection.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boy_Scout_uniform_1974.jpg) is a photo of the collarless shirt from the 70's. Although the "collar area" is partially covered by the neckerchief, you can see that it is a v-neck. This is exactly the uniform that I wore during the second half (or so) of my time as a Scout. The shirt is hanging in my closet right now, although it doesn't come close to fitting me now. It has the same "Scout B.S.A." over the pocket (instead of Boy Scouts of America), which at the time was rumored to be a precursor of a merger with the Girl Scouts.

Infoscouter, this issue of whether a unit committee operates by voting or by having the CC dictate everything has been discussed several times in this forum over the years. As far as I know, the BSA neither requires nor prohibits either method. Past discussions have indicated that different unit committees operate differently, often in keeping with the decision-making model of their CO. I can tell you that in our troop, if the CC attempted to operate in the way you describe, the CC would soon find him/herself a Committee of One. There are not many votes. Most things are done by consensus, after discussion. But everybody understands that if there are opposing viewpoints and one side or the other does not "give in", the way to resolve the issue is by taking a vote. That does not mean everybody has a copy of Robert's Rules (704 pages in the 2000 paperback edition) sitting there, ready to refer to. In fact, I suspect I am the only person on the committee who even owns one, and the reason I do has nothing to with Scouting. It is way too much for a unit committee (or indeed for almost every kind of local organization, but that's a different subject.) When a motion is necessary, someone makes the makes the motion and we discuss it and vote on it. I am involved in some other organizations that do a little more than that, and when things are run correctly some of the other motions in Roberts' Rules can actually expedite things, but first people need to know what they are, or at least the person running the meeting needs to know.

What's the difference between a Parent Guide & Standing Rules ns Policies and Bylaws? Ed, I think most people would understand "Bylaws" to mean a comprehensive document that prescribes, in some detail, all aspects of how the organization operates, and who does what in the organization, whereas a "Parent's Guide" implies a more "targeted" document that covers a few specific topics, and maybe some history of the unit -- more of a brochure sort of thing. When I co-wrote a "Parents' Handbook" for "our" Cub pack years ago, it mainly covered financial issues and uniforming (which were mainly facts that were gathered from scattered sources, which is more useful in Cub Scouts because there are different items to purchase every thing) plus it had names and phone numbers of the pack leaders and was intended to be updated every year. "Practices and Procedures", "Standing Rules" etc. imply something maybe a little more formal than "Parent's Guide" but less so than "Bylaws." Of course, it all depends on who's writing it. I have no doubt that somewhere in the country, there are "Parent's Guides" that are more comprehensive, detailed and complicated than any set of bylaws.

Beavah says: Troop Committee Guide says there should be an adult Outings Chair, but I know a lot of units that don't use the position because they feel runnin' outings is a youth/PLC job and they don't want anyone on the committee micromanagin'. Really? So the PLC can decide that there's going to be a monthly camping trip on the other side of the country, with no consideration of cost, or how long it's going to take to get there, and there's no ability for the committee (or a designated member) to step in and tell the PLC to come up with a better idea? Does the SPL sign the tour permit? (That form that has places for both the "unit committee member" and "tour leader" to sign, and both of those people must be adults.) Does the SPL make the reservation with the camp? (Which, in legal terms, involves making a contract, which you have to be an adult (at least 18 in most states) to do.) I hope not, in all these cases. You need one or more adults to be the final gatekeeper for trip planning, to sign the tour permit, and to make a binding reservation with a campsite, outfitter or whoever. Regardless of that person'(s) title(s) in any particular unit, they are fulfilling the role of Outings Chair (or whatever it's called) in the committee guidebook. I also have to take issue with this: Here are some areas where havin' something written down and practiced I think has some merit, and isn't covered in any of the BSA literature, or only in a cursory way. Without going through each of the items on your list, I would say that about half of them are sufficiently handled in the BSA literature. I suppose that in theory there is nothing wrong with having local bylaws that restate the national policies and guidelines, but what often happens in real life that there will be a strong temptation to "tweak" these on the unit level, to the point where you have unit bylaws that are now contrary to what national has specified. The one group of topics that you have listed where I think the BSA leaves room for local "policies and practices" are in the financial area. Spelling out in writing how "Scout accounts", fees for outings, etc. work, is not a bad idea. "Our" troop does not do so, but there have been times when I wished we did. (I have not pushed it, because I have been involved in bylaws-writing processes in other organizations, and I am concerned that it would open up so many cans of worms simultaneously that I'd probably be sorry I did it.) But I definitely would NOT call the document "bylaws" in a Scout troop. I agree with FScouter on that, and I think "Parents' Guide" or something that would probably be best. In fact, when I was a Cub Scout leader, we did create such a thing (2 or 3 pages if I recall correctly) and I think we called it a "Parent's Handbook." If I had to guess, I would say that after I left it probably didn't survive for another two years, if that.

It seems like paranoid hysteria to me. Reminiscent of Cold War anti-communism propaganda, but jacked up a bit. I agree. What this film (or at least, the trailer) reminds me of the most is the "militia" movement of the 1990's, and there is some evidence (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34070149) of a recent resurgence of that movement -- or at least the rhetoric surrounding it. It seems to me that this film is part -- at least mildly, and possibly unintentionally -- of that rhetorical resurgence. If that's the case, I do wish the filmmaker would have left the Boy Scouts out of it. Scouting has been fighting for several decades against the perception that it is a paramilitary force, and even though this filmmaker seems to be pro-Boy Scout, I think he has inadvertently harmed Scouting's fight against that perception.

Things like the strength of the patrol system, uniforming etc. can be factors in a decision, but you need to keep in mind that the reason a boy joins a Boy Scout troop, and stays there, is to have fun. Hopefully, within a couple of years, as he is maturing and learning, he will "get" the fact that there are other reasons to stay, but it is tough to expect that from a 10- or 11-year-old. (I'm generalizing, because there are some brand new Scouts who do "get it" and some who never "get it" even into their high school years and sometimes into adulthood! But on the whole, a young Scout is more likely to stick with it if he is having fun.) The point is, if a boy is not having fun, and leaves Scouting, all of the great benefits of a patrol system, learning responsibility and self-reliance, building character by overcoming challenges, etc., all of that stuff is not going to happen, because the boy won't be there.

When you say it is "likely" that your boys would be split up into different patrols in troop 1, I'm not sure what that means. If you asked for the boys to stay together, would the troop say ok? Or is it their belief that the boys need to be split up upon joining the troop? If it is the latter, that might be a red flag for me. One of the benefits of the New Scout Patrol concept (which it sounds to me like troop 1 does not use) is that boys from the same den get the opportunity to stay together, at least for the first year. This eases the transition from Webelos to Boy Scouts. Then when they have been in the troop for a year, if there is not room for all of them in the same regular patrol, it wouldn't be quite so "traumatic". If you combine that with the fact that your boys seemed to like the boys in troop 2 better, that would give me a clear direction if I were advising my son which to choose. (And since there doesn't seem to be any "disqualifying" factor in either troop, it should be the boys' decision.) Troop 1 may have the "better" program now and a more experienced SM, but programs change over time and inexperienced people gain experience. If there is an influx of boys into troop 2 who want a more active program, plus some of their parents as ASM's and troop committee members who want to support a more active program, that can happen.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

SMT, I watched the trailer a couple of times also and it is pretty clear that the director did not intend "a very negative portrayal of Boy Scouts", just the opposite, he intended a very negative portrayal of everyone except the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts seem to be portrayed as the last best hope of America in "a world gone mad." Actually I think the film isn't really "about" the Boy Scouts so much as being about the director's bleak vision of America's future, with the Boy Scouts as sort of the vehicle for showing what's wrong and how it can be fixed. I don't buy into the vision, though. As for tea parties, I prefer coffee myself. I think it's worth noting though that (as BrentAllen mentioned) the film seems to take a direct shot at President Obama, with the change to the words of the pledge of allegiance so that the students are pledging allegiance to the President instead of the flag. And sure, there have been films that took shots at past presidents, including President Bush. But one thing that can be said for Michael Moore is that in criticizing President Bush, he left the Boy Scouts out of it, unlike this director.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

As for the shooting range scene, I had pretty much the same thought as OGE. But I'm not quite sure what the point of the shooting was, in the context of the film. Maybe if I watched the trailer again I would pick it up. (Also I had the sound very low since I am at work.) Whatever the point is, I think it can be said that subtlety is not the hallmark of this film. That comment also addresses a lot of what Oak Tree said. Politically, the film is very cartoonish. It reminds me in a way of "Red Dawn", in that there are no grey areas, just good guys and bad guys -- but it goes even further than that because it implies that "the threat is within."

I think when the BSA says "uniform should be as correct as possible" at a BOR, number one, they are implying that the uniform should be worn, and number two, they are leaving up to the common sense of the BOR members whether the Scout has made sufficient effort to wear the uniform correctly, under the circumstances (and the circumstances may include the Scout's own circumstances.) If I am chairing a BOR, I would start with this: If the Scout is not wearing a uniform, AND HE OWNS ONE, I want to know why he isn't wearing it. I might say, "I see you aren't wearing your uniform, would you like us to reschedule it for a day when you are wearing it?" (I can tell you that the people who actually do chair BOR's in "our" troop would simply tell the Scout that the BOR will be rescheduled and that he needs to be wearing the uniform.) But either way, I think it's fair and reasonable to require that a Scout who owns a uniform have it on for a BOR. Now, for those who don't own one... it's sort of moot in our troop as there are so many opportunities to own a uniform without paying full price, or any price at all in some cases. We have a uniform closet, with a somewhat erratic selection that mostly favors the lower sizes, but you never know what is going to walk in the door. In cases of true financial need, if there was nothing suitable in the closet, we have ways of getting a Scout a uniform if necessary. There are a couple of benefactors who would not think twice about writing a check for a full uniform if told there was a need (though if it was an older Scout they would probably want to know if the Scout has a job and can contribute something, on the principle of do-your-best.) As far as I know, there are no Scouts in our troop who do not have a uniform, except in those cases where the uniform is outgrown and the family hasn't gotten around to buying (or finding) a new (or used) one yet. If, hypothetically, there was a Scout who did not and could not have a uniform, it would not be reasonable to deny him rank advancement on the grounds of not having a uniform. The other issue is, the Scout has the uniform on, but he doesn't have a sash. I say, so what? In our troop the sash is really optional. Even at the district level, I do not think an Eagle candidate would be turned away for no sash. As for patches, so there's an extra temporary patch or an optional patch where it's not supposed to be. I wouldn't say anything, and that's assuming I even know that there was something "wrong." (There might be an exception if a Scout is wearing something he really isn't supposed to be, like say a Philmont arrow if he hasn't been there, or just to be ridiculous, Wood Badge beads. Of course, those things can be easily removed.) On the other hand, I think rank and POR patches raise the "as correct as possible" issue. These patches are awarded by the troop, and they should be put on the uniform within a reasonable time. I would actually hope that if a Star Scout is wearing his Tenderfoot patch, or if the SPL is wearing an APL patch when he hasn't been an APL for 2 years, SOMEONE (like the SM at the SM conference) would have already said something before the Scout reaches the BOR. If I am chairing the BOR, I would ask the Scout about it. If he says that nobody has mentioned it to him, I would go on with the BOR and suggest to the Scout that he that he correct the problem as soon as possible and strongly suggest that he wear his current insignia to his next BOR. And then I would have a word with the SM.

Ok, I guess Beavah is of that mindset also. Why can't we assume, unless there is evidence otherwise, that a person who says "my troop" simply means "the troop of which I am a member"? As in "my country"? Or will people think I am saying I own the country?

Hmmm, First of all, I'd like to know how "The Scout" thinks he's going to make Eagle when it looks like he's at least 17 and he's only Second Class. Second of all, if I am correct on my uniforming history, he is wearing a shirt from the 70's, and possibly earlier. His rank badge has the color background from the 1970's, I'm not sure when that went "out". I guess he just likes wearing an old shirt and badge, because his friend has a "current" (well, almost current) shirt. Third of all, the political motivations behind this film are pretty obvious, and funny. The Congressman who is trying to shut down Scouting is even named "Marx." And Oak Tree, since you invoked the same phrase as the film-maker to describe the evil that the film-maker is warning against -- "political correctness" -- could you explain what exactly that phrase means in this context? Also, I think this film is about more than just the Boy Scouts. Notice that the kids in school are pledging allegiance to the President, rather than the flag, and that "one nation, under God" has been changed to "one nation, for equality." I may be off base here, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the film is coming out under the current administration, not the previous one.