NJCubScouter

With all due respect I do not see how you can relate the two. This is nothing like what the military does at a Jamboree. This is like trying to clean up after Hiroshima.

The only reference I have seen in this thread to any specific alleged moral failings of Robert E. Lee are that he owned slaves. We could (and I think, have on this board in the past) a lively discussion about whether you evaluate the morality of a historical figure based on the standards of today (because standards do change, and slavery is a perfect example) or the standards of the time in which the person was living. It is a question without a certain answer, though my solution is that if you go around condemning every historical figure who is otherwise viewed as a "good guy," because he did what everyone else in his community and in his time was doing, you end up with a "history" populated almost entirely by scoundrels. And who wants that? Having said all that, I notice OGE mentioned George Washington (who also owned slaves and, historically speaking, might be more entitled to a "pass" because the "immorality" of slavery was in fact the subject of debate and disagreement in 1861 (i.e. Lee's time), much more so than it had been in 1776, 1789, etc. (i.e. Washington's time.)) However, I do not get the reference to Ben Franklin and John Adams. If the issue is slavery, these two in particular were outspoken opponents of slavery and proponents of abolition long before it was "fashionable." Now, on other aspects of morality, we don't need to talk too much about Franklin, it is clear that some of his personal activities were not what we would hold up as a role model to Scouts today. Adams, though, seems to have been in all respects pretty clean, morally speaking. He did not always get along with everyone and then there were those Alien and Sedition Acts, but nobody's perfect.

Screaming Irony? Wasn't he the fourth Native American from the left in an episode of "F-Troop"? As Chief Wild Eagle's deputy chief in charge of sarcastic remarks?

Very interesting. The "summer camp" theories appear to be correct. Basketry is an old summer camp favorite (I remember that being the first badge I ever got at summer camp), and based on the badges I see my son and his friends earning today, Art, Fingerprinting and Indian Lore appear to be among the new favorites. I think Cooking is mostly a summer camp badge as well, or else it is signed off by a Scoutmaster based on a series of overnighters. I see Rifle Shooting and Archery are among the biggies too and I am sure they are overwhelmingly summer camp badges; where I am, there really would not be many other opportunities to do those badges than at camp. The one that sticks out at me as being somewhat surprising is Wilderness Survival. I know they offer that at summer camp but I have seen boys going down the list to schedule their badge sessions at camp, and they almost always seem to zoom quickly past that one. Maybe it is because I am usually watching younger boys do it, Wilderness Survival is an older-boy badge or so its name would suggest. Lynda, I was surprised by the "Unclassifieds" being the largest category in the 1911-2004 column until I realized that the 2004 figure is zero, and that the only categories of discontinued badges listed are those that were discontinued in 1993 or 1995. Many, many other badges were discontinued before 1993, and I suspect that the "Unclassified" category is the total for all of those badges. I remember once looking at my first handbook, from the 60s, and noticing all the badges that had been discontinued (or in effect, "merged" into other badges. Most of these are in the agricultural field. Take a look at this link which purports to list EVERY badge that has existed since the beginning, with years, and in many cases it tells you what badge replaced that badge and/or what badge that badge replaced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BSA_merit_badges Look at all those agricultural ones that no longer exist, like Beef Production, Hog Production, Sheep Farming (all now under Animal Science), and Corn Farming, Cotton Farming, Citrus Fruit Culture (all now under Plant Science), and there are many more. Not to mention ones that have been completely discontinued like Signalling (1991), Stalking (1952; that would have a different connotation now than it did back then), and Cement Work (1952). One final note, it is distressing to see how few kids go for Reading, I assume it is NOT offered at summer camps, but I have looked at the requirements and it is so EASY. I guess it shows how much the earning of merit badges has become an activity for summer camp or special merit badge events. That doesn't seem like a good thing.

Wow, TP, that is a great story, thanks. I guess we all hope that all of our own little Johnnies (both sons and other Scouts) and, lets face it, ourselves, would be able to do the same thing in that situation. And being able to it means not only having the knowledge to do it, but also overcoming the urge to panic, remember skills in a crisis situation, and actually DO it. The injured young man is so fortunate that Scouting enabled his friend to do what he did.

I have been very quiet but this business about the February 2002 resolution requires some comment. That resolution, and all of its flaws and fallacies, was discussed in this forum at the time and shortly thereafter. (I think I joined the forum within a few days before or after the resolution was first discussed here.) It did not resolve the issue, it simply indicated that National had put on a show of listening to those within the BSA who sought reconsideration of the policy (including resolutions from nine councils who sought a modification of the policy, some including "local option"), and then did what they always intended to do, which was to reaffirm the policy. There is no explanation of why an "avowed homosexual" cannot be a role model for the values expressed in the Oath and Law, any more than there had been when this notion was first publicly advanced as part of the lawsuits in the 80's and 90's. There really is no explanation of why there could not be a local option, other than the dubious proposition that exclusion of gays is a "moral value" of Scouting, which it isn't. These were just some of the problems with the resolution as discussed at the time. But the most important thing is, the issue has not gone away and it is not going to go away, and there is no indication that National intends to review it again. (Nor would I necessarily want them to, until there is a significant turnover in the people involved in the decision, so there can be some chance of a different outcome.) Personally I do not think the resolution shows that any of what Prairie Scouter has said was a "misconception" as Bob has alleged.

Welcome Jersey Fox from a fellow NJ person! (I am from the other half of the state. The "Cub" in my name is no longer accurate since now I am a troop committee member, but I am still from New Jersey.) I was at McGuire a couple of months ago for the air show there. (Boy was it HOT that day, my son and I spent much of the day watching the action from the shade under a wing of the B-52 they have on display -- and by sheer coincidence, we met another Scout and his father from our own troop, almost 2 hours away.) And congratulations on this new "mega base" thing! (Although I am not sure if that's the right thing to say to someone who is already living there, it means you will have several hundred more neighbors so that might be a mixed blessing.)

Fgoodwin, I followed the link for this article and it took less than a second to realize that the web site from which you got this article is a "gay web site." Further clicking revealed that it is in fact, the web site of a magazine called The Advocate, which appears to be not only for gay people, but what some people on this forum would call "gay activists" (actually they would say "homosexual activists") and certainly for people who could be termed "avowed homosexuals." So here is my question, fgoodwin, do you think it's reasonable to go to one of "their" web sites, where you will inevitably find the humorous articles (and no doubt the serious ones as well) not to your liking, and complain about it? I mean, what did you expect to find on this web site?

OK fgoodwin, are we supposed to get upset about this satrical article too? The article is obviously a slap at Jerry Falwell and others of his ilk who tried to capitalize on 9-11 to spread their doctrine of hate against gays. In turn, the writer capitalizes on the recent misfortunes of Scouts and Scouters. It's not very courteous, but I don't think the writer is applying for membership in Scouting anyway. So, so what?

I was under the illusion that in this forum, a can of worms was a feast savored by all. Ewww. Can't you come up with a metaphor that is less, well, slimy?

jkhny says: You lose the legal and business niceties like insurance. BUT - "Scouting" HAS run before without any of this. Niceties like insurance??? Unfortunately it's far more than a nicety (and it's not so nice.) I don't know when you think Scouting has run without insurance, but it sure isn't now, and it isn't going to be in the future either. What you'd "lose" along with the insurance is the vast majority of unit volunteers, who would have to conclude, sadly and reluctantly, that keeping their families sheltered is more important than their Scouting activities. In other words, I don't know if you own a home, but I do, and when I am out on a camping trip I don't need the extra added worry that if little Johnny gets seriously injured, I am going to get personally sued for it because the unit isn't covered by insurance, and possibly lose that home. Now, one may ask, what about homeowner's insurance? I can pretty much guarantee you that the minute it became known in the insurance industry that Scout units were no longer covered (I'd give it about a half-second after it happens), every single homeowners insurance application and renewal form would instantaneously have a new question: "Are you a volunteer leader in any capacity with Boy Scouts of America or any of its units?" Answer "no" untruthfully and an accident happens, and you're not covered. Answer "yes" and watch what happens to your insurance rates. Count me out of that one, please.

Rooster says: If the overseers of the BSA are of good character, then the reason why would be this: Because they believe that God and faith in Him should not be mocked. No one should confuse open-mindedness with foolery. Well, there's the old problem, what you regard as mockery of God or faith, or as "foolery," may be someone else's religion. (There are groups that I regard as "mocking" (or worse) of "my" religion, most notably the Christian evangelical organization that calls itself "Jews For Jesus," but that doesn't mean that a member of that group should be excluded from the BSA.) However, Rooster, I would not expect you to recognize this, because you have clearly and repeatedly stated your disagreement with the principle that one should respect the religious beliefs of others, which the Scout Handbook text on two different points of the Scout Law says we should do.

jkhny, regarding your response to Fuzzy Bear's post, I just have one question. Have you ever heard of a "joke"?

Fuzzy Bear, perhaps not expecting anyone to actually agree with his devils-advocate question, says: If God is beyond infinity in knowledge and wisdom, is present anywhere even beyond the edges of the universe at anytime in the past, present and the future, and can accomplish, move or do anything even that which you can not even imagine and has absolutely no needs or desires, then why even bother? My answer: That's a good question, and I have a follow up (or more) back to you: How likely is it that a God, meeting your description, would actually bother to write (or even inspire) a book (or books) to explain himself to the inhabitants of one specific dinky blue-green planet, probably one of thousands or millions or billions of inhabited worlds in its (or His if you wish) creation? And, since God is infinite in time and space (meaning, among many other things, that he can read very, very fast) how many times do you think he has picked up the Bible and gotten a chuckle from the pretentiousness of a species quoting God as saying "Let us make man in our own image"? If God really is as described above, it seems highly unlikely that we look anything like him, if indeed he actually looks like anything we could see. I don't mean to offend anyone, so if my statement offends anyone, I'd ask that they not read it.

If "Duty to "God" means that a BOR member asks a Scout "Do you believe in God," then maybe it is time to rethink what that "duty" means. I do not think anyone has any business asking that question. It is both "personal" and "private" and it is nobody else's business. If someone wants to ask a less intrusive version such as "How do you do your duty to God," at least that is directly tied to the wording of the Scout Oath so I can't object to it, though I am more comfortable in my son's troop where (as far as I know) they don't ask at all, and apparently choose instead to determine a boy's performance of his duty by his behavior and attitude toward others. I have noticed that at Eagle courts of honor, the m.c. will sometimes refer to "duty to God" and "reverence" and how the young man faithfully performed his duties by going to church, and that's all great... but at other COH's the boy's religious life is not mentioned at all, and that's fine too. The CO makes its sanctuary available for Eagle COH's and some choose to avail themselves of this while others prefer the gym building next door where the troop meets, or another location. I personally do not need a troop where references to religion are all-pervasive, because my son and I can go elsewhere to practice our religious beliefs (which are not the same place, but that is beyond the scope of this post) and I am more comfortable if others practice their own religions on their own time. That is not to criticize how any other unit does things; I have no doubt that there are many units in the country that I would not want to be a member of, and fortunately there is at least one where I do. As for "Satanism": I think it is sort of an "academic" issue as I doubt it affects anyone's membership in the BSA. As far as I know, for membership purposes (as opposed to recognizing religious awards or for other purposes) the BSA does not "accept" or "reject" any religion. It (mostly through its units) accepts or rejects (rarely) individual boys. I do not think there is a policy that says membership in a particular religious organization will disqualify someone from membership. Now, let's say Mr. Smith is known in town as being the local minister in the Church of Satan (I am not sure whether anyone would know that, and I do not know what the Church of Satan calls its leaders, since everything I know about the Church of Satan I learned in this thread and in the article Trevorum linked to, but let's assume.) Mr. Smith's son comes with his Dad to join the local Cub Scout pack. I suspect that the leaders of the Pack (hey, an idea for a song title) might want to have a word with Mr. Smith. And let's say it turns out the boy himself attends services in his father's church and is considered a member. The leaders might ask, does this boy believe in devil worship? (According to Trevorum's link, the answer will probably be no, although the portion of the link Trevorum has quoted raises the question of whether the Church of Satan members are actually atheists, which obviously raises a different question.) They might want to know, does he believe in and practice the values of Scouting, i.e. honesty, respect, kindness to animals (i.e. no sacrifices on the altar) etc. If the answers are unsatisfactory, they may legitimately decline the application. Similarly, if for example the boy does join the troop but later takes to telling his den-mates "I am a disciple of the devil and will have him send you all to Hell," well then, Houston, we have a problem. But if he behaves properly, there shouldn't be a problem, "Church of Satan" or not. In other words it is how the person acts that determines whether he has a place in Scouting, not what his unexpressed beliefs may be (unless he is actually an atheist, but if his beliefs are unexpressed nobody will know.)

Ed, I am pretty sure that the ACLU's challenge to government entities as CO's is based on the fact that the CO owns the unit. Can you point to a document where the ACLU refers to ownership of the "charter"? And even if you can, it sounds like a meaningless semantic argument to me. I can understand someone referring to a CO as "owning" the charter because, after, the charter is "granted" to the CO by the BSA. It is part of a contract that gives each party (BSA and CO) legal rights and responsibilities, and it expires after one year unless it is renewed. So, yes, the CO can be said to "own" a charter but that ownership carries with it only the rights that the CO has under the agreement itself. As exemplified in this thread, "ownership" is a concept that is often misunderstood. On the first day of law school, upon venturing into "Property" class, most law school students are taught to think of "ownership" as being a "bundle of rights," and that the entire bundle may be owned by one person, or different people may "own" different rights in the bundle. For example, because there is a mortgage on my house, both the bank and I "own" some of the rights to my house. In my state, I am considered the "owner" of my house, and I own the "legal title," but that is not true in all states. In addition to that, I "own" the right to possess and use my house, but I do not have the right to sell it or demolish it (without the bank's consent.) Both the bank and I own "equitable interests" in the house, represented in the bank's case by the dollar amount remaining due on the loan, and in my case by the difference between market value and the amount due (which is why it is called "equity.") Of course, anyone familiar with their mortgage knows that there are even more complications than that, but that's the point: "Ownership" can be a complex concept, and a home mortgage is one of the simpler applications. If we were to start discussing a condominium in which a person "owns" a unit that is part of a multi-unit building, the "bundle of rights" gets broken down into even smaller pieces, with at least one more "owner of rights" (the condo association) getting in on the act. What I'm trying to show here is that discussing the CO as "owner of the charter" is sort of pointless. What the CO really owns is a set of rights under a contract with the BSA, as well as the unit itself (and even that is not without some complexity, but that's for a different thread.)

He said how the Scout Oath started with I. Funny, I always thought it started with "On." Or did I miss a memo somewhere?

Oh, those wacky 13-year-old boys sometimes, huh?

Is the preceding post correct that the camp under discussion is 25 acres? I got the impression from the first post in this thread that we were talking about an "all-purpose" Scout camp that can be used for summer camp, weekends, etc., as the first post said it had sufficient buildings and sites, etc. What kind of council summer camp can you run on 25 acres? The other camps in the council (as reported by BePrepared) are more of the size I would expect. Four camps in one council is a lot (at least where I come from), and it makes sense that they would sell off the smallest one. As I said before, nobody wants to lose a camp, and I sympathize, but sometimes reality has to rear its ugly head.

How can you not know that scouts do not stay in units with bad leaders or poor programs? Yeah, I hear that some troops have such poor leaders (at least one of whom thinks he knows everything about being a great leader) and/or poor programs, that older Scouts get bored, and quit the troop to join the Sea Scouts...

I agree with OGE, more information is needed. For example, is this a "merged" council, and/or one that is losing membership? In both those situations, the council must make some tough financial decisions that are not going to make everyone happy. We have one council in New Jersey that through a series of mergers, occupies a territory once divided among 8 or 9 different councils. After the merger, the new council found itself with 11 different camp properties, and much of this council has become increasingly urbanized over the past 30 years, so it may be that membership is not what it once was. Of course, as soon as the council proposed to sell one of the camps (located within the council boundaries) to a developer, there was a huge outcry not only from the "neighbors" of the camp but from 50+ years worth of Scouts and Scouters who had camped there. (After a lot of negotiation, the county parks department agreed to buy and preserve the camp, and contracted its operation to a new group, "Friends of Camp --" which funnily enough is composed mainly of Scouters, and the groups renting campsites on weekends are mainly Scout troops, so it was mainly a win-win solution (except for the county taxpayers I suppose, and renting a site is a bit pricier than when council owned it.)) But I digress, the point is that selling a camp is not always the wrong decision. As for the family that once owned the property, based on facts presented, it really does not seem fair to call the $1M payment a "bribe." The family has a valuable interest in that property, specifically the right to recover it if it is no longer used as a Scout camp, and they and the council have agreed that that interest is worth $1M. If they did not agree, the council could say, ok, we will continue to use the camp and then nobody gets anything. Unless the council has already permanently discontinued use of the camp, the family would not be able to simply recover the camp and sell it themselves. As for the donation you mention, are you saying that the family has agreed that the $1M will go back to the council? That would be unusually generous of them. I hope they at least get the biggest plaque as the FOS appreciation dinner, or 1,000 James E. West knots. I understand your distress with the loss of this camp, but unfortunately BSA councils are faced with the same financial pressures everybody else is.

I said: I am not sure what that has to do with Student's position that the ACLU should be able to recover fees, or with my disagreement with that position. I meant: I am not sure what that has to do with Student's position that the ACLU should not be able to recover fees, or with my disagreement with that position. I hate it when I do that!

Leaving the "atheist issue" aside for a moment, and focusing solely on the "gay issue," this whole article is based on a lie, which is contained in this ridiculous sentence: According to the American Civil Liberties Union and others who have joined the attack on the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) these qualities that are intended to take a boy into a mature manhood are wrong because the BSA discriminates against homosexuals, atheists, and females. Nobody is attacking the true values of Scouting, as expressed in the Oath and Law. Those values have nothing to do with whether someone is gay. As for "females," is that even the subject of any lawsuits? Is it even really an issue at the moment? I almost never seen anyone criticizing the BSA these days for excluding girls. It mostly seems to be an issue with those who want to paint the BSA as the victim of attacks, to throw on one more issue that, as far as I can see, isn't really even an issue any more.

Oy, another parody. At least they could spell Senator Reid's name correctly. (See http://reid.senate.gov) I do think this one is funny, though. It helps that it is not making fun of people being electrocuted, which even though I am not easily offended, is pretty offensive.

Oops, I messed up the coding. At least this way, the italics will stop at the end of my last post. (I think.)