NJCubScouter

And if my group of 50 people want to pray over a loudspeaker in a town, we can do that, too! Well, maybe you can, maybe you can't. Is it your loudspeaker? Who owns the property where you are standing? Is there a hospital within hearing distance? A school? (Any school, not just a public school.) Or any other facility where activities might be disturbed by amplified sound? And as others have suggested, is there a noise ordinance? Another question that might be asked is, while you are blaring your message (be it a prayer, or music, or a political slogan, or whatever it might be) to those who may not want to hear it, are you behaving COURTEOUSLY? Ed?

I said: And, although people refer to the following in a shorthand way as "no prayer in school," what the government actually may not do is to require a student attending a public school to choose between participating in a government-prescribed prayer that he/she does not believe in, and inviting negative consequences from other students by refraining from the prayer or leaving the room. (Or in other words, no government-organized prayer in school -- or at public school football games or graduations.) I just re-read this and wanted to mention, in case, there are any nitpicky First Amendment scholars out there (Merlyn?), that yes, I realize this is somewhat of an oversimplification. It captures what I believe is most important about the school prayer rulings. I know that a student also may not be compelled to say a prayer in school, but to me the really important thing is that the protection of childrens' rights in school goes even further than that. Perhaps I missed another aspect or two as well, but hey, this is not the kind of law I do every day.

Packsaddle says: Ed does understand the answer to his rhetorical question. The reason for his discomfort is that for a long time much of society DID allow government to effectively endorse whatever dominant religion that happened to occur locally. Specific prayers (and other things) WERE forced on the public and individuals WERE discriminated against if they didn't participate or if they objected. To a lesser extent this still occurs here and there. However, government now has been forced to remain neutral by the rulings of the Supreme Court. This neutrality is fair and it simply embodies the golden rule. No one is denied the right to practice their faith. Anyone is still free to pray if they choose. Or not. BUT, to persons longing for those 'good ole days', this seems like a loss of freedom. And if they conclude this because they no longer can force their faith on others, then I suppose they are correct. They no longer have the freedom to do that. And of that I am glad. Wow. Packsaddle, although I know we are generally not doing the voting thing anymore, I gave you a thumbs-up for this. I wish you could still get stars for it. I would vote for it 2 or 3 times, but the system won't allow that, so I will save my multiple voting for November. (Public Notice: The final nine words of the preceding sentence were a joke.) Your statement captures in a very conscise way, the relevant history of this subject and I exactly what I myself believe about it. Great post.

Ed says: If I want to pray out loud I can. And if 50 people join me they can & neither you nor Merlyn or NJ can stop us! Why you ask? Because we are exercising our 1st Amendment rights! Look, Ed. I'm not trying to stop you from doing anything. I'm telling you what the law is. And it's not about what you are talking about. You or 50 other people can pray whenever and wherever you want to -- as long as in so doing, you are not disrupting some other activity, or blocking traffic, or whatever. (In other words, all expression may be subject to "reasonable restrictions as to time, place and manner", if that is not verbatim from some Supreme Court case whose name I forget, it is very close.) The "Establishment Clause" puts no restrictions on you as an individual. It puts restrictions on the government. The government may not use tax dollars to finance religious activities. It may not display purely religious symbols on public land. And, although people refer to the following in a shorthand way as "no prayer in school," what the government actually may not do is to require a student attending a public school to choose between participating in a government-prescribed prayer that he/she does not believe in, and inviting negative consequences from other students by refraining from the prayer or leaving the room. (Or in other words, no government-organized prayer in school -- or at public school football games or graduations.) This is how the "Establishment Clause" has been interpreted, whether you like it or not. I didn't do any of these things, though I support them. But here's the real point: All of these "rules" are restrictions on the government, not on you. You may want the government to be able to do these things, but it can't. That's the law. And that's the way I like it. This way I can practice my religion and you can practice yours, and the government is leaving both of us alone as we do so.

Ed asks: Doesn't the 1st Amendment say something like "freedom of religion" and freedom of speech" NOT "freedom from religion" or "freedom from speech"? Ed, the last time you asked basically the same question, I quoted the exact words of the First Amendment -- not "something like" the words, but the exact words -- and pointed out which of those words has been interpreted by the courts to produce the legal rulings that you do not like. And that was not the first time it has been explained to you. Yet you continue to act as if you do not know the answer, after it has been supplied to you several times. I understand that you do not like the answer to your question, but by this time, you have to know what the answer is.

Should I be tolerant of someone who insists that pi equals six? It certainly would make life simpler -- if you don't insist that your circles be round, or closed, that is. (A little geometry humor there.)

Eagledad says: Do you really think that if gays become allowed in the BSA, there wouldn't be a change in G2SS? Some adults believe older scouts shouldn't be allowed in the same tent with younger scouts and many folks view homosexuality as form of mental disorder. Parents will insist a change to protect their sons. And why would this be any different than separating girls from boys like we do in Venturing? I don't have time to write a whole long response to this, or to the rest of Eagledad's post, which I strongly disagree with. I will just say that I think that this whole focus on "sleeping arrangements" misses the point of the policy. Can anyone find an official statement by the BSA (as opposed to just the opinions of Scouters in this or other forums) that gays are excluded as a means of Youth Protection? Or to protect Scouts from sexual predators (adults or other youth), or anything to that effect? If so, please post it, but I don't think you can, because as far as I know such a statement does not exist. All of the BSA's statements regarding homosexuality deal with the "values" issue, which is of course debatable in and of itself (and, I believe, incorrect), and not with any supposed danger to youth posed by gay people. Nevertheless, I do agree that some parents would perceive a danger to their sons if openly gay leaders (and Scouts) were permitted. (And by the way, when you say "if gays become allowed," the fact is gays are allowed, in practice, as long as they keep it a secret.) Although it is not a big topic of discussion in my troop, there are certain parents I know, who, I suspect, would be extremely uncomfortable to learn that an openly gay person had become a leader -- not necessarily for reasons of morality, but for the safety of their sons. (And this assumes our CO would permit this, about which I can't even guess; I am not even sure what our CO's governing body is, or who is on it.) That is one of the reasons I favor local option. If the CO decides that openly gay leaders are to be allowed, the parents who are uncomfortable with that can go to another unit or seek to form a new unit at a different CO. The disruption that might be caused by this would be regrettable, but I think it would be preferable to the current situation. And anyone who reads this forum knows that parents and Scouts think and talk about switching units and/or forming new units, all the time -- for some people, every waking moment, it seems. And the reasons are not necessarily limited to dissatisfaction with troop leadership. In my own real-life, I have heard people talk about choosing a troop for their graduating Webelos, or sometimes about switching troops, for such varied reasons as the night the troop meets, the number of fund-raisers the troop has during the year, the requirement of parental participation (or lack of such a requirement), the troop's attitude toward female leaders, whether the troop has an attendance requirement, the degree to which a troop seems organized or disorganized, flexible or inflexible, the troop's attitude toward young men with special needs and a host of other things. My oldest daughter's Girl Scout troop was broken up because of school redistricting, and it is my understanding that the same redistricting brought my son's former Cub Scout pack into existence (though he himself was not in existence at the time.) In other words, stuff happens. Throwing one more issue into this already complicated mix is no big deal.

FOG, in his own inimitable style, says: I knew some very interesting heterosexual moms when I was a teenager (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more) I think this is one of those times when most of us wish you would "say no more" before you post, not after.

And anyways when he does his most important job for the troop, that he has, Advancment Coord. he comes up with crazy policies and rules that prevent scouts from advancing in a timely manner. As I understand your posts, the other leaders don't want to take on this person directly because of feared retribution from his mother. But on the above-quoted problem, a solution to this problem does not necessarily depend on the other leaders. This person is not permitted to adopt any policies or rules that would delay anyone from advancing. (Can you give a few examples, by the way?) The requirements are the requirements, and when they are satisfied the boy must be given the appropriate recognition. The parents of the boys affected can appeal to council, and if you are talking about a real delay (in terms of months as opposed to a week or 2), they probably should.

I was wondering the same thing, Laurie. At first I thought it would be a combination of the two names. (Mason?) But there would be no reason not to say that, and the fact that the post stopped at exactly that word seemed a bit too coincidental to be an accident. Now I think maybe the interchangeable nickname had nothing to do with their actual names at all, but would be one of several common "terms of endearment" that KS found inappropriate to repeat in this forum. It's just a guess.

Did anyone else get a message that SCOUTER_Terry had replied to this thread? Then I looked and there was nothing there...do, do, do, do, (twilight zone theme). Maybe Hops or OGE thought Terry's post violated the rules of decorum and deleted it. (That was a joke!)

As I was driving my son home this morning after his week at summer camp, he informed me of something relevant to this thread. The SM, having apparently decided that the "nicknaming" in the troop was beginning to bear a suspicious resemblance to "name-calling," decreed that there are to be no more nicknames other than what a boy chooses for himself, or agrees to. My son was particularly gratified about this new rule (though one might say it really isn't a new rule, it's just an effort to make sure the boys stay on the right side of the Scout Law), having earned an unfortunate and unwanted nickname last year at summer camp after oversleeping a couple of times: Sleeping Beauty. I believe that this was originally done in a light-hearted manner and in fact I believe it was an adult leader who first said it last year, without any malice toward my son. My attitude toward these things is that if kept within reasonable boundaries, at worst it is a minor annoyance and one has to learn to live with minor annoyances. Unfortunately some of the boys who picked it up, crossed the proverbial "line" and made "Sleeping Beauty" into a taunt against my son rather than a light comment. Other younger boys were similarly targeted, resulting in the SM's action. Personally think it's a good idea that the SM has drawn a line like this, and not just because it is my son. Of course one would wish that drawing such a line were not necessary, but sometimes it is.

This pretty much seconds the comments of others. There is no shame in not earning Arrow of Light, particularly if you have just joined Cub Scouting at the beginning of fifth grade. If the new recruits are 11 at the time everybody else is crossing over, they can choose to join the troop at that time, or they can stay till the end of fifth grade and probably will have time to earn Arrow of Light if it is something they want to do. It should be their choice, and of course the sooner they turn 11, the greater their range of options, so that is a factor to consider as well. The only way they can join the troop without having earned Arrow of Light is to be 11 or have finished fifth grade. My suggestion for a boy who joins at the beginning of fifth grade and decides NOT to go for Arrow of Light (either because he will be 11 at the time everyone else crosses over, and wants to join a troop at the same time, or because he just doesn't want to rush through the advancement process) is to focus on the advancement requirements OTHER than the activity badges. Primarily, the requirements (for both Webelos badge and Arrow of Light) that prepare the boy for the Boy Scouts, such as knowing the Oath, Law, sign, etc., and those that focus on character and citizenship (flag ceremony, the new Character Connection, etc.) Then he can squeeze one or two activity badges in there, because the activity badges are designed to introduce the Webelos to a Boy Scout-type advancement process, but with age-appropriate requirements. Or to put it another way, the most important thing is that the boy have a good experience that prepares him for what comes next. Rushing through the requirements just to earn badges is something that a boy CAN do if he really wants to, but he and his parents should first understand the options and limitations that confront a boy who has essentially arrived in the pack two-thirds of the way through the Webelos program. I also think that the one thing NOT to do is tell the boy to wait till Boy Scouts instead of joining the pack, the result of that probably would be that he never joins at all.

The above is true regardless of whether there has been a meeting to review the leadership (which there should be, though in my experience there almost never is.) I wrote that, now let me clarify it. I have seen this kind of discussion take place in a committee meeting, where it was "agreed" that the leaders would all continue, or that so-and-so would be the new Scoutmaster, or that so-and-so was "elected" to a position. But officially, such agreements or elections are nothing more than a request to the CO by the committee, or a majority of the committee, to appoint a certain person. What I have almost never seen is a discussion with the IH or CR present as to who the leaders should be for the coming year. (And when I participate in discussions of this topic, I always think back to how my father became SM of the troop I was in. Several troop committee became dissatisfied with the previous SM, and eventually a majority "voted" him out and had an "election," in which there were multiple candidates, of which my father got the most votes. But of course, I didn't know everything that was going on, I was about 16 and the ASPL. I did hear that the "old" SM "appealed" to council, but the change in leadership was upheld... so I have to assume that the IH or CR give their blessing to the change in leadership, either before the committee "vote" (which I doubt), after the "vote," or when contacted by council to see what the CO wanted to do. Which evidently was to endorse the committee's "decision.")

By signing the roster with the list of adult leaders (with any changes), the head of the Chartered Organization (aka IH aka Executive Officer) is appointing (or reappointing) those people for the coming year. (It may be a different piece of paper in different councils, and it may be a different piece of paper in mine now that everybody is on Troopmaster/Scoutnet, but the important part is that somewhere in the charter package is something that the IH signs that signifies the appointment or reappointment of the leaders listed.) The above is true regardless of whether there has been a meeting to review the leadership (which there should be, though in my experience there almost never is.) It also is true even if the IH does not really understand the significance of what he/she is signing, which I have also seen happen. And, to answer your question, my son's troop does not have any limit on the number of one-year terms to which a leader may be appointed. I have never heard of one that does. Such a limit would not really be enforceable anyway because the authority to appoint or not appoint a leader, and the authority to change the rule to allow for a greater number of terms, rests with the same person. All such a rule would really be is an "agreement" among leaders in the troop to "retire" after a certain number of years.

Also, I don't guess the question is just for rooster. Fair enough, BigDog. But given my opinion on the subject, it is definitely not a question for me. It does, however, sound familiar. There have been a few threads in the past that ended up on the subject of "what would you do if the policy changed." I once speculated that if local option became the policy, a certain regular poster on this forum (who last posted on July 7 except for a "See private message" on July 13), would just go along Scouting. In response, he got very angry and said I didn't know anything about Scouting, which I think was the first of about ten times he told me the same thing. I think his apoplexy and the resulting verbal abuse may have been due to the fact that I was talking about him and a possible change in BSA policy in the same sentence.

Rooster, what you say in your post might have some bearing on the BSA, if the BSA was predicated on your particular religious beliefs or your particular way of thinking about and relating to God. But it isn't. The BSA does not take sides on matters of religion, or at least it says it doesn't. As for boys in tents, if that were really the concern the policy would not be limited to those who are "openly" gay. I find the whole discussion of gay boys to be almost completely academic anyway, because I have never even heard of someone still of Boy Scout age publicly proclaiming that they are gay. As for your hypothetical 16-year-old, let's say he does have those thoughts, and let's also say he is inclined to act on them, which takes him over the line from being a "homosexual" to being a molester or a rapist. Do you really think he's going to tell anyone before he does it?

If the leadership of Scouting ever decided to leave the question of having gay leaders up to each council, as some on this forum suggest... BigDog, I don't mean to intrude on your conversation with Rooster, I just want to clarify what the issue is. The "suggestion" is to leave it up to each unit, not each council. If it were done council-by-council there would still be a lot of units that would be required to discriminate against their will. And since I don't think the BSA would ever make a unit accept an openly gay leader if they didn't want to, in effect the policy would be local option in some councils, but the current policy in other councils. So I think "local option" means its an option that every unit has -- to be determined by its CO. I'll step back out of the conversation now.

Tent mates: Who snores the loudest? (and no matter what you think, it ain't me.) It's me. Or at least, that's the consensus within my troop. Nobody has proposed banning me from camping trips yet, though at this point there is only one person left who will voluntarily agree to tent with me, and he brings his walkman (with extra batteries) so he can listen to music while he sleeps instead of to me. (Truth be told, he snores pretty loudly himself, but not as bad as me.) A couple of months ago, another guy who was sharing a tent with me actually abandoned the tent in the middle of the night to go sleep in his car. "Local option" has many meanings, I guess.

Plagiarized though it may have been, I just want to point out one thing about the initial post in this thread. It does little good to point out what the government could do (or permit people to do under its authority, which according to the U.S. Supreme Court was the case with this prayer) in other countries such as Israel, Iraq or China, when those countries do not have a constitutional provision equivalent to to the one at issue here, or if they do have it, do not abide by it. I know for a fact that Israel has no equivalent of the "establishment clause" in its basic laws, although they do protect freedom of worship. (I say basic laws because (like the UK) Israel has no written constitution, but they have laws defining proper governmental conduct.) To the contrary, Israel in effect has an "established religion" (another thing it shares with the UK though not quite in the same way) and a number of Israel's laws would be unconstitutional in a nation that had our "establishment clause." But that's ok, because Israel was formed for a unique purpose and its laws serve that purpose. Iraq is an interesting case at the moment, of course. It has an interim constitution, and one of the big issues in adopting that constitution was the role Islam would play in the government. That is going to be a big issue again when they try to adopt a permanent constitution. But it is safe to say that Islam will get some special mention in the permanent constitution, as it did in the interim one. Again, this is in conflict with the idea of an "establishment clause." So, what they do at a public school in Baghdad -- or Tehran, Rihyad, Damascus, Cairo, or any other Islamic place -- is not relevant to what goes on at public schools here. China, well China. I have no idea whether they have an "establishment clause," but it doesn't matter. China could have just about anything protecting the rights of its citizens in its constitution, but that is meaningless because the government ignores the constitution and just does what it wants anyway. The state of human and civil rights in China is not exactly something I want us to emulate here. I would point out, however, that you would not be likely to hear a prayer to Buddha at a sporting event in China for 2 reasons: One, under Communism China is officially atheistic, and Two, Buddha is not a deity.

ITD, the issue is not about what is "next" on anyone's agenda. I don't know what is next on anyone's agenda. I have to tell you, there are a few people whose agenda includes keeping "avowed homosexuals" out of Scouting, and everywhere else, who make me a little nervous as to what may be next on their agenda. As for "transgender," I don't follow what you are saying. As I understand it, that term means someone whose gender has been changed. What does that have to do with the part of my post that you quoted. (And by the way, if a unit wanted a leader who was publicly known to have changed genders, I don't know of any BSA policy that would stop them. I assume they would be treated according to their new gender, so Joe-turned-Joanne would bunk with the other female leaders but could not be a leader in an LDS unit, while Joanne-turned-Joe would be welcome with the guys in any unit anywhere. (That was a small, and probably not completely appropriate, attempt at humor there.) But, all seriousness aside, what's the issue here.

nldscout says: The problem with the concept of allowing CO to deceide if a Gay person is a good leader or not and weather to allow them in thier troop or pack is what do you do at Multi-unit events. What happens to the Camporee's and Jamboree's? This would create more of a mess than there is now. I don't think local option would necessarily have any effect on district, council or national events. How does it affect my troop if the troop in the site next door has an openly gay leader? Chances are, I won't even know he is openly gay. I have been to a number of council and district events, and other than the few neighboring-unit Scouters who I actually know, what do I really know about any of the people I see at these events? Not very much. I only know what is visible, and nobody is going to be wearing a sign that says "I'm gay," nor are they going to be dressing in drag, nor are they going to be doing anything else to "flaunt" their sexuality. (If they do, they would be kicked out for other reasons.) In fact, some of the leaders I do see now are poor role models for their own boys, and those of my boys who see them, for various reasons having nothing to do with sexual orientation. They sneak cigarettes when they think nobody is watching, they get a little too loud and boisterous, and in one case, on a joint trip with another troop, the SM of the other troop spent half of Saturday in his bunk watching movies on a portable DVD player. My point is, "role model issues" are all around us. Why just pick on one? Unless the issue of camporees is really an excuse for keeping gays out completely. And what about the differences in membership standards that exist right now? Those who oppose "local option" sometimes ask how you can have different standards for membership, but the fact is that different standards exist right now. For example, as I understand it, LDS units do not have female leaders. If an LDS unit is camping next to my son's troop at a camporee, the adults and boys in that unit are going to see something that is a "challenge" to their concept of what an adult leader should be -- that is, uniformed female Scouters. But that's the way it goes, and it works, and it would work for the issue of gay leaders as well.

I had not seen this thread at first. It seems to me that with the YP guidelines written the way they are, a 19 year old Venturing "youth" cannot share accomodations with an adult Venturing leader (who by definition is at least 21.) I don't see why it would make a difference that they are at a Boy Scout camp. (Meaning, if they were NOT registered as Venturers but as Boy Scout adult leaders (since we are talking about 18-20 year olds) it would be ok. It is calling them a "youth" that makes the difference.) If this seems unnecessary, perhaps it is, but then the rules should be clarified. I have posted about this before, about the hypothetical 17 and 18 year old friends who are both registered in both a troop and a crew. This week, at a troop camping trip, they can't share a tent (since one is an ASM), but next week at the Venturing camping trip, they can. Is the risk of abuse any greater because of the identity of the unit under whose auspices they are camping at the given moment? Clearly the answer is no. They are still the same people. But that's what the rule seems to say. It is the inevitable result of treating the same age group as youth in one program but adults in the other.

Ah, I knew Rooster could not stay away from this thread for long. Of course, the BSA policy has nothing to do with who shares a tent with who. (There are other policies that do, but none of them in any way prevent a "closeted" gay youth from sharing a tent with anyone.) The policy has to do with role models. At least, that is what the BSA says.

Boleta says: I think that BSA should consider a don't ask policy when it comes to this issue because of the extreme alienation of some supporting groups." Which groups? The problem with this issue is that no matter which way the BSA went, there would be "alienation" on one side or another. That is one of the reasons why each unit (or CO) should be permitted to decide for itself. As for the "don't ask" aspect, silver-shark answered that. Whether one likes the policy or not, it is a "don't ask don't tell" policy.