NJCubScouter

I have a few memories of Scouting from before I was old enough to join Cub Scouting, because my father was a Scoutmaster even before he had any sons old enough for Scouting. (In fact he was a Scoutmaster before he was married, and an ASM before that, going back to when he aged out of being a Scout; and though he "retired" as SM about 15 years ago, is still an ASM and received his 65-year pin last year.) I remember my father taking me (probably at age 6 or 7) to a Camporee just for a day visit; I am not sure why he wasn't there for the weekend, probably he had to work but had time to drive out for a few hours. As for my earliest memory of MYSELF as a Scout; well, for whatever reason, I do have a clear memory of sitting in the school gym bleachers for my first meeting as a Cub Scout. I don't remember what I did exactly, but I do remember being there. I also have a memory similar to Bob's, sitting on the basement steps watching my father run a Webelos den meeting downstairs, though I was already a Cub Scout, just not old enough to be a Webelos.

Scouting asks that I be tolerant of people whose belief in God is expressed through rituals and beliefs different than my own. It does not require that I be tolerant of people who have no belief in God. Actually what the Scout Handbook says, about a Scout is this: "He respects the beliefs of others." ("Reverent), and "He offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own." (Friendly.) Neither place says that the person has to have a belief in God before we are required to respect them and/or their beliefs. I suppose one could argue that taken in context, the sentence from "Reverent" really means the RELIGIOUS beliefs of others. After all, it follows the sentence "He is faithful in his religious duties." But under "Friendly," that is not the case. Respecting "people of all races and nations" "even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own" seems to encompass beliefs, or non-beliefs, about God as well. I think this passage requires respect for the atheist. Now, I guess one might ask, is this open-ended language ("others" and "all") really as open-ended as it seems? What if the belief of another person is that it is ok to commit illegal acts? What if a religion still practices ritual human sacrifice? Are we required to "respect" that as well? I'm guessing the answer is "no," though the text leaves it an open question. But an atheist does not break the law, or harm anyone else, by being an atheist. I don't see how the atheist falls outside the "respect" required of us, under "Friendly."

I suppose I should just let this go... but a couple of days ago, Jason said: Jews The Bible says God will forgive the Jewish people of their sins & make them know Him by Jesus opening their eyes. With no offense meant to the Christians in this forum who do "respect the beliefs of others" -- in other words the vast majority of you -- I just wish to point out that the Bible in which Jewish people believe (what Christians call the Old Testament), does not even mention Jesus. And for those who believe that the Old Testament prophesizes the coming of Jesus, that's fine -- but Jews don't believe that, either. I won't elaborate on this, because as I say, my intent is not to offend Christians. All but a few Christians in this board have shown Jewish people the same respect, by not implying that the Jewish religion is somehow incomplete without adopting Christianity.

My son's troop is chartered to a Protestant church, I prefer not to mention the denomination. To my knowledge, none of the current members or leaders of the troop are congregants of that particular church, though I believe one or two are probably members of the same denomination. (About 70 percent of the troop members and leaders live in towns other than the one where the troop is, for historical reasons not relevant to this thread.)

Bob, I think what is worse is to just make things up, and then deny the clear meaning of your words, as you have done in this thread. I'm done sparring with you, in this thread anyway, so say whatever you want.

Uncleguinea says: Jew -- I'm fascinated by Judaism and am currently reading a book about it. Had a Jewish boy in the troop at the same time and in the same patrol as the hindu boy. We ate a lot of chicken on campouts. We're just fascinating people. Seriously though, did this Jewish boy strictly follow the Kosher food laws? Or follow them at all? I ask because it is very difficult to follow the Kosher laws strictly, or even closely, if you are an individual boy in a patrol or troop. It is much easier if it is a group effort -- which is why one of the camps at the Ten Mile River Camps of the Greater New York Council has a strictly Kosher dining hall. I don't think you could get a non-Kosher meal there if you wanted to. And that means not just avoiding ham and shellfish, but making sure that all foods are Rabinically approved, as well as maintaining separate cookware and utensils for meat and dairy. Of course, all of this is one reason why most American Jews (including me) follow the Kosher laws either not at all or in an extremely lax manner. When I was growing up, one of the troops I was in was about 40 percent Jewish, but I do not remember anyone really insisting on following the Kosher laws. It would have been interesting if they did; I'm guessing that the freeze-dried foods sold for backpacking did not have the Rabbinical seal of approval, but I bet there are stores in New York (and elsewhere) where you can buy those that do (though not inexpensively.) Regardless of what I believe or what you believe, wouldn't you agree that the world would run much more smoothly and with far less violence if we all just agreed to respect the beliefs of others? I sure would agree (though I suspect people would have guessed that.)

I know Ed, I know. I never do learn. The funny thing is, most of what has been written in this thread, and by who, could have been predicted after the initial post.

Bob, you make a number of assumptions about what is happening in jhkny's council, but you really have no idea whether what you are saying is true or not, regarding some of what he says about his particular council. Is the money from the land sales being used for what you say it's being used for? It probably is. But you don't know that it is. It may well be you are correct that the SE did not actually remove the ADC. But you don't actually know it. It could well be that all sorts of things are wrong in the particular council, money is being "misplaced," the SE is acting in a dictatorial manner, the Executive Board is not going their jobs and letting the SE run amok. Maybe it isn't, maybe it is. Whichever it is, you have no more of a clue about it than I do, because neither of us is there, and neither of us even knows which council it is. The advice you give jkhny, that his CR should be active in council meetings, is of course correct. (Maybe, by the way, he is the CR, I don't think he actually said.) But I think he might go further than that. If things really are this bad, and the CR after some period of attending meetings agrees, then the CR can see whether other CR's want to take some action. Of course this gets us back to the bylaws and the fact that unlike most of what the BSA puts in writing, this is not made available for the people who are "governed" by it to actually read in the privacy of their own homes or meeting places. You have to go to the council office and ask for it. In another Scouting-related forum, I heard that someone went to his council office (and since that person identified himself by town and state, it happens that it was my council as well), whoever he asked consulted with the SE, and the SE came rumbling out of his office demanding to know why this person wanted to see the document. At least, that is what the person reported. Now, if that sort of behavior is typical, it means that the document is essentially "secret," because who wants to go through that sort of intimidation in order to read something? But anyway, and this is to jkhny, once your CR (the person who has a vote at the district and council level) does find out what the structure is, when elections are held and for what positions, he/she can see if other CR's have the same concern. It may be that they decide to elect new members to the Executive Board or whatever other positions there are to be elected. (I'm not really positive who gets elected, because I've never read the Bylaws, not that I have gone so far as the guy in my council who got grumped at by the SE, and actually tried or anything.) If that is the appropriate action, and it actually happens, and if the SE is actually running amok as you seem to describe, then new people will be in the positions of ultimate authority in the council, and corrective action can be taken.

Ack. The third-to-last sentence in my post should say: The law decided that governments cannot engage in religious practices for religious purposes, not the ACLU.

I want the cross on city seals And it doesn't bother you that some people living in the city might not be Christian? Or that some people of all religions living in the city might believe in the First Amendment, which prohibits governmental establishments of religion? Jason, I think the problem is that you want a theocracy, and you had the misfortune not to be born in one. I want GOD in the Pledge He's there, he's there. He'll probably continue to be there (see the part about the money, below.) I want my kids to pray in schools If you mean organized prayer, so send them to private schools. Don't expect my tax dollars to pay for your prayers. I want "In God We Trust" on our money And it will continue to be there, and if it ever does get to court, the courts will probably decide that it gets to stay there because it really has no religious meaning. I want my Fire Dept. to put a Manger scene in front of the Station, I wanna see "God Bless America" painted on fire station windows. See the first response, about the cross on the city seals. You don't live in the correct country to have these things. Well, actually, God Bless America on the fire station windows is probably ok, though I suspect Merlyn will not agree with me. I am sick of the ACLU taking these things away from my community! The ACLU never took anything away from anybody. ACLU lawyers filed cases, and if their legal arguments were accepted by the judges, they won. If not, they lost. The law decided that cannot engage in religious practices for religious purposes, not the ACLU. (I do not mean to say that judges are always correct, or even almost always. But I do believe that ultimately, the correct decision is made most of the time.)

I still can't work out how you managed it in 1776 and it took the Irish till 1922. I could take a few guesses: 1. Look at the relative distance between England and Ireland, and between England and North America. This probably made it relatively more difficult and costly for Great Britain to maintain sovereignty over the "states" and relatively easier for the "states" to break away. 2. Ireland was seen as much more integral to the "United Kingdom" (a name that I believe was adopted in 1800, and the full name at the time was United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) than the "states" were, and therefore there was much more incentive for Great Britain to maintain its control over Ireland. 3. Although the relationship between Great Britain and Ireland was, as you know, a very stormy one for more than 1,000 years, at various times the Irish people had what the Americans never received voluntarily from the King, and that is "representation." During certain periods (probably starting around the 1600's) the Irish had their own parliament, at other times there was Irish representation in the British parliament, at times there was both, and at times there was neither. As a result, often there was probably less impetus for complete independence in Ireland as there was in America. (And when there WAS an impetus for complete independence, see reasons 1 and 2 above for the reasons why the Irish were unsuccessful until the 1920s. There were, of course, a number of wars in which the Irish sought various levels of independence, and they ultimately were successful except for the northern counties.) Eamonn, I assume you knew all this, but since you asked the question, there is what I think is the answer. I think the answer really has much more to do with the history of British control over Ireland (which lasted over 1000 years and still exists in the north to this day), than it does with the history of America (in which the British were in control for a relatively brief period of 100 to 150 years. That date would vary by "colony", I know that the British took New York and New Jersey from the Dutch in 1664 and of course lost it and the other colonies 112 years later; other colonies were under British control from much earlier in the 1600's.) And by the way, Happy Independence Day everyone! I'm going to find out on Sunday whether all of my children now consider themselves "too cool" to go watch fireworks with their parents.

Jason, if I misconstrued one of your references to Catholics, I apologize. It was this one: Oh my.......When I say Christians I mean Gentiles. This does include you Catholics which I have nothing against. That sounded to me like you were saying that the "Christians" does not include Catholics, while "Gentiles" does. Now that I look at it again, your sentence structure is so confusing that I probably should not have tried to draw any conclusion about what you meant. (Boy, how is that for a backhanded apology? Sometimes I impress even myself.) And I am aware that there are some Christians who in fact do not consider Catholics to be Christians, so I thought you might be one. Needless to say, such an opinion would not be very popular in my house, nor in my state, where Catholics probably outnumber Protestants, unlike in the nation as a whole, and where overall there is a lot less Bible-thumping than in the nation at large, especially if this forum is representative of people from various parts of the country.

Jason, are you sure your previous account-name wasn't "Wheeler"? I am noticing some similarities, although to be fair, you appear to have picked up a wife and children along the way, which he never did, and you don't consume quite as much bandwith. And I guess it would also be fair to say that you are teetering on the borderline of "civil discourse," while Wheeler, in the immortal words of Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) in speaking of Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), "was borderline for a while. Then he crossed the border." (One of the 20 best movie lines ever.) We'll see which way you go from here, I guess. I also noticed your wife has no "respect" for Catholics. Well, my wife is Catholic, and I bet my wife could beat up your wife. I also notice that you seem to have said that Catholics are not "Christians," and while that is not my fight (being Jewish (or quasi-Jewish)), I am sure there are a few Catholics on here who would gladly knock you around a bit. Just kidding about the violence. My wife and I are both relatively pacifistic and I am sure you have no reason to fear physical violence from any other members of this forum. We'll just have to be content to whap you around verbally, until it stops being fun.

Jason, let me get this straight. Are you saying the ACLU is Satan, or is the tool of Satan, or has some other relationship with Satan? Curious minds wants to know. Of course it doesn't really matter because any of these options are equally ludicrous. Then you compare the ACLU to Hitler, and don't try to worm out of that one, because that's exactly what you did. I don't even have the words to respond to that. (This may be because I don't actually believe there is a Satan except as a symbol, and unfortunately I have no choice but to believe there was a Hitler. I have a lot fewer relatives than I otherwise would, due to him. How you can compare the two... I can only shake my head...)

Good point SA, and I had mentioned something similar in the LAST thread where people were bashing the ACLU. Some people think that the only religion cases handled by the ACLU are those challenging governmental "establishments" of religion; but the fact is that they handle many cases where people are challenging government restrictions on the right to practice religion. Some of these cases are listed on their web site, or at least they were the last time I looked at it. I understand that "free exercise" cases usually do not get the same level of public and media attention that "establishment" cases receive, but they do exist, and the ACLU handles their share.

Yes, I think packsaddle was just being silly, Jason, but not quite as silly as some guy who started a thread equating the first two letters of "ACLU" with "Anti-Christ."

Just another little note, although the film "The American President" is not among my favorites (perhaps because my wife and daughters have watched it on tv/video at least 20 times in my presence, and who knows how many times in total), it has a great speech about the ACLU. I agree with everything Michael Douglas's character says about it. Putting what he says in the context of this thread, Jason, they even defend your right to call them "evil."

It softens there agenda in the publics eye. Jason, what about when the ACLU fought (successfully) for the rights of American Nazis to march in a community with a significant population of Jewish survivors of Nazi concentration camps? Was that also intended to "soften their agenda in the public eye?" I don't think so, and in any event, I can tell you from personal recollection and later reading that the effect was just the opposite. The ACLU in fact lost many members (30,000 if I recall correctly) and many of their largest financial contributors as a result of their stance in favor of freedom of speech. (I wasn't too happy with them at the time either.) The executive director of the ACLU at the time (himself a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust) wrote a book about all of this, entitled "Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom." The lead ACLU attorney in the case also was Jewish. In the annals of "principled actions," I'd say what the ACLU did in the Skokie case ranks in the top few in history. They fought for the rights of people who would just as soon see them put in concentration camps. And as far as "public relations," the ACLU did just the opposite of what any "image consultant" would have told them to do. The ACLU also has defended free speech rights of the KKK and other groups whose ideologies are at the other end of the spectrum from most ACLU members. And, Jason, I don't even know what to say about the post with which you started this thread. It is just foolish.

Rooster says: If his morals are not rooted in a creed and/or an example given by God what stable (unchanging/unyielding) force sustains the moral values of an atheist? Of course, the first part of that sentence could describe the beliefs of some non-atheists as well, so I am not sure what the point is. You can believe that mankind came up with the Ten Commandments plus the other 600+ commandments in Exodus and Leviticus (that only some Orthodox Jews follow all of) and all of the other various moral principles that have come, gone, changed or stayed throughout history, without assistance or "example" from God, and yet believe in some higher power or supreme being, and therefore not be an atheist.

Bob and TP: As I have said many times (every time someone questions why I (and "my ilk") remain involved in the BSA): If I thought that the "values" (or "core values") of the BSA required the exclusion of gay people, or if I (in Bob's words) did not "like the program," I would not be involved. I probably would not allow my opinions to affect my son's involvement if he wanted to be involved, but I would be "just" a parent. However, I do not think that. The BSA's values do not require exclusion of anyone just because they are gay. The "program" does not require it either. The BSA's program and its core values would be perfectly fine and intact if the exclusion of gays was removed, especially if each CO were permitted to decide for itself whether to remove the exclusion, just like each CO now can decide whether it wants to have female leaders, or any number of other things. So, TP, there is no "contradiction" and no "hypocrisy" -- not on my part, anyway. I think there is, on the part of the current leadership of the national BSA. And, Bob, as far as things changing or not changing, I fully realize that things don't always go the way I want them to go. Believe me, I know that from personal experience. But the fact that things have not yet changed on this issue does not mean they will never change. Society changes, the identities of people on national boards change, policies change, what people thought were "values" turn out to just be opinions. Things change. Thirty years ago, when I was a Scout, the idea of a female Scoutmaster was unthinkable. It no longer is. History takes a long time to happen. I doubt this particular policy is going to change during my son's time as a Scout (and therefore, quite possibly, during my time as an active Scouter, though who knows about that), but we'll see. If I stay here, posting what I post for people who want to read it, maybe the policy has .000000000000000000000000001 percent more of a chance of changing.

Bob, you have evaded my questions and instead attributed to me thoughts and opinions that I never expressed and that are not mine. But you do that on a regular basis, so it is no surprise. This is to everybody else: I do agree that writing letters to the editor expressing ones disagreement with BSA policies is likely to get one tossed out. Whether that should be the case or not is a different issue, and probably irrelevant. I personally have never "publicly" protested or questioned any policy of the BSA. (I don't count anonymous postings online, which I realize is another issue(s), but for me it doesn't count.) The reason I refrain from doing so is that in the "real world" -- the one in which people can connect my name to my "self" and more importantly to my son -- it just isn't worth it. I am not in Scouting to "make a point." I am in Scouting for my son, and like most of the rest of everybody here, got "drawn in" by the opportunity to simultaneously do something good for my son and for other peoples' sons, and for the community in general. I do not protest in the "real world" because while I do not think it would detract from "the program" itself, I do think it probably would detract from my ability to participate in it, because it would probably impact on the way some other leaders, and some parents, view me and relate to me. I have no need to be known as "that guy who wants homosexuals going on camping trips with our sons," and I know that some people WOULD look at it that way. (Some people, of course, would not. I have had conversations about this issue with exactly two people connected with Scouting (not counting my father and brother), and both were initiated by the other person, and I responded with my opinion because I was sure the other person was going to keep it in confidence. In one case, the person said he favored the policy and I said I didn't, and we didn't argue about it, it was just a matter of interest how each of us felt. About six months later he told me he had changed his mind, we never got into why, and it really didn't matter. The other person strongly implied to a group including me and 2 other adults that he thought it would be better if the BSA didn't have the "no gay" policy, I said I agreed, and that was it.) Now I can hear some people thinking, ok, if he's not in Scouting to "make a point," then why does he bother posting here on controversial issues? Here's why. Having found myself re-involved in Scouting, I shortly thereafter went online to find resources that would help me be a better leader, and while I did find those, in the same places I found forums on which controversial Scouting-related issues were being discussed. Before that happened, while I was of course aware that lawsuits were going on, I was really just barely aware of the "gay issue" and had only a very mild opinion on it. After reading a number of posts, that changed, and I realized that I felt that the policy was not only wrong, but detrimental to Scouting, and all of the discussion and debate and personal attacks on me -- as well as the statements of those with whom I agree -- has only strengthened my conclusion that my position is correct. (Actually when I first got "into" this subject on another forum, my original position was that no unit should be permitted to exclude people based on sexual orientation, but before I even got to this forum, I was persuaded that "local option" is the way to go.) So, here, online, was a way to "protest" if you will... maybe change a few minds... probably not have a great deal of impact otherwise... vent a little... and NOT endanger my relationships with any "real world" Scouters or Scout parents. And, of course, I also participate in the portions of this forum that are unrelated to controversial issues.

Maybe now I'll have time to actually write this. Bob says: The BSA does not require anyone to agree with all its policies or program, but they do require two things if you disagree. 1. You are required to follow the policies and program as they exist and as you agreed to do when you joined. 2. You are required to disagree in a constructive manner through the channels that exist in the BSA where your concerns can be addressed. If you do not follow the policies or if you disagree in a public manner and you detract from the delivery of the program you can and likely will have your membership revoked. I think we all can agree that if you are a BSA volunteer, you are required to follow BSA policies and that you can be removed for failing to do so. That isn't really what this thread is about. What I would like to know, Bob, is where the other "rules" that you cite are published. Obviously to some extent they are common sense, but only to some extent. Perhaps more importantly, some of the terms you use are not self-defining, and therefore if what you say is really the rule, it is not always going to be clear to volunteer whether they are following it or not. Specifically, where does it say that if you disagree, it must be in a "constructive manner" and "through the channels that exist in the BSA where your concerns can be addressed?" And where is the term "constructive manner" defined? And what if going through channels produces no change, as it has (not) on the issue of gays? At that point is everybody just required to keep quiet? And how literal is the "going through channels" requirement, assuming there is such a thing? Am I, for example, allowed to write a letter to the editor, criticizing a policy of the BSA and calling for it to be changed? Am I allowed to post to an Internet web set criticizing a policy and calling for it to be changed? What if I use my real name in the post? What if I don't? Does it matter? Can I have my membership revoked for what I have posted in this forum over the past 2.5 years? Should my membership be revoked, Bob?

Oops, ignore that. I was starting to write a response to BobWhite and my computer had a problem, and did not realize until now that that actually got posted. Those words are Bob's not mine.

If you do not follow the policies or if you disagree in a public manner and you detract from the delivery of the program you can and likely will have your membership revoked.

OGE says (and I will leave in the last sentence just to preserve the "flavor"): So what we are saying is by looking back we can see that the general attitudes and behavior of the BSA volunters reflected the general attitudes and behavior of American society overall and with changing times, these attitudes changed. Who would have guessed? Ignoring the sarcasm at the end there, "we" are saying exactly that, with one exception (well two, but I'm only including Scouters in my calculations.) I think that "we" (meaning Hunt, TrailPounder, NWScouter, OGE, Eamonn, and now me, a pretty diverse group) would all accept the statement that "looking back we can see that the general attitudes and behavior of the BSA volunters reflected the general attitudes and behavior of American society overall and with changing times, these attitudes changed." The one exception is BobWhite, who I'll get to in a minute. Some of the above writers may not agree with the following, but I personally applaud the BSA for the way it reflected society's changing attitudes toward race. It wasn't always easy. My father has told me stories about being a Scoutmaster in the late 1940's and having to tell a reluctant CR that a black young man who wished to transfer from a collapsing troop was either going to be allowed to do so, or they would have to find a new Scoutmaster. "Even" in a racially diverse city in northern New Jersey, it was not obvious to everybody that a black youth should be accepted for membership. That has much more to do with society than with the BSA, but as much as some people try to deny it, the BSA is part of our society. On the other hand, is it true (as Bob suggests) that the BSA was ahead of the "curve" on race? I don't think so. Others have given examples of why not. My personal observations suggest "not." It has been noted that racially segregated troops did persist in the South into the late 60's (some 15 years after Brown v. Board of Education.) Also, though this is more superficial, can it really be a coincidence that the Boy Scout Handbook did not depict ANY non-whites until the 1972 edition? Did the artists and illustrators not know how to find a black young man to be a model? Or did they just not think of including a black person? (That is what I think, and that has implications for the way Scouting, and society, used to be. Look at old magazine ads for Coke or cars or beer or just about anything else and until the very late 60's you wouldn't have known that there were any black people in the U.S., either.) The point is that we can recognize that the BSA did "catch up" (or if you prefer, "keep up") with society, without drawing a negative conclusion about the BSA. As I said, though, none of this business of the BSA reflecting society, and changing with the times, is ok with BobWhite. Bob has to insist that the BSA is always ahead of the curve. And there's a good reason for that, because if anyone were to believe that the BSA is part of society, reflects society and changed with it on the issue of race, well, they might just expect Scouting to change with society on a more current issue. And Bob can't accept anything that might lead to that kind of thinking.