NJCubScouter

I haven't said anything about this before because I was taking a wait-and-see attitude. I think politicians on BOTH sides have jumped on this a bit too quickly. The question is, what really happened. Today, when I read the statements of Private England, I think there is a logic to what she says. I was never in the military, but Trail Pounder was, and since he and I disagree on everything else, it seems pretty significant that he also sees no logic in the idea that these soldiers did all this on their own. By the way, where did they get the dog leash if it was not provided for them? Or the black hoods that they put on the prisoners? Did they find them in a store room left over from when Saddam's guards were in charge? Or did one or more of their superiors, or some "agents," say, here's what you do, and here's some stuff to do it with? And by the way, how exactly would six or seven soldiers in their 20's, from "Middle America," know what actions would be especially humiliating to Muslim men? I have been hearing all week about how they made them do this or that because this or that is especially humiliating to Muslim men. I have to tell you that in my 46 years, most of that spent watching and reading the news and reading a wide variety of other stuff, if you had come to me and said "how would you especially humiliate a Muslim man," I would have a tough time answering. It's not something that most Americans think about or know about. And yet we are supposed to believe that a bunch of soldiers barely older than my oldest child (and some not even, probably) suddenly developed on their own, these techniques with no instructions, prompting or encouragement? It doesn't make any sense.

Looking at some of the other articles on WorldNetDaily makes me a bit skeptical about whether anything on that site can be believed. It looks like the far-right-wing version of the black helicopter and tinfoil hat (to hear the alien radio transmissions) crowd.

Adrian, which "liberals" believe all of that? What I find amusing is the constant refrain from you, Rooster and maybe a few others, that "liberals believe this," and "liberals believe that," with no evidence that "liberals" actually believe any of it. Maybe a few people believe it, but in my book, if someone "routinely defend(s) the degradation of women, deliberate murder of innocents, schooling of children for violent crime, and totalitarianism as part of some valid "cultural heritage," in ANY country, they aren't a "liberal" at all. At least not a liberal in the way that I am. I think that what you do is decide what beliefs you oppose, and slap the label "liberal" on it. Rooster has done the same things many times, including a post in the past day or so, I'm not sure whether it is in this thread or another one. It's easy to "win" an argument when you are making up what the other side believes.

Rooster says: And I think when Rich establishes a better relationship with God; he will be very regretful that he spoke those words. I say this because I believe in the power of prayer, and I'm certain that hundreds, if not thousands, are praying for him. Rich Tillman obviously loved his brother if he ever asks himself where did that love come from, hell realize that there is a God. Maybe. I'm sure that is what you think and believe. But I think you are projecting your beliefs onto other people. Not everybody who believes in God necessarily believes all of what you have written above. Another thing that I notice is that unlike you, I have no opinion about other peoples' relationships with God, or what they will realize if they pray or if they think about love or anything else. I really don't care about other peoples' relationships with God. That is for them and God to sort out at the appropriate time. I do care about their relationships with the rest of the human race. As Thomas Jefferson said, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

When I read all this about Pat Tillman's youngest brother, my reaction is: Can't we give the kid a break? Of course his attire, behavior and language were not appropriate -- when viewed with the cool, calm eyes of people whose brothers have not just died. But his brother did just die. (And by the way, though we don't know the brother's age, I believe Pat Tillman was around 27, so this "youngest" brother is probably in his early 20's or perhaps younger.) Haven't you folks ever seen someone react emotionally -- even somewhat irrationally -- in their time of grief after losing a loved one? I sure have. Although the most common emotional reaction is just sorrow and the pain of loss, another possible reaction is anger. So this kid took no care in what he was going to wear, or what he was going to say, and when he got up, he said the first thing that popped into his head. In a situation like that, it is unlikely that the first thing that pops into one's head is likely to be very profound or illumination. But he did not prevent anyone else from making statements of a religious nature, he just reacted to them. I can see how someone who has just lost their brother, is attending the funeral and hears an endless series of statements along the lines of "God called him home" or "It was God's will," which people tend to say at funerals, might lash back emotionally. I think that for many mourners, the time to "put things in perspective" is not necessarily right away, and everybody runs on their own clock when it comes to this sort of sitaution. I do have to disagree with Merlyn, I don't think the brother's statement necessarily indicates that Pat Tillman was a non-believer in God. Not being "religious" does not automatically equate to a non-belief in God.

I just went back to that site and found this: While the Scouting movement's principles are noble and worthwhile, Scouting, as a human institution, has been guilty of corrupting those principles in the past on issues of race, political ideology, sex, socio-economics, and religion. Most of those failings have been corrected by Scouting, but today, Scouting has once again corrupted its bedrock principles of equality and openness on the issue of sexual orientation. Does that sound like people who want to destroy Scouting? Maybe it does to some of you. To me it sounds like an expression of concern that "Scouting" (or as I would phrase it, the current national leadership of the BSA) has gone down the wrong path on this issue and is acting contrary to the true principles of Scouting. In fact their statement sounds very similar to statements I have made, except that I am more specific about who I am talking about, and I don't think I've ever used the word "corrupted" or its variations. I probably have said "distorted" in the same context. It's the same concept, they just use a stronger word. Who knows, maybe they got the idea from my posts. (Just kidding.) As for their statements about unfortunate aspects of Scouting's past, I know what they are referring to in terms of race and I guess I know what they mean in terms of "religion" and "sex," but I don't understand the references to discrimination on the basis of "political ideology" or "socioeconomics." Unless, with political ideology, they are referring to same issue as today. I myself have said that the belief that gays should be excluded is both a religious belief and a political belief. I have a feeling they are referring to something else with "political ideology," but I am not going to guess.

ProudEagle says, about the site bsa-discrimination.org: The site was quite informative about the true motiviations and desires of the BSA's opponents. It makes it quite clear that the objective of these people is not some sort of reform, but rather to destroy the BSA entirely. Though I must say, this is by no means the most passionate or extreme of the anti-BSA groups, a fact that is somewhat disturbing... ProudEagle, can you cite some specific examples from that web site to support your statement that their objective is to "destroy the BSA entirely"? Or that their objective is NOT "some sort of reform"? I had looked at the site a few times in the past, but after seeing your post, went back and read some (not all) of the material there. There is a lot of information there that appears to be factual, and there are also expressions of the writers' own opinions, which should not be surprising. Obviously their opinion is that certain BSA policies are wrong. I assume they believe that these policies should be changed, though I did not see anything specifically advocating that. On the other hand, I did not see anything specifically advocating anything. I certainly did not see anything advocating destruction of the BSA. I didn't even see anything that implied that. But perhaps it is there and I missed it. Where did you find it?

Politics was pretty rough and tumble in the 18th and 19th century. One of my favorite stories is from the 1884 presidential campaign, when it was alleged (correctly, according to most historians) that Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland, a bachelor at the time, had nevertheless fathered a child. Some Republicans were heard to chant, "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" After Cleveland won the election, some Democrats turned the chant around: "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!" It would be interesting to see what today's mass-media 24-hour news cycle would do with that. I agree with Bob about why negative advertising contnues: Sometimes, it works. Then again, sometimes it doesn't. I am not sure if the campaign of 1800 included any personal attacks, but I do know that in that year's rematch between Adams and Jefferson, Jefferson won. I also think "negative advertising" has much more impact today, with the mass media and 24-hour news.

Good question, Eamonn, and I have one of my own. The bar at the top of this thread says that the thread has been "Read 0 times." How can it have been read zero times when there are 3 responses to the original post? Plus, I went away and came back and it STILL says zero times. Don't ANY of us count?

PatBB, First of all, welcome to the forums! Your solution to the "gay issue" of "local option" is right on target in concept, if not in detail. There is no need for a vote involving parents, individual Scouters and older Scouts (the latter would be inappropriate for other reasons) when the BSA already has a good-old established way of decision-making on the unit level. That is, the CO decides who the leaders are, both individually and in accordance with any "blanket" criteria they may have. (See below.) Unless you meant a nationwide vote on whether to do this, but I'd rather just see the BSA make decisions in the manner that its by-laws already provide -- just make the right one (local option) this time is all I ask. Bob responds to you, Pat, as he has responded to me and the number of other posters here over the last 2 years (and probably before that though I wasn't here) who have favored local option: You cannot have a national program if every sub group can change the rules. Imagine the NFL if every team played the game differently. Bob portrays allowing units to have an option on gay leaders as allowing them to "change the rules." That is not the issue. What the local-option supporters ask is only that NATIONAL change the "rules" regarding gay leaders to what the "rules" ALREADY are regarding most other leadership issues. BSA rules (or more correctly in some cases, the absence of a national rule) allow a CO to restrict unit Scouters leaders to one gender, or not to; to restrict leaders (and youth members) to those who are members of the CO and/or members of a particular religion; to ban leaders who may not present the "right example" in certain ways such as being seriously overweight, an example that my son's troop fortunately does not follow; or to permit, or ban, leaders who have certain minor offenses in their distant past, for example such as drunk driving, possession of a small amount of pot, etc. In other words, the CO's make the rules as to who can be a leader, because National lets them. Those subjects on which National enforces a uniform rule as to who cannot be a leader are the exception, not the "rule." What they have decided to do is to retain the "gay issue" in this "exceptional" category, instead of treating it like most leadership issues and letting the CO decide. In response to Bob's NFL analogy, actually we need not imagine what would happen if every team played the game differently, because that is not the comparable situation. I think a more analogous question would be something like, Imagine if the NFL allowed every team to charge a different price for beer at their concession stands. (And, of course, they do, and the BSA should allow each CO to develop its own solution to the gay issue, as they allow CO's to resolve the vast majority of leadership issues on their own.) And, although I agree with Bob that WOSM is fairly irrelevant as far as the operation of the BSA, I was amused at this: It will never expel the BSA because without the financial support of the BSA, WOSM would not exist. Oh, now might makes right on moral issues, eh Bob? Fascinating.

Ah, the garters with the tassles, I remember them well. I did not know that Cubs had yellow tassles, the only ones I ever saw were the green ones for Boy Scouts. At the time, the green for Boy Scouts (and the red for Explorers) fit in to what was then (I believe) a new overall color scheme. I have patches from the period in which there is a "BSA" logo with the B in blue (or at least I thought it was blue, maybe it is yellow, I can check tonight), the S in green and the A in red. I believe the S is "wearing" a red beret. Obviously the red was "traded" to Boy Scouting and the green to Exploring/Venturing sometime during my 25-year absence from the BSA. I have described these knee socks with the garters and tassles to my son -- unfortunately they do not seem to have been saved along with my uniform shirt and my patch collection -- and he can't believe anyone would ever agree to wear such things. I personally remember thinking at the time that although most boys wouldn't be caught dead wearing them, I personally liked them at the time, I guess on the theory that if you are going to wear a uniform, it might as well have some "pizazz." (Or maybe the theory, at least subconsciously, was to look as much like B-P as possible -- in addition to the standard knee socks with the garters and tassles, when they re-introduced the "campaign hat" and introduced the red berets, my troop voted for the campaign hat. (Though, group photos indicate, within three years the troop had almost completely switched over to the baseball-cap style hat.))

I suppose the quickest and most effective way for people to "debate" this would be if all of the posts in the last "Balboa Park" thread could just be automatically copied into this one. Same city, same parties, apparently just about the same lease, same situation, so presumably, the same people will have the same comments. But I guess we are not "there" yet technologically, so people (not including me unless it gets off the subject of this particular lawsuit) will just have to debate it "manually." Note, the above is mostly ironic, tongue-in-cheek commentary. But seriously, the similarities between the two lawsuits make me wonder why they were not either brought as one lawsuit, or combined (or in lawyer-speak, "consolidated") into one for purposes of the court's decision, since it is the same parties, same geographic location and the same issues. I have had cases consolidated with fewer similarities than that. I bring this up mainly because a side-effect of such a consolidation would have been that the threads would have been consolidated, too.

Hunt, Well said, I agree fully.

Welcome to the forums Don! Don says: "Arrow of Light" is not a rank, although it would be pretty difficult to complete the "Arrow of Light" requirements without acheiving Webelos Rank, in Cub Scouting. Actually, it would be impossible. Arrow of Light requirement 1 (both the "old version" and the "new" 2003 handbook) concludes with the words "and earn the Webelos badge." (Not "rank," by the way, though Webelos is both a rank and a badge. I am not sure where it says in the handbook that Arrow of Light is "not a rank," and since I do not own the 2003 Webelos handbook and do not plan to, I will not guess. If it says it, I believe it, though I am not sure what the practical distinction is because the requirements have the same "feel" as every other "rank" in Cub Scouting.) As you say, the Arrow of Light requirements are designed to prepare a boy to earn the Scout badge (not "rank," heh heh) immediately after he crosses over to a Boy Scout troop.

mikeb, Welcome to the forums! The World Conservation Award is, as you say, simple enough. There are a couple of sentences on this page: http://usscouts.org/advance/cubscout/worldcons.html exlaining the purpose of the award but it probably is no more than is in the handbook and it's nothing you wouldn't have figured out anyway. I think it is a good award to get for several reasons, one of which is that most of the Cub Scout requirements, especially at Wolf and Bear, may seem kind of "disconnected" to a boy sometimes. You get some from over hear and some from over there, and of course the boys are learning things and doing things, but the World Conservation Award ties together a few of the requirements in a way that might make the boys think a little more about what they are doing, and how they are helping other people and the world around them, and how they might do more in the future. The other thing you have probably already noticed is that there are three different sets of requirements at the Cub Scout level, one each for Wolf, Bear and Webelos. They are all keyed to the requirements for the rank earned at that age level, so for each one the boys do the specified requirements (or in Webelos, earn the specified Activity Badges), plus the conservation project. I always thought that was a good bit of planning; a boy can only earn the award once as a Cub Scout and the "difficulty level" of the requirements increases as the boy get older, but no faster or slower than the "difficulty level" of the requirements for the rank the boy is earning anyway. In other words, my son had to do more to earn this award as a Webelos Scout than he would have had to do if he earned it as a Wolf, but he was able to do more in the fourth and fifth grades than he would have been in the second grade. Oh, and the patch is cute.

I have read with some amusement the "sub-thread" here mostly between MikeF and BobWhite over who makes the decision about whether someone participates or not: Philmont or the local trek/unit leader. MikeF has conclusively demonstrated that as long as the person meets the published objective statistical criteria (height weight blood pressure) it is a local decision who participates. Bob can't seem to accept the facts as they really are. I guess it sounds a little too much like "local option" to him.

John, when I said "where," I did not mean physically where I can read it. I am sure that the resolution that you posted the link to (which is the document I thought I had linked to, but now see that I linked to the accompanying press release by mistake) is in the minutes at BSA HQ. That isn't the point. What I meant was "where" in any place that a Scouter who is not located in Irving, TX might normally go to find out what the BSA's policy is on something. That would mean some leader handbook (Scoutmasters Handbook, Cub Scout Leader Book, Troop Committee Guidebook), or maybe a training video or training syllabus, or some guidebook similar to the Guide to Safe Scouting or Youth Protection Guidelines or SOMETHING that an ordinary Scouter can buy at the Scout Shop or hear about as part of a formal training course or something like that. Not just a resolution posted on a web site. I am not questioning, at this point, what the "policy" is. Regardless of what it is called, the BSA has made clear what consequences await an openly gay Scouter or applicant. I am just saying that in an organization that publishes rules, regulations, policies, procedures, guidelines etc. etc. for a very wide variety of subjects, the BSA has chosen a rather strange and unique way of making people aware of this particular "policy."

Shell says: As far as I klnow, they do not single out specific groups or people. Shell, here is a link to a document on the BSA's official web site that includes a statement on the "policy" regarding gay leaders. http://www.scouting.org/media/press/020206/index.html I myself have questioned where the "policy" is. You would think it would be in an actual publication, rules and regulations, memo to unit leaders, or something. But a resolution by the BSA on the BSA's official web site is official enough, I guess. You will see that this statement does "single out" a "specific group." Shell, in one of your earlier posts you said: Why must our values and morals be lowered to make all behavior acceptable? I haven't seen anyone in this forum advocate that "all behavior" should be acceptable. I certainly haven't advocated that, and don't believe that. When it comes to leaders, I agree with the way the BSA handles issues of "behavior" except for the single case of gay leaders. National automatically excludes very few types of people: People who have committed serious crimes (obviously including any sort of sexual abuse,) and openly gay people. Almost everybody else can be a leader if the local unit (the CO) appoints that person. If a person's bad behavior is really notorious, like someone who is known around town to be a serial adulterer and has fathered numerous children without supporting them, I suppose the council or even national might step in and terminate that person's membership. But, sticking with my example, there is no policy that everyone who is known to have committed adultery is automatically banned from leadership positions, nor is there a policy that everyone who had fathered a child out of wedlock is automatically banned. Same is true with anyone else who might be considered a "bad example," such as a drunk driver, multiply-divorced or whatever else you might think of. There is local option for almost everything when it comes to leadership, and when council or national does step in it is on a case-by-case basis considering the particular circumstances. Automatic termination in all cases seems to be limited to criminals and gays. I don't think gay people belong in that category. That is why I think the "gay issue" should join almost every other "leadership issue" on the list of things that are a local option. I suppose if you assume that homosexuality is immoral, then the "policy" makes sense -- at least within a unit that shares that opinion. But I don't assume that, and an ever increasing number of people no longer believe that. As the daily news indicates, this nation is divided over the issue of homosexuality. I don't think the BSA should impose a national solution on its members when there is no consensus either way, either inside or outside the organization.

SA, Excellent observation. I have wondered the same thing myself.

Mike says: He has multiple diagnosed psychiatric disorders that severely affect his ability to relate to others - especially authority figures. I pray daily for some breakthrough that will give him some more effective coping skills, but I am also mindful of a quote from the official 2004 Philmont Planning Guide, "Experience demonstrates that psychological or emotional problems frequently become magnified, not lessened, when a participant is subjected to the physical and mental challenges of a trek at high elevation, carrying a heavy backpack of steep, rocky trails." It's really the last part of the last sentence that caught my eye, but I wanted to leave in the context. So it says that, right in an official Phlmont document? That sounds like a pretty powerful clue about what should probably happen in your particular case. I wonder, have you shown this passage to Doctor Dad? From your posts, I have increasingly had the feeling that what really needs to happen here is that the boy's parents need to take a step back and think some more about what is best for their son. Is sending him to Philmont really the best thing for him? The passage you quote might make them think again about this question. And, look, I have sympathy for them, I also have a child who is under psychiatric treatment and has been classified "emotionally disturbed." As a result of her condition (which is probably worse than this boy's if his condition is "mild"), saying "no" to things that she wants, or wants to do, and enforcing that "no", is sometimes very difficult and unpleasant. But it has to be done. So I can readily understand a parent of such a child saying, "You want to go to Philmont, we'll make sure you go to Philmont, no matter what anyone says." But that is even more reason for them to question whether that is the right thing for their son. Ultimately of course, you may still have to make the decision, but I hope the parents make that unnecessary.

It's funny how when BobWhite is talking to someone who disagrees with a BSA policy, the BSA is always a "they." Their organization, their right to choose, their house. I have a suspicion, however, that pdunbar regards the BSA not as a "they," but as "we." Just as I do. And funnily enough, Bob also refers to the BSA as "we", sometimes, when it suits his purposes of the moment.

ASM56, Thank you for pointing out that I am free to leave the BSA and form a new "scouting" organization. (I put "scouting" in quotes because as discussed in another recently active thread, if I used that word, the BSA would most likely sue me.) Since I see you are a new member of the forum, you may think you have come up with an original idea here. Actually, in the 2+ years I have been in this forum, about 20 different posters have suggested that I leave Scouting, or pointed out that I am free to leave, or have wondered why I don't leave, or have wondered why I stay, or some other variation on the theme, and some of these people have coupled their suggestion or wonderment or helpful pointing-out with the advice that I am free to form my own organization. So, since you have been so helpful in pointing this out to me, I will be helpful in return and point out to you what I have pointed out to many of those who have preceded you: While I am free to leave, I also am free to stay. And that is what I choose to do. Is this a great country, or what? And, while I am staying, I am also free to continue to criticize the BSA's policy and point out how it contradicts the true principles of Scouting. Well, at least, the anonymous Internet "me" is free to do so. I am not so sure that the actual real-live "me" is free to do so in the real-life context of my Scouting activities, and actually I have no desire to do that anyway, and I don't. My real-life Scouting activity is centered on my son and his troop-mates and I would never want to do anything that might jeopardize my ability to be a part of that. Again, freedom, it's a great thing. What some people don't seem to understand, however, is that freedom isn't only for them and people who agree with them, it's for everybody. Even me.

I have been trying to find time since yesterday to respond again to BobWhite, but TwoCubDad's several posts have it all covered, and then some. I agree with everything he said... matter of fact I am not sure I have ever disagreed with TwoCubDad. Scary, isn't it? So whatever he says, assume I'm saying it too, and maybe I'll jump back into the discussion and maybe I won't. Right now I think I'll go to another thread and discuss religion with Rooster. Well, except, TwoCub, you still haven't learned that when you use satire or make a joke, you need a smiley face or what I do sometimes, just say "That was satire." I almost always "get it," like the controlling legal authority of course gave me a good laugh, but as you may have figured out, not everybody has our sense of humor. Pdunbar, the one loose thread here as far as I am concerned is, did the old CO finally, at the end, agree to give up the money and equipment? You say the new CO is getting it, but you don't say exactly how that happened. If the old CO saw the light and gave it up, then as I said before, all's well that ends well. The important thing is that the boys will have continue to have Scouting, and it is much easier to do that if the parents and other friends of the troop have a CR to deal with who is not on a power trip.

NW, unless I missed it, you did not identify who made that statement. Is it Gary Locke? (It wasn't too difficult to put together his references to himself as governor, the state you (NW) are from, the Henry Jackson references and the fact that the speech shares some sentences (but not the whole thing) with the Gary Locke speech linked-to by Shell in another thread.) It is interesting to note that while Governor Locke says positive things about the BSA, he has also made statements criticizing the BSA's exclusion of gays. (I posted the link in the thread, "What do you say?" ) This shows that you can support and/or be a part of the BSA and still want them to change that particular policy (like me and Governor Locke.) And, with all respect to eisely, I think it also undercuts the point on which this thread is apparently based. The idea I get from eisely's initial post is that it takes some great amount of bravery to publicly endorse the Boy Scouts, and the implication is that this bravery is required because of the BSA's anti-gay policy. I don't really think that's true at all, and here is Governor Locke, simultaneously praising Scouting overall but criticizing this one policy, which is out of step with what Scouting is really all about. Or is Governor Locke being brave and cowardly at the same time?

Eamonn, So what were you expecting from National, consistency?