NJCubScouter

SR540Beaver says: The Southern Baptists are the largest protestant denomination in the world. We don't have a creed. I find it difficult to believe that Southern Baptists do not have a "creed" as I understand that term to be used in this thread. That meaning as I understand it is, a set of common beliefs (about God) professed by members of the denomination that distinguishes it from other denominations. Are you saying that the Southern Baptists do not have a set of common beliefs? Every organized religion (and denomination of an organized religion) that I know of has a set of common beliefs, with one exception, and that is the Unitarian Universalists. You can profess to not believe in God, or to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, or any of a number of other things, and be accepted as a Unitarian Universalist. That is why they call themselves a "non-creedal religion," and why FOG questions whether it is a religion at all. I agree, it does not really seem like a "religion" to me, either. Which is not to say that many Unitarian Universalists are not religious. Or, eliminating the double negative, many Unitarian Universalists are religious. However, they prefer a "fellowship" in which persons with fundamentally different beliefs are not excluded. I have no problem with that, and coincidentally, my adult daughter, who does have sort of a vague belief in God and Jesus Christ as a result of a Catholic upbringing that didn't quite "stick," was dabbling with the idea of Unitarian Universalism for awhile, and still may. (It happens that the local parish or church or whatever they call themselves is without a building at present, and rents space from her college for their services.) So while a Unitarian Universalist, may be religious, calling the organization as a whole a "religion" does challenge the meaning of the term.

Well, Bob, whichever you slice it in the case of the UUA, it is just more evidence that the BSA's anti-gay policy is inconsistent with its own Declaration of Religious Principles. If the BSA would just decide to comply with that Declaration instead of ignoring the part about being "non-sectarian," it would permit organizations such as the UUA, Reform Jewish congregations, Wiccan churches, some Methodist congregations, some Episcopalian congregations, and some of a number of other denominations, to use the Scouting program to benefit youth in their organizations and communities consistent with their own moral beliefs that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is against God's will, just as it could continue to allow those of other religions and denominations to do the same consistent with their own belief that God has declared homosexuality to be immoral. And you don't need to remind me again that the BSA is a "private organization" and has the "right" to do what it is doing. None of that makes it "right."

The United Methodist Church has a unique place in the history of the BSA's "gay issue," and specifically in the Dale case. Some religious organizations submitted "friend of the court" briefs supporting Dale's position and some submitted briefs supporting the BSA's position, but the United Methodist Church was the only one in which different bodies within the same organization submitted two briefs, one on each side. So I think it is safe to say that the United Methodist Church is divided on the "gay" issue -- not just the BSA's part of the issue, but the whole issue. (Sort of like the country as a whole.) Where the majority will come out, we shall see, and I am sure someone will post about it when it happens.

So, Bob, in other words, your answer to OGE's actual question is that the BSA decided not to allow units to be chartered to UU churches. The "both" is just spin... maybe in part by the UU, but also by U (you.)

zippie, your question has already been answered by others, so let me ask YOU a question. You mention "summer camp" costing "40.00$." Is that forty (40) dollars, U.S. currency? And what is the camp, is it Cub Scout day camp? Run by council or district? $40 for one week? The reason I ask is that this is less than one-fourth what I had to pay per week of Cub Scout day camp for my son. For $40 I would want to make sure they aren't employing the kids as slave labor on a road construction crew or something.

My council announced a "Webelos Twentier Award" about a year ago. The announcement on the council web site says: "Note: This is a local council award." It also says that it is to be worn as a temporary patch (right pocket.) I am a bit curious about the "Webelos Super Achiever Award." Having looked at the link provided by OneHour, it seems to me that this probably is NOT a "national" award, even if you can purchase it in some national Scout Shops. While the name of the site "scoutingbsa.org" has an aura of officialdom about it, the site identifies itself as being a volunteer-run site that was once, but is no longer, the official site of the Viking Council in Minnesota. The page in question also has this statement: "Our goal is to improve communications and to advance Scouting in Minnesota." So, putting 2 and 2 together, if my council has its own "Twentier Award," this "Super Achiever" patch would appear to have been adopted by some, but not all, other councils, obviously including the Viking Council in Minnesota. Which led me to wonder, if you are in a council that has not adopted ANY patch to recognize the earning of all 20 Activity badges, is it proper to wear such a patch that has been issued by another council? And I think the answer is, yes it would. This is based on my understanding (though I can't quote anything) that a UNIT may issue its OWN temporary patches, usually purchased from a vendor. In this case the unit would be simply be using an "outside" council, or a national Scout Shop in such a council, as the vendor. That's ok, right, everybody? I know I have seen unit-generated patches and other awards being worn, some that clearly were special-ordered from a patch-making business and some that were made in someone's garage workshop (like the leather button-hanging awards my father used to print up himself, in fact I have at least one in my patch collection, "Pack 203 Kite Flying Contest 1968." They look like the pack had to pay for them, but I know from personal recollection where they really came from.)

Marty says: A boy can join Boy Scouts if he: is 11 years old, or has completed the fifth grade, or earned the Arrow of Light in Cub Scouts. DS replies: Marty quotes older Boy Scout joining requirements. They have been updated in the past couple of years, but are close. To be a Boy Scout a Scout must have completed the Arrow of Light, or have completed the 5th grade, or be 11 years old. Any one of the three conditions gets a boy in a troop. I read these several times to see what the difference was, and I don't see one (other than stating the options in reverse order.) Both Marty and DS state the same three elements and place the all-important "OR" between each one -- meaning that a boy is eligible as long as he meets any of the three criteria. According to usscouts.org, the last change in the eligibility requirements (Scout Badge requirement number 1) was made effective April 1, 1999 (happy fifth anniversary, almost.) However, that site also has the pre-4/1/99 version and there really is no change in substance, just in the wording used. According to http://www.troop97.net/bsahist1.htm#bsdiv , the last substantive change in the joining requirements was made in 1988: "For almost 40 years, the entry age was 12. The BSA lowered the entry age to 11 in 1949. In 1972, the entry age was slightly lowered again, to 10-1/2 if a boy had finished Fifth Grade. In 1988, the age limit was further adjusted to allow a boy to join either at age 11, or upon completion of Fifth Grade regardless of age, or upon earning the Webelos Arrow of Light award (a boy must be either 10-1/2 to earn the Arrow of Light or [since 1998] he can also earn the Arrow of Light if it has been six months since he completed Fourth Grade)." (Both of the web sites mentioned are unofficial, but I see no reason to believe that either is incorrect in the matters quoted, and I know that usscouts.org in particular has a good reputation for accuracy.) As for the purpose behind questions on the Eagle application (which I just looked at), I think they serve at least two different purposes, one being general information-gathering unrelated to whether the particular application will be approved, and the other being to determine when the applicant became eligible to be a Boy Scout. It does ask some other questions which on their face would seem solely related to information-gathering, such as "Were you a Cub Scout?" "Were you a Webelos Scout?" "Date of First Class Scout board of review" -- and the same question for Star, but not Tenderfoot, Second Class or Life. On the other hand, I don't think it's a coincidence that the applicant's eligibility to join a troop when he joined it can be determined by reading the application. It asks for Date joined a Boy Scout troop, Did you earn the Arrow of Light Award, and Had you completed fifth grade upon joining?, and of course it also asks for Date of Birth. If Date of Birth is less than 11 years prior to Date joined, and the answer to the fifth grade and Arrow of Light questions are both no, it would be reasonable for an applicant to expect that a question might be raised at some point. That combination of answers is the only one that would be "wrong" in the sense that it might suggest a possible defect in the applicant's eligibility for Eagle, which is what I think Greeneagle5 meant by "wrong answer." I suspect that Greeneagle5 already knew that the truth is required on the application regardless of the consequences.

Some of us remember when the BSA did stop using the term "rank," at least for Boy Scouts. (I am not sure about Cub Scouts.) During my last 4 years as a Boy Scout, Tenderfoot through Eagle were called "Progress Awards." I think "Scout," introduced at that time, has always been a "badge," not a "rank." I wasn't around for the change back from "progress award" to "rank," I suspect it occurred either in the late 70's when a lot of the 1972-73 "new stuff" was "changed back" or modified, or in the early 80's. I do sometimes hear boys trying to "pull rank" on each other, as in "I'm First Class and you're only Tenderfoot so you have to do what I say." When I do hear this and the circumstances permit, I gently remind the rank-puller that rank does not equal leadership in the Boy Scouts, and that when there are "assignments" they are given out by the person who is in a leadership position at that particular moment for that particular task (in other words, SPL if it's something the whole troop is doing, PL if it's in a patrol, and including someone in an "acting leader" role in someone's absence.)

Hmm, Acco, I guess I never thought about it before, but when I see the term "historical figure," I think of someone who is no longer "with us." Fortunately Jimmy Carter does not yet qualify.

New Jersey Dude, sorry but in a multiple choice question you can't pick answer that isn't offered as a choice. Nice try though. FOG, I didn't even realize I was enrolled in your class. Where's the dean's office, I need to get a withdrawal slip...

FOG says: Who is the better father? The fellow who doesn't write a check because the receipients don't need the money but loves his kids and is involved with them or the father who wrote the monthly check but had little else to do with his son? Between these two fathers, I'll cast a write-in vote for the third guy, who writes the checks he is obligated to write, AND stays involved with his kids. All other things being equal, that guy would probably make the best Scout leader of the three, as well. I've known all three kinds, and every other kind mentioned in this thread. Of course, I am not sure what any of them really have to do with whether the particular person in Matua's troop should be a leader or not. By the way, as for whether child support is "needed" in any particular case, and who pays it, and whether any money comes back the other way in alimony or anything else, that is up to a court. And nobody needs to tell me horror stories about how a court made a decision that was wrong, or seemed wrong. Believe me, I've seen them myself. But it's the only system we have.

Adrian, I do not know what happened. I am guessing based on the last sentence of our moderator's post that requested the 48-hour break, plus the fact that a person who posted well over 200 times in his first month in the forum, made no posts after that.

Marty says: NJ - "Recent Unpleasantness"? Is that what we are now calling it? Well, I did, anyway. I was looking for a somewhat humorous euphemism, and "Recent Unpleasantness" is probably the king of all euphemisms, since it was used to refer to the Civil War. It is so understated and out of proportion to what it refers to that it becomes funny (in my opinion.) It has now come into use for other situations in which a writer is looking for a euphemism for a major controversy. (Search the Internet for the phrase and you will see what I mean, in fact the first several links I got included two from various Internet forums that referred to a recent poster or posters who were extremely disruptive. So it was possibly even more fitting than I thought when I first used it, at which time I was aware only of its Civil War connection.) Of course, I still could use another 35 days without any "Philoposphy and Isms 101" postings. Well, I think that is a break that you are going to get. At least, unless someone else tries to emulate the initiator of the, um, Recent Unpleasantness. That particular person seems to have been, to use another euphemism, "dealt with."

Oh, and Eamonn, since you threw a bit of musical lyric into your last post, I'll also mention that the idea for the song "We are the World" -- both the specific subject matter and the idea of assembling an all-star lineup to sing it -- came from your "back home," a song called "Feed the World (Let them know its Christmas)" by a bunch of British musicians assembled by (Sir) Bob Geldof into the one-time group "Band Aid." (Which spawned the worldwide "Live Aid" concert.)

Eamonn says: The way that that thread is going makes me think that counting the number of holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall wouldn't be such a waste of energy and that Question Time in the house of Parliament, back home is a good demonstration of democracy in action? First of all, I'm sure the line about the number of holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall had some very sensible meaning to the person who wrote it, but unfortunately he probably didn't remember it after recovering from the temporary state that caused him to write it in the first place. I think the best he could do by way of explanation, when he was interviewed about it, is that "Hall" rhymes with "all." Second of all, you are a brave man for using the term "democracy" around here, after the Recent Unpleasantness. Third of all, I've watched the Prime Minister's Question Time on C-Span a number of times. It certainly is entertaining. And while I would not use the word "good," one could argue that it is a demonstration of democracy in action that is much more open and honest, and useful to the voters, than what we have here. An actual back-and-forth conversation between the Prime Minister himself/herself, and the opposition members of Parliament, is far more likely to produce some real information, and some real insight into what the leaders are all about, than the stage-managed debates and one-sided press conferences we have here. Democracy is sometimes messy and noisy, and you get a lot more of that direct confrontation in the British Question Time. Of course, I do realize that some of the noise is unecessary and that there is a certain amount of "theatre" involved, especially when the Labor members are asking Tony Blair "set up" questions so he can give a prepared speech. And it really wouldn't work here, due in part to the more "separate" nature of the executive and legislative branches as imposed by our Constitution. But it is fun to watch. You are of course right that people are free to not agree with my views and them being wrong is their choice. Ooh, was that a sneaky jab from Eamonn? That's not your usual style. (It sounds more like something I might say.) Or is there an implied after that sentence? Maybe I am naive enough to think that Scouting related discussions used to not include all this legal mambo-jumbo. Still the very fact that the BSA now feels that there has to be a web page related to legal issues on their site is prove that the mambo-Jambo is on the rise. Well, I think your second sentence above helps answer the implied question in the first. I have written before that to an unfortunate degree, the Boy Scouts have become the Litigation Scouts. That does not mean that I always disagree with the BSA's legal position. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree and sometimes I have no position. But what cannot be denied is that the litigation has multiplied. So it shouldn't be any surprise that an "Issues and Politics" section of a Scouting-related forum includes a lot of legal discussion, some of which can get technical -- and repetitive, when certain people refuse to acknowledge that some court decisions involve interpretations of the Constitution. As for "We are the World," I realize FOG was making fun of it, using it as an example of "let's all play nice and agree with each other all the time," which is not the attitude that keeps this section going (though as OGE says, we should all show respect for each other in our posts.) However, I happen to have heard it enough times that I do remember a lot of the words, and the song is about helping other people. That theme has sort of a familiar ring to it.

I should also point out that the use of the phrase "Dead Beat Dad" in the title of this thread probably helped set the discussion off in an inevitable direction. I am not faulting Matua for this, as that is the conclusion he drew from the facts in his possession. But that phrase does imply that a legal requirement has not been satisfied. I can't help regarding that factor as being potentially relevant -- meaning, that if he is defying the law, that would pretty much wrap up his chances at being a leader if I were the CO. If he is obeying the law, that wouldn't necessarily resolve the problem, it would depend on the other facts.

Fboisseau, I think our disagreement is probably a small one. I recognize that the odds are that the conclusion that you and others have reached is a correct one. I am just saying that if the decision were mine to make, I would want more facts. I would not want to base a decision on my own inability to come up with possible explanation that would be acceptable. I'd want to hear the explanation first and then decide whether it overcame my initial reaction -- not to start ruling out potential explanations in advance.

I quit my first troop at age 12, as a Second Class scout. As I recall it was mainly due to being bullied and just not having fun, which I am sure were related issues. My father, who was an ASM and CM at the time, remained involved with the troop even after my next-younger-brother decided not to cross over from Webelos. (Actually he, meaning my father, joined Scouting as a 12-year-old in 1938 and has been involved continuously ever since.) We then moved to another town, and my father became an ASM with the local troop, and after a few months he asked me to meet with the SM. I was persuaded to giving Scouting a second chance. I "aged out" as a Life Scout, having basically decided that I was "too busy" with high school activities to do what I needed to make Eagle, and being content to be SPL and then JASM. (This is a decision I now regret, and every now and then I still hear about it from my father, but considering he has been fighting cancer for more than 2 years, I am very happy just to have him around, and he can pick on me all he wants, even about things that happened almost 30 years ago. Plus, he's right, I should have and could have made Eagle.) After turning 18 I did serve as an ASM (my father was SM by that time) until I went away to college and was not really involved in Scouting again until 22 years later, when my son joined Tigers, but only in the role of "adult partner." At the end of my son's Wolf year, his DL quit, and I agreed to take over.

Before anybody (including the CO in this case) could come to a reasonable conclusion about whether this person would be a "good example," it sounds to me like a couple things need to be clarified. One is the circumstances behind the person's failure to pay child support, and the other is, what he has said about it to people within the unit (particularly youths.) It may be that what he has done is perfectly legal and sanctioned by court orders, for whatever reason. Or it may not be. I don't think enough information has been presented for us to do more than guess. I do agree with NW that even if the non-payment was "legitimate," if he was "bragging" about it, that presents a problem in and of itself. In other words, he may be bragging about how he "gets away with it," which also is not a good role model for the youth. However, it sounds like the way Matua knows the applicant said this is that a junior leader heard a conversation between this person and another youth member and reported it to Matua and others. At best, it is second-hand, and I'd wonder if the junior leader heard the entire converation, which if not, would make it partly third-hand. I am not suggesting the junior leader is incorrect in his reporting; but I have seen enough errors even with adults conveying information to suggest that caution would be in order before taking any action based on a second- or third-hand report of "bragging."

So, we are again debating whether we should debate? Nobody is required to read, or participate in, this section (or any section) of the forum. This section is clearly marked with a big "warning label," which long-time participants don't need anyway. Those who do choose to participate should not be made to "feel bad" for doing so -- though as OGE says, there is a right way and a wrong way to do so.

FOG says: A for legality of uniform items, with the exception of the has, you cannot mix and match uniform items from different uniforms. So you shouldn't wear your 1960s vintage leggings with your Oscar de la Hoya designed pants. That has always been my understanding, old uniforms are ok but not part old and part new. What I did not understand is that Oscar de la Hoya, in addition to being a welterweight boxing champion, also designed BSA uniforms. You have to admire such versatility. But seriously, I have noticed in my son's troop that someone(s) seem(s) to have gotten ahold of some 1970's-style position-patches with the bright green background (which was the "new" style introduced while I was a Boy Scout) and that some of the boys wear them (with the current style of shirt.) I asked a Scout once if the patch he was wearing had been his father's or another relative's, and he said no, it had been given to him by the troop. It's technically a no-no, I guess.

Bob says: Did you know that in a couple places in the Cub Scout Leader Handbook it says that if you are are not going to wear the entire uniform it would be better to not wear the uniform at all? On what page(s) does it say that, Bob?

Hunt says: Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that the United Methodist Church decides, through its internal policies, to change its position on whether homosexual behavior is contrary to Christian morals, and decides that it's now OK. Furthermore, the Church decides that it will not discriminate based on sexual orientation. If this happened, would it be surprising if the church decided that it would no longer serve as the CO for BSA organizations? This is not merely a "thought experiment," it has actually happened in at least one instance that I know of, Reform Judaism, though with a slight variation. The Jewish religion does not have any central policy-making body. Each congregation has ultimate decision-making authority for itself. (I think that in Christianity this is called "congregationalism" or a "congregational denomination"; those terms are not used in Judaism as far as I know, probably because that type of system is universal within Judaism so it doesn't need a name.) However, each of the main branches of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist) have one or more nationwide or worldwide organizations or associations to which congregations may choose to belong, and these make "recommendations" for consideration by the congregations. (And since it is the congregations that are voting on the recommendations, presumably one that is supported by a majority will be followed by a majority.) The largest of these organizations within the Reform branch recommended a few years ago that its members not serve as CO's for BSA units, due to the gay-exclusion policy. It is my understanding that at the present time, only a very small number of Reform congregations serve as CO's, as opposed to Orthodox congregations, where the opinion of homosexuality is consistent with that of the current BSA leadership, and where as I understand it, Scouting is thriving.

The SM of my son's troop has a slightly different spin on the "Class A uniform" thing. He regularly reminds the boys to wear their Class A uniforms; actually, since he usually says this in connection with a particular upcoming event, what he actually says most of the time is "Remember, Class A's!" and the boys are supposed to understand what this means. (I suspect that some of them don't, but they get someone else to "interpret" for them.) Somewhat oddly though, he is not using "Class A" to mean "as opposed to Class B." In fact, the term "Class B" does not seem to be used at all in the troop. Perhaps not coincidentally, there is no established "activity uniform." Uniforms are not worn on weekend camping trips and at summer camp (except at mealtimes and camp-wide assemblies.) When the SM is discussing a non-troop-meeting event where uniforms ARE to be worn, that is when he will usually give the "reminder" about "Class A's." Those events would be such as district-wide events (especially those indoors), the recent trip to the Battleship New Jersey, COH's, Scout Sunday, etc.) When he says "Class A's," I think he is just reminding the boys to wear the uniform, clarifying that it is to be worn at any events where that might not be clear, and also reminding the boys that uniform means "full uniform." Yes, I know that there really is no such thing as an "incomplete uniform," either you are wearing a uniform or you aren't, but I don't think the boys in my troop are unique in sometimes "forgetting" their Scout pants, hats or neckerchiefs." It is "understood" that "Class A's!" means "wear your uniform, and that means the whole thing, not just the shirt." I guess this should be for another thread, but the business of Scout pants comes as something of a "culture shock" for most of the boys and their parents. Almost all of the Cub packs around here (including the one my son was in)basically ignore the existence of the uniform pants, and that goes for both boys and leaders. So when they join the troop, suddenly there is this "new thing" called Scout pants. Our uniform closet routinely lacks pants other than the smallest boy size, but one way or another, everybody (boys and new ASM's) gets the pants within a few weeks of joining the troop.

Here is an article that gives the subject a slightly different "spin," leaving out the "tenth planet?" angle. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/16mar_sedna.htm And here is an article about the "Is Pluto a Planet?" controversy. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0%2C1282%2C41328%2C00.html Though in reading this article, there appears to be one short paragraph (2 sentences) that belong in a different article. I find the whole thing pretty interesting. I have always been interested in astronomy in general, though I can only identify a few constellations. But I remember what I learned about the solar system in school in the 60's: There are nine planets, and there's an asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, Saturn has a ring, and that's about it. I knew that Jupiter had the most moons, with 12, and that Pluto was discovered in 1930 by an American astronomer who was able to find it because of its effect on Neptune's orbit. What scientists have learned since then, just about our own little neighborhood, is mind-boggling. Now we know there are thousands of objects (including this new one) beyond Neptune; that Pluto may simply be the largest one, or maybe not even that; that Pluto actually is not the object the American scientist was looking for, and that whatever causes a slight wobble in Neptune's orbit has never been discovered; that Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus all have rings; that there are literally dozens of moons that were unknown in the 60's, bringing Jupiter's total to about 60 (many of which are just big rocks), and one of which is a moon of Pluto that was discovered in the late 70's. It also seems to me that at one time I "knew" that Mercury was the smallest planet, but I think the discoveries in the 70's changed that, to where we now know Pluto is less than half the size of Mercury. And finally, there is now doubt that the idea of "nine planets" really has any validity; it may just be that there are thousands of natural objects circling the Sun, some of which are bigger than others.