NJCubScouter

FOG says: My point is that there is nothing in the constitution about "innocent until proven guilty" just as there is nothing about "separation of church and state." It is true that the words "innocent until proven guilty" are not stated in the constitution. It is not correct that there is nothing "about" it. The fifth and fourteenth amendments (applicable to the federal and state government, respectively) guarantee that there shall be no deprivation of life, liberty or property without "due process of law." The courts, left with that very vague statement, had to figure out what it meant. They looked both at English legal precedents and the developing American legal tradition, and determined that in a criminal case, "due process" includes the following: A presumption of innocence until a person is proven guilty. That the "burden of proof" in a criminal case, as to all elements of the crime charged, be on the government. That the government be required to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than the "lesser" standards applicable to civil cases (the two most common of which are "preponderance of the evidence," applicable to most civil cases, and the somewhat higher "clear and convincing evidence" standard applicable to things like involuntary committments to mental institutions, and other types of specialized cases or issues. So, although the Constitution does not specifically mention the presumption of innocence, or the government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they are nevertheless constitutional rights, through the due process clauses. If anybody doesn't like this they can send a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court, but I don't think this is going to change anytime soon.

As to question 1, just to say what almost everybody else has said but in a different way: The hat is as much a part of the Cub Scout uniform as any other part. I personally feel the BSA should not have made parents buy a new hat four years in a row (Tiger, Wolf, Bear, Webelos) and it was not that way until the Bear hat was introduced about two years ago. One hat takes you through seven (+-) years in a Boy Scout troop, it could at least take you through 2 years as a Wolf/Bear. Just my opinion. My son was before that anyway, he entered Webelos in the last "class" before they came out with the new hats. His blue-on-blue Webelos hat is now a collector's item along with my "overseas cap" from Boy Scouts in the late 60's. (In other words, someday HIS son will say, Dad, you wore THAT??) As for hats in buildings, I have seen both answers. In my son's Cub Scout pack, hats were worn indoors as part of the uniform, including during flag ceremonies. In his troop, hats are on at all times (except when they are seriously exerting themselves or pretending to be a victim for a first aid game or whatever) when the troop is meeting in its regular room, which is a gym in a school that belongs to a church. However, on the rare occasions when the troop is IN the church (only for Eagle COH's as far as I have seen), hats are off at all times.

FScouter, I agree. Acco, in theory you are correct, but it sounds like that is NOT the way BOR's are in the troop in question. It sounds like it may be more like the "Where were you on the night of the 23rd" variety... "if you don't answer my question, you'z'll hafta deal wit my partna here, and he ain't in so good a mood." Or in other words, here's a rope kid, tie a square knot, but wait, let us blindfold you first. Or something like that. In other words the BORs may be intimidating because they are made to be intimidating, and they are not supposed to be.

Bob says: Keep in mind the COL is not required to please the city council to remain a scouting council. They only need to do so to retain some current city resources. The COL council does however have to please the BSA if they wish to remain a council. All of these statements are true in theory. However, theory doesn't balance the budget. I suspect that if an officer or professional in that council were writing the second sentence that Bob wrote, the word "only" would be nowhere to be seen. I seem to recall at some point there was a story that estimated how much the "some current city resources" are worth. The "resources" in question consist mainly of a building (how large I do not know) in or near center-city Philadelphia. What would the market rent per month be on that space? I don't have enough information to guess at an answer. Might it be $5,000 per month? $10,000? $15,000? More? Do you think they were counting on that expense in their budget? The impression I have gotten from these stories is, no, they weren't, and they can't. I think they know very well, Bob, that they need to "please the BSA," but they would also like to "please" the government that is providing them with rent-free space. They are trying to walk a tightrope, and I am sure they would rather not be doing it. If they could afford to simply move to other suitable space, none of the legalistic and linguistic acrobatics evident in this newspaper article would be necessary. As I suggested in the last thread about this, it would seem fair to me if the councils around the nation who support the gay-discrimination policy would pony up some money to assist a council that opposes the policy, so they can afford to stay in business until the BSA finally comes to its senses. I have been told that it is very unlikely that this money will be provided. But that only makes my point stronger.

Laurie, Based on your contacts with council, what statements in the newspaper article are incorrect?

If I could edit my posts, I would probably take out the word "deception" in the last post. I was really just responding to Big Dog's use of the word "deceive" and decided not to dispute his use of that word. I don't want people to jump on just one word and ignore the whole point of what I am saying, which happens on a regular basis around here. Whether any "deception" is intended is beside the point. I do think the wording is "clever," "diplomatic" and the council (and national) are trying to "finesse" the situation and make everybody "happy." (Happiness meaning in this case, not being evicted by the city from their rent-free building.) This sort of cleverness has characterized statements coming from national itself, as I have pointed out in the past when something new appears on their web site. In national's case, they are reasonably straightforward about what the policy is, but I think they are overly "clever" in phrasing the reasons for it. Here, the "cleverness" is about the policy itself (on the council level), with the idea being to create the impression that the council has a policy different from national in a way that really matters, when in fact they don't.

Big Dog says: If the Philly council wants to allow avowed homosexuals to be leaders, do it. Break off from BSA and just do it. Well, I am sure you know that if they did that, they would not be the "Philly council" anymore... they would just be a bunch of men and women who want to provide the Scouting program for the boys and young men of their area, but who would have no legal right to use the name Boy Scouting (not sure about just "Scouting") or any of the program, uniforms, facilities, camps, money etc. etc. They'd have to start from scratch. And I'm not complaining about that, I just want to make sure that when everybody else reads your suggestion that they "break off," that everybody understands what that really means. There is no "breaking off." What they would really be doing is quitting and trying to start a new organization from the ground up. Some have done so, and some may do so in the future, but I really don't think this is what the leaders of the Cradle of Liberty council have in mind. They want to continue to be "Boy Scouts" but in a way that is compatible with the views of a majority of the people in THEIR community. Right now, BSA national is insisting that every community enforce a policy that MAY have support in a majority of communities in the country, but that clearly is NOT the view in EVERY community. They are trying to enforce a national policy when the entire nation does not have the same view of what that policy should be. Now, that in and of itself does not determine whether the national policy is right or wrong, and there's no need to repeat here what my view is on that subject. I'm just pointing out what the problem is, and I would think that we should all be able to agree that that (the absence of a nationwide consensus on whether it is right or wrong to excluse gay people) is the problem, regardless of how we individually would "solve" the problem. Don't be mealy-mouthed, don't try to deceive folks about your intent, jump one way or the other. Just so it's clear what my opinion is, I think national is participating in the deception. No, I can't prove it, at least not based on what I have read so far. The article posted in this thread does not really say whether national has a role in this process that is going on between the council and the city government. However, I would be shocked if the council were sending any proposed policy wording to the city without having it cleared by national. (I'll bet that the fax machines have been working overtime on both ends while all this has been going on.) In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the wording proposed by the council was the product of a negotiation between national and the council.

This all seems like a lot of meaningless wheel-spinning to me. The national policy is what it is, at least for now, and national has made very clear that councils have to abide by it, period. It seems to me that the Cradle of Liberty Council, out of a legitimate concern for losing its rent-free building and other resources, is trying to "trick" the city government, charitable organizations and others into thinking that it is not going to discriminate against gay people, while saying nothing that actually contradicts the national policy. It sounds like the city isn't buying it anyway, one of the other paragraphs that Mark did not quote says: Christine Ottow, spokeswoman for the Street administration, said that city representatives had seen the new policy, but it was not yet acceptable. She said the Boy Scouts were going to go back and revise it. No further meetings are scheduled at this point. And then there is the stuff about the secret "second paragraph." It's just game-playing. I suspect that there is also game-playing going on about what the New York Council "policy" actually is, as opposed to the vague words on paper. I'd be willing to bet that national is watching and listening very closely to see what the New York Council is actually doing if and when any openly gay leaders show up. I'd be very surprised if the actual practice is any different from what national wants it to be, even though public agencies in New York may be misled to believe otherwise. It all doesn't strike me as being very... oh, I don't know... trustworthy?

Well, Adrian, it is indeed ironic, but I don't think irony captures the whole story here. It does not necessarily convey that anyone is responsible for the situation that we find ironic or that anyone should have acted differently from how he did. I have explained at length why I believe this new relevation makes Thurmond's public conduct "worse," more reprehensible, or in the word that I still think fits to at least a degree, hypotcrital. The word "hypocrisy" and its variants is irrelevant, however. The same principles apply regardless of what word is used. I do have one other thing to add, and I am going to use an offensive racial epithet to make a point, because it is an exact quote from Strom Thurmond. So if anyone is going to be offended, you can stop reading. Obviously I do not use this word in my usual speech, and I avoided quoting it earlier. This word is part of the "news" because, before I heard the clip of Thurmond's 1948 speech this week, I didn't really know he used the word in question. Of course, before this week I also didn't know that he had an "affair" (or whatever it was) with a 16-year-old black servant and fathered a child who was identified as "black." But he didn't call the group that included his daughter -- and therefore his daughter as well -- "black," nor did he use the words that would have still been considered socially acceptable in 1948, "negro" or "colored." (Here comes the word.) He called his own daughter a "nigger." Who wants to defend that? And who thinks that whatever any other politician did is really comparable to that?

Rooster says: Some say Thurmond has not changed because hes remained relatively silent on the issue. Well, he's definitely been "silent," in an absolute rather than a relative sense, for the past six months or so. (The link I posted earlier was his obituary from June of this year.) That was supposed to be funny, and in fact this entire thread was meant to be a bit light-hearted. I suppose, looking back on it, that the only people who could really appreciate the hypocrisy, or if you don't think that word fits, the irony, the inconsistency, the fathering-a-"negro"-child-and-then-devoting-your-career-to-keeping-"negros"-in-a-subservient-status, or whatever else you wish to call it, would be those who already accept the fact that Strom Thurmond role in history is essentially one of villainy, or if you don't like that word, any negative word you choose. Those who are unable to read a negative comment about a politician who happens to be a Republican, without chiming in about a Democrat who is supposedly worse, wouldn't be able to appreciate it. Nor would someone appreciate it has bought the line that the Southern opposition to the civil rights movement in the 40s, 50s and 60's was really about "States' Rights" rather than about race. ScoutParent, if that is what you want to believe, go ahead. I have in fact studied the history of the period, and have read what you want me to read, and conclude (along with most historians, not to mention people who were actually around at the time, such as my parents, and to a lesser extent, me) that no "State's right" was really involved other than the "right" to discriminate against and exclude people based on race, which is not a right that any state has, or has had at least since the adoption of the 14th Amendment in the 1860s. And, just by coincidence, last night I was watching a "news show" (it's actually a show on Comedy Central called "The Daily Show" but it does have some actual news, though from a humorous angle, and admittedly usually not from a conservative angle) that had a whole segment of about 10 minutes on this Thurmond thing. It was pretty funny. The "irony" (or insert other word or phrase here) was definitely not lost on them. But from an actual "fact" perspective, they played a tape from Thurmond's 1948 speech, the exact quote that I quoted in my first post in this thread. I actually got to hear the word he used, and it was definitely not "negro." I know that many Southern segregationist politicians of that era liked to "split the difference" and pronounce "negro" the way Hunt has it in his post, "nigra," so that their listeners would know what they really meant. I remember hearing George Wallace say it that way, live, not on tape. But when I listened to that clip, it seemed pretty clear he wasn't pronouncing it "nigra" either. But as I said, with this subject (and a number of others), I guess you either "see" it or you "don't."

hey, Happy Birthday, DS!

OK purcelce. Sorry if it seemed as if I was grumping at you earlier. It was not directed at you, obviously. Thanks for starting this thread, you should get a lot of interesting info if a lot of people participate.

FOG, you can suppose what you want. My personal life isn't any more relevant to this than yours is. The reason that Strom Thurmond's personal life is relevant is that he made his career -- literally, the best-known and most-remembered aspects of his entire, long career -- out of promoting discrimination and exclusion against a group of people, but he didn't extend that exclusion to the 16-year-old girl he slept with as an adult, and fathered a child with. I, on the other hand, haven't made my career out of excluding anyone from anything. But, ok, let's suppose that the aspect of my personal life that we now know about Thurmond is relevant. So, because I know the world was waiting for this, I have never slept with any teenagers while I was an adult, and I haven't fathered any children other than the three I go home to every night. FOG, if your answers on these subjects would be any different, I beg of you, please, don't tell us.

purcelce, I will respond in a private message. My answers to some of the questions will disclose imperfections in my son's troop, and based on what is going on in another thread right now, I am not interested in becoming Troop C.

That's what I figured, Rooster. I saw the wink. You know very well what I'm talking about. And Senator Jeffords, if that is who you meant, is now an Independent, as I am sure you know. Just in the interest of fair play, however, I did find this handy-dandy web site listing all kinds of scandals involving Republicans. And you're right, it is biased and partisan, and has nothing about any Democrats. (And it's a few years old and lists some people who are arguably not Republicans or who have left the party, like Pat Buchanan.) But, Rooster, you've already mentioned all the Democratic scandals you can think of, so I just thought I'd provide some balance. It does make for interesting reading.

Rooster: Are there any Republican hypocrites? Or are all hypocrites Democrats?

Bob, OK, now we know all about Troop A. Please note that I have mostly agreed with you in this thread, and that in the majority of cases of "Bob vs. Ed" in earlier threads, I have agreed with you more than him. Sometimes I have posted my agreement, sometimes I have not. But as far as this forum member is concerned, right now this thread is not about Ed's troop or the use of program in a Scout troop, or emphasis on advancement or anything else but one thing. It is about the tactics that have been used in this thread, and to reach my own conclusion on that subject, I will ask you again: Bob, is Troop B your troop? And by that, not to be too "cute," I mean the troop in which you are a registered leader.

One more thing, when I was looking for council guidelines for unit web sites, the few I read gave me the impression that national provides the councils with a standard template for these things, for their use. Guidelines for guidelines, if you will. But it is the council that actually adopts (or doesn't adopt) the guidelines and could potentially make changes to fit local needs, though I cannot think of an example of what such a local need might be.

Maybe DS can provide something, but I once tried to find guidelines when my son's old pack was re-starting its site, and this is basically what I learned. The BSA web site does have web site guidelines but they are only for use by councils. http://www.scouting.org/webmasters/standards/04.html This document mentions unit web sites but only from the standpoint of the council in determining whether to link its web site with unit (or district) sites. The adoption of web site guidelines for units is therefore left up to each council. I just did an internet search and turned up several. I am pretty sure I have seen the guidelines for my own council but I could not find them when I looked just now. My suggestion to you would be to either go on your council's web site (I believe they all have them at this point) and search and see if you can find it, or call someone at council. The guidelines that I have seen are pretty specific regarding personal information. You can probably guess what the rule is regarding any information that would allow someone to locate a named boy (and I do not recall whether you can even have the name -- in our pack we decided to omit ALL names and photos of boys and anything beyond just the names of adults.) We did have our calendar on there, but now that you mention it, someone could abuse that information as well. Of course, even without the web it would not take a rocket scientist to figure out when a school is being used for meetings. You can't protect against everything, that is why the rules on leadership and supervision are so important. Good luck with your web site!

FOG says: The point is that I would "have fun" with many girls that I wouldn't association with on a normal basis. When the crotch is involved, normal rules do not apply. Well, isn't that special. Is that what you tell the boys in your troop?

Rooster says: Your second bet (i.e., that someone would mention Robert Byrd and make a partisan point out of that) was a self-fulfilling prophecy, which you accomplished by attacking a conservative politician for a crime that you knew a well known liberal politician was guilty of, yet failed to even mention his name. A crime that I knew a well known liberal politician was gulity of? You know, I must have missed the news the day that it came out that Robert Byrd came home from a KKK rally one day at the age of 22 and impregnated his household's 16-year-old black maid. When did that happen, Rooster? My post was not to attack Strom Thurmond for being a practitioner of racial politics, which he was. (I will leave aside what the definition of "racist" is, I don't think there is really any question about it in Thurmond's case, but it's beside the point.) That has been a well-known fact for about 60 years. What I was reacting to was a news story from this week about Strom Thurmond, revealing that he did not practice what he preached, so to speak. I have not seen any new revelations this week about Robert Byrd. The reason I knew my post would draw a mention of Byrd is not that the mention is justified, but that I have heard enough conservative/Republican commentary recently to know that Byrd is the "stock item" in the "bag of tricks" to be brought out every time a racial issue comes up. I have not, and still have not, made this a partisan issue. Looking over the past century, neither party's record on race has been particularly spotless. There were other Democratic segregationists you could have mentioned as well... and then I could mention the segregationists who switched to the Republican Party rather than renounce segregationism -- not only Thurmond, but George Wallace and Lester Maddox as well. And maybe others as well. Both Thurmond and Wallace, seeing which way the wind was blowing in the early 70's, did renounce racism and segregation and started appointing minorities to their staffs, etc. -- as did every Democratic segregationist I can think of, including Byrd and Fritz Hollings. You just don't score any partisan points on this, Rooster. The revelation about Thurmond stands on its own -- his personal life did not match his private life. His partisan affiliation has, and had, nothing to do with it.

Looking at where we failed the Tiger program is starting to stick out like a sore thumb. We only recruited half the number that we did three years ago.Again I don't know why the decline? Eamonn, just to make it clear, is this a fact from your district alone, or is this a national statistic? I take it from your post that this is your district, but I am not positive. It would be interesting to see the "trend line" nationally in Tiger recruitment. Of course, the fact that the organization to which more BSA units are chartered than any other, does not permit the Tiger program in its packs, may skew things. I could suggest one possible explanation for part of a downward trend, but I don't think a lot of people would like my suggestion. It is just a possibility and I have no idea whether it applies to any particular area such as Eamonn's. For now I will just say that my observation of other parents, as a group, especially parents looking for a program for their young children (6 and 7 years old) is that in general, when they hear the slightest suggestion of controversy, they run as fast as possible in the other direction.

And this just dawned on me... and maybe I missed it... but Bob, Is Troop B your troop?

Wait a minute... maybe I am being a little slow here, but: "Troop A" in Bob's original post is Ed Mori's specific troop? I'll wait for confirmation of that before giving my opinion of that method of discussion in this forum. (If you can't already guess.)

Oh, and Rooster, this subject has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. I don't know why you would even bring it up.