NJCubScouter

Hunt, I just noticed your "modest proposals." In the spirit of Jonathan Swift, I thought I was about to read a parody, but some of your suggestions do seem like actual suggestions. (I do think you were "playing" about the uniform re-design though). After all, the BSA did start to reduce the usage of the word "Boy" in connection with the Boy Scouts in the early 70's, to what ultimate purpose we will never know with certainty, because of the change in direction a few years later. The v-necked youth uniform I have in my closet, where it is apparently awaiting shipment to the NJCubScouter Historical Museum (to be built by a committee of Rooster, BobWhite and FatOldGuy), says "Scouts BSA" on the strip above the pocket. As for Boys Life, I think they have already customized parts of it for different levels (but not including the cover.) It also seems to me that the recent covers, at least, have often emphasized things that are "cool" -- high adventure or "extreme" (well, semi-extreme) sorts of activities. There always seem to be Scouts suspended in midair somewhere -- roller blading, caving, rock climbing, whatever. I'm not knocking it, but I think the BSA already has figured out that from a "marketing" standpoint, the "on the edge" sorts of activities are the things to display most prominently and as much as possible.

Rooster says: If you want to take exception with something I've said, then state it and present your argument to me directly. I didn't know you were in charge of issuing rules for how things are to be discussed in this forum. (I thought that was someone else's job -- and he isn't the forum owner either.) You don't have to us teenaged girls as "middlemen" to pick a fight. Personally, I think you've crossed the line with that comment, but as always, I am happy to leave that for the assembled multitude to decide for themselves. Rooster, all someone has to do is read the posts by Crewgirl and then read your response to her, in this same thread, to see that you have twisted her words and have said that she said things she never said. You do the same thing to me all the time. Rooster, you are the best spokesman for the BSA's anti-gay policy that an opponent of the policy could ever possibly wish for. Please never stop.

Very cute baby, Wingnut. Just make sure you don't get the child-welfare folks on you for the photo in the second column of the second row, though...

SR, the schedule for Enterprise is the same here, in fact I am pretty sure it is uniform (ho ho) nationwide. Unlike some of the prior series (Next Gen and DS9 I think), Enterprise is not syndicated, so it isn't just sent to every station that airs it with instructions to put it on sometime in a 7-day window. It is an actual network (UPN) show, so when you're watching it, I'm watching it. (Um, not sure about that time-zone thing, actually. Here it is on at 7 on Weds. and it has floated around on Sundays, lately it has been on at 9.) This may seem obvious, but it was a couple of years into "Voyager" (the centerpiece of UPN's original lineup, which only consisted of one night at the very beginning) before I figured that out. However, a couple of times I have been out on both Weds. and Sun. and I think I have missed a few that way. I am pretty sure there is one from this season with all this "expanse" nonsense that I have never seen. (It took me until a couple weeks ago to figure out that all those fish-and-lizard creatures are from the same planet that is trying to destroy the Earth. What has not escaped attention despite my discontinuous viewing habits is that producers' strategy this season seems to be, let's put Jolene Blalock in tighter and skimpier clothing every week and see what that does to the ratings. My wife just sits there and rolls her eyes; she has seen every episode of everything Trek also, including the 2 or 3 episodes over the years that she never taped for me.) On the other hand, I also sometimes watch the rerun on Sundays even after seeing the original on Wednesday. You Trekkie, you.

FOG says: NJCubDude said, "I don't think of the BSA as a 'they,' I think of it as 'we.' " It isn't that way if you accepts the teaching of Bob White. Again with the dude. As for BobWhite, I don't know what he's said on the subject of "we." But it doesn't matter, because as you may have noticed, I don't always agree with BobWhite anyway. If you leave aside the "gay issue," (on which the two of you are birds of a feather, as you know), I probably agree with him roughly 83.6 percent of the time. Roughly. Most of my disagreements with him (apart from the "gay issue") do seem to involve matters of semantics, such as this one. So your statement, once again, is irrelevant. As for the rest of your post, at first it looked like you were responding to something I said, because the only name you mentioned in your post was "NJCubDude" (again with the dude), but someone else said that, not me.

OK, I know I am about to carry this Star Trek thing to an obsessive level, but why not. (Before I get going, for the record, I have never been to a Trek convention, never worn "Spock ears," never worn a Starfleet uniform, and have not lived with my parents since graduating from college. Have I seen every episode of every series at least once, and all the movies? I take the Fifth... actually I have missed a few of "Enterprise" while I was at school board meetings and nobody at home remembered to tape them...) I got curious about something and went on the Internet (I love the Internet) to find an actual script of the scene I am talking about. I had to add in the names of who is speaking several times because it actually was a "closed caption log," but I think I got it right: ARCHER: This reminds me of the rain forest in New Zealand. I earned my wilderness merit badge there. REED: You were a Boy Scout, sir? ARCHER: I was an Eagle Scout. REED: Oh. So was I. ARCHER: Really? How many merit badges? REED: 28. You? ARCHER: 26. REED: Oh. That's not bad, sir. Captain... (Apparently at this point they see some weird creature from, I mean on, another planet.) ARCHER: We spot any more creatures like that and we'll earn our exobiology badges. REED: Actually... I already have that one. What was I curious about? Well, Reed is British. Not only does he have a British accent, but I believe there have been specific references to him growing up in England. And he earned Eagle -- not the Queen's Award, or the King's Award. There have been references in other Trek series about a "united Earth" government in the future... and there have been references to the process of unification starting in the late 21st century and proceeding gradually... but I don't know that they have ever made the "world government" explicit in "Enterprise," which takes place before all the other series. So... Can we conclude that in the 22nd century, there is one world government, which has a single Boy Scouts program that awards the Eagle badge as its highest rank? Or can we conclude that whoever wrote this scene probably didn't even know that in British Scouting, there is no Eagle badge? Or can we conclude that I take all this just a bit too seriously, and write about it as if it's really going to happen, rather than just being a work of science fiction? Yes to all of the above... but what can I say, it's fun. I think the specifics of this scene are interesting because I am not sure how many other scenes there are in other works of fiction that get into this much detail about the Boy Scout advancement record of a character... and as I said before, I think Scouting is being presented in a positive light. And, as for the second question above, the writer probably did know at least SOMETHING about Scouting, specifically how many merit badges are required for Eagle, because the numbers 26 and 28 obviously are very plausible... at least he didn't say that someone earned Eagle with 15 merit badges... of course there is a lot of time to change the advancement requirements over the next 150 years...

I usually try to keep my "Star Trek" fandom and trivia knowldge quiet around here, but if we're discussing the image of Boy Scouts in film and tv, I can't resist. Up until very recently, the one reference to Boy Scouts in the Star Trek "universe" was a throwaway line that was not something to be proud of. In "Star Trek II" (made in the early 80's), a scientist in his early 20's is discussing with his mother a man who he believes was just one of her old boyfriends, Captain James Kirk (he later finds out that Kirk is his father.) In a scene before he figures this out, he makes a derogatory reference to Starfleet officers "like that overgrown Boy Scout you used to hang around with." Mom responds with something like, "If you're talking about James Kirk, he was no Boy Scout." Although one could read the implications different ways, the tone of Mom's voice conveys admiration for Kirk for being "no Boy Scout." The unspoken suggestion being, in part, "if he was a 'Boy Scout', you wouldn't be here, sonny-boy." Now I guess one could read this in a positive way, as a suggestion that 'Boy Scouts' don't have, um, intimate relations with their girlfriends. But overall, the impression I have always gotten from this scene is the old goody-two-shoes, Momma's boy stereotype of Boy Scouting. (For any actual Star Trek fans out there, yes, I know that the characters I have been discussing are named Carol Marcus and David Marcus. I just didn't want to scare any Trek-o-phobes who might be out there.) As I said, this was the only Star Trek reference to Scouting until very recently. In an episode of the current series, "Enterprise," there is a brief scene where the captain (Archer) and weapons officer (Reed) are discussing their Boy Scout experiences. I couldn't remember exactly what they were talking about, so I found this on a web site: An interesting "future history" note - the Boy Scouts are apparently still earning merit badges in the 22nd century. Archer earned 26 of them and made it to Eagle Scout, while Reed accumulated 28, including a merit badge in exobiology. Any scouts hoping to earn a hunting merit badge are out of luck, as Archer points out that hunting for sport has been out of fashion on Earth for a century. http://www.thelogbook.com/log/trek5/year1.htm I guess it should be noted that "Enterprise" is set in the second half of the next century, while the "Star Trek" of Captain Kirk is about 100 years after that. Interestingly, whoever wrote the above excerpt apparently does not know that there is no "hunting" merit badge now, much less in the theoretical future when hunting has gone "out of fashion." (Though I know Rifle Shooting does involve some knowledge of hunting, just no actual hunting.) But the real point is, in "Enterprise," Boy Scouting is being discussed in a positive manner and in the specific context of what knowledge an adult might have that could be of use in particular crisis, as a result of having earned the relevant merit badge as a boy (similar to the reference in "Spy Games.")

Fuzzy, I do that on a regular basis, forget to take my name tag off. Between school and professional functions I probably wear a name tag 15 to 20 times a year, and at least half the time I wear it out into "public." I'll be wheeling a shopping cart down the aisle at Shop Rite after stopping to "pick up a few things on the way home please honey" and I'll either notice someone reading my collarbone area or just happen to look down and see "Hi my name is..."

I wear my Philmont arrowhead hanging-patch, earned in 1974. (See thread next door.) It has become somewhat of a conversation piece with a couple of the Scouts. As in, "You went to Philmont? Cool!" That can't be a bad thing. (Of course, if they were saying what they were really thinking, it would probably be, "Wow, a fat old guy like you went to Philmont, if you can then I can." Of course, I was neither fat nor old at the time, but the point is that it gets them thinking about going. Adults wearing OA flaps, regardless of whether they did their ordeal as a youth, has the same effect. I have been meaning to rejoin the lodge and wear the flap but haven't gotten around to it yet.)

DS, you said something I never knew and do not understand. A Venturing youth application does not require a parental signature? Not just a "youth" of 18 to 20 (who is legally an adult but a youth for Venturing purposes), but one of any age? In other words, if a 14-year-old boy wants to join a Boy Scout troop, he needs parental consent, but if the same boy wants to join a Venturing crew, he only needs his own signature? What sense does that make? As for Eamonn's issue, I was confused like KS, and I am still confused. How can a unit be chartered without the requisite number of adult unit committee members? How does it even get in the computer? I know that if my troops re-charter application showed up at council without a CC and at least 2 CM's, it isn't going anywhere, never mind the fact that the troop has existed for almost 80 years. (Fortunately no chance of that happening, we almost have too many adult leaders, though that doesn't always mean they are always "used" in the most productive manner or that they always do what they have committed to do.) So I still don't fully understand what is happening here.

I mean, when you write about the gay issue. Yeesh.

Hunt: Many double apostrophes (which looks suspiciously like mega-dittos.) FOG: When you write the "gay issue," you refer to the BSA as "they," and "their organization." I don't think of the BSA as a "they," I think of it as "we." Not that I speak for it, or have a vote in it, but just that I am part of it, it is "our" organization. To me, the BSA is not some "they" out there.

Hunt, you mention restrictions on the practice of Christianity in Israel and Saudia Arabia. This is clearly true in Saudi Arabia, where any display or practice of any religion other than Islam is prohibited. U.S. military and government employees are worned not to wear visible crosses, Stars of David or other Christian or Jewish symbols in that country. However, I do not believe this is true in Israel. Obviously Israel does have an "established religion," and there are some preferences given to Jews, starting with the fact that Jews seeking to immigrate receive automatic citizenship and others do not. However, I am pretty sure that Christians, Muslims and others have freedom of worship in Israel. Are you aware of specific facts to the contrary?

Adrian, I was going to write a longer post in response to yours, but to sum it all up, I agree with Hunt. Our nation differs from all of those that you have mentioned. Some of those nations have "established religions" under their constitutions or basic laws. Others, in different ways, give some governmental preference to one religion or another. In almost all of them, people of "minority religions" are relegated to "second-class citizenship." In a truly dysfunctional nation such as Iraq was prior to the recent "regime change," the government imposed a sort of secularized version of one sect of Islam (Sunni) even though the majority of the people are Shi'ite. In other countries such as Turkey and India, a major political issue for many years has been how much the government should favor the majority religion, if at all. As a result, you get the somewhat confusing scene of an election in Turkey being won or lost by the "Islamic party" when 99 percent of the nation is Islamic... or of two Hindus running for Prime Minister of India and one being considered the "Hindu candidate." In the case of Turkey, the issue is whether the country should be a theocratic Muslim state or a secular Muslim state. In India, the issue is essentially whether Muslims (the minority) should be relegated to second-class citizenship. Here we don't have any of that. The reasons are (1) we have a constitutional provision that says the government may not establish religion, and (2) that provision is obeyed at least 95 percent of the time, notwithstanding the periodic issue of what symbols may be placed in what combinations on the courthouse square in wintertime, or under what circumstances prayers may be said in public school buildings. Also notwithstanding that fact that a few people (hi Ed) interpret the establishment clause in a manner completely different from the way the courts interpret it. I also believe, and this goes back to my main point Adrian, is that as a result of (1) and (2) above, this is not a "Christian nation." It is a "predominantly Christian" or "mostly Christian" nation, but those adjectives merely refer to numbers. Take away the adjectives and you have a completely different connotation -- one that might be perfectly acceptable in a country that has a formally or informally established religion, but not in this country. Adrian, you also say that as a Catholic, you are not offended by certain indicia of the Protestant majority status in this country. Fair enough. In the same way, I am not "offended" by Christmas -- I only point out that it is a religious holiday, which it is. I am so non-offended, in fact, that I married a Catholic woman, in a Catholic church, and have Catholic children. (Well, one of them says she is a Wiccan, but that's another thread.) At this very moment there is a pewter (or something) nativity scene, and a Hanukkah menorah, sitting on my tv set, and a "holiday wreath," which looks for all the world like a Christmas wreath, hanging on my front door. I'll be getting the tree next week, though we have been discussing finally going "synthetic" to keep the house cleaner. The tree will have crosses and Stars of David among its ornaments, as well as the talking Mister Spock Shuttlecraft Ornament issued by Hallmark years ago. At the appropriate time, the tree will have the Hanukkah candles burning next to it, though at a safe distance. What was my point? Oh. Adrian, you talk about the fact that you are not offended by certain anti-Catholic events or statements in American history. I agree that what John Adams said about Catholics is of little relevance today. But let me ask you, would you be offended by suggestions within your own lifetime (or at least within mine) that a Catholic should not be president of the U.S. because he might take orders from the Pope instead of the American people? It happened in 1960 with JFK, to the point where he had to make several speeches affirming where his loyalties were. (It also happened in 1928 with Al Smith.) I can tell you that if I were a Catholic, I would have been concerned.

I meant DS, not DG. Oh but to be able to edit my posts. You probably don't want to hear this, DS, but I think I was thinking of writing a response to FOG and I combined DS and FOG and got DG. I'll try not to let it happen again.

I meant DS, not DG. Oh but to be able to edit my posts. You probably don't want to hear this, DS, but I think I was thinking of writing a response to FOG and I combined DS and FOG and got DG. I'll try not to let it happen again.

DG, I understand what you are saying. I have respect for you as well. As far as you enforcing the rules, I wouldn't expect you to do anything else. But rules can change. The people who make the rules can change. I don't expect it to happen tomorrow and I certainly don't expect the discussions in this forum to have any immediate impact on changing them. But I do think it is going to happen eventually, and then I suspect you will just as vigorously enforce the rules at that time. In the meantime, what the policies and rules of the BSA should be remains a perfectly legitimate area of discussion in this forum -- in "Issues and Politics" -- at least for as long as Scouter Terry continues to put up with us.

FOG says: We keep repeating it because there are many people out there that think that all youth related organizations have to accept all comers. Are there? You'd think one of them would post that every once in awhile. I can't think of anyone who has said that on here. Some people like to twist other peoples' words to try to make it look like that is the argument, but nobody actually makes that argument. We keep repeating it because people keep wanting to argue about membership standards. The argument is about what the membership standards should be, not whether the BSA has the legal right to adopt them. We keep repeating it because we can. That reminds me of a joke I have heard a few times, but it is not appropriate to repeat on here. But anyway, FOG, as far as I am concerned you should feel free to make as many irrelevant statements as you want. I will continue to point out that they are irrelevant, because I "can," too.

FOG, I agree, that's what I meant -- that sort of conduct, if done "openly," would make it reasonable for a prospective leader's application to be rejected.

Oops, the sentence: DS, obviously I have no argument. Should say: DS, obviously I have no argument with your first sentence. I always have an argument.

DS says: I do not believe that bisexuals, homosexuals, or transgenders make the best role models for youth members of the Boy Scouts of America. Neither does the Boy Scouts of America, which is a private organization with its own membership standards. DS, obviously I have no argument. I am sure that is what you believe. As for the beginning of your second sentence, I also have no doubt that that is what the corporation, the "Boy Scouts of America, "believes." In other words, that is the belief-statement and policy that a majority of the ultimate decision-making body has decided to make. What they actually believe is open for speculation. Maybe they actually believe what you believe. Or maybe they are just being good businessmen, and when an organization that holds charters for 20 (or whatever) percent of the units in the BSA threatened to pull out if the policy was changed, they decided to avoid that. (That's not a black-helicopter theory, that was specifically theatened by that organization, and it was mentioned in briefs to the Supreme Court.) Or maybe they are just using the BSA as a vehicle for their own personal religious beliefs. Or maybe other things, or maybe some combination of some or all of the above. All we really know is what the "policy" is, and what BSA headquarters says is the justification for it. And we also know that majorities of boards and committees can change. I also have to comment on the statement that the BSA "is a private organization with its own membership standards." You and other people seem to like to say that a lot. I don't know why you all keep repeating it, because number one, I don't know of anyone who really disputes it, since the Supreme Court definitively decided the issue, and number two (and more importantly) it is really irrelevant. The fact that the BSA has the "right" to do something does not mean it is "right" to do it. I have the right to walk up to someone I don't know on the street and say, "you're stupid," and keep walking (because if I keep talking, I may run out of my "right" and be guilty of "harassment")... but it isn't "right" to do it.

Crewgirl, if you read Rooster's post and wonder when you said some of the things he says you said, don't worry about it. He does that to me all the time. He can only refute your argument by first mis-stating it.

Rooster says: Bisexuality is perverted lust. Certainly, even most liberals would agree with that statement. Yet, Dale refuses to condemn bisexuality - Why? In fact, he puts himself in bed with them (figuratively speaking). Is it because he knows bisexuality is merely a cousin of homosexuality? I'm going to address the end of this paragraph first and the beginning last, and give my own opinion in between. Since Dale presumably does not regard homosexuality as immoral, then what difference would it make that bisexuality is its "cousin." In other words, if both are acceptable behavior, then yes, they are in the same category. Right? I will acknowledge being puzzled by bisexuality myself. And I guess I mean "avowed bisexuality," meaning the person intends to engage in both gay and straight conduct in the future. If someone is struggling to figure out what their sexuality is, and is involved with people of both genders as he/she tries to determine his orientation is, and ultimately determines that he/she is "gay," then that is what he/she is. But if someone is bisexual on an ongoing basis, I don't really understand it. But my lack of understanding does not mean that I assume there is no justification for it, or that it deserves a label like "perverted lust." I have to laugh at the way you throw words like that around, Rooster. Maybe being "gay" is not some simple genetic thing, in fact since scientists have been unable to find a simple answer like that, it quite probably is not. Maybe there is some chemical or something in the brain that the vast majority of people have in a certain amount, and if you have less, you end up in a great deal of confusion and are attracted to both genders, and if you have even less you are gay. That's the kind of thing scientists are working on. It would make sense. It makes a lot more sense than concluding that people are intentionally doing something "wrong." I tend to think most people want to do what is right. Consider me a hopeless idealist... but I'm in good company, I think the BSA is a pretty idealistic organization. As for Mr. Dale and other gay activities, I think all he is really saying is that bisexuals are discriminated against and that they shouldn't be. I am not sure what he means about marriage. As I have said before, I think gays should be able to enter into "civil unions" as in Vermont, with the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. To me, the word "marriage" does imply a man and a woman -- but that the legal benefits of a governmentally recognized union of two people should not be limited to "marriage." That being the case, a bisexual who wants to spend the rest of his/her life with someone has to decide who that person is, and the gender of that person would determine whether he/she enters into a marriage or a civil union. I don't know why it needs to be more complicated than that. I also think, by the way, that if someone wants to be an adult leader in the BSA, what they choose to reveal about themselves is subject to scrutiny to determine whether they are of good character. That means that a heterosexual who is constantly bragging openly about multiple sexual conquests or adulterous relationships may very will find that his application is rejected because he is not a good role model for the values of Scouting. The same should be true for a homosexual who openly engages in the same type of conduct. That is not the same as simply acknowledging that one is gay, which should not lead to exclusion. Relating that to bisexuality, if the policy allowed "local option" and I were in a position of having to consider an application from someone who said they were an "avowed bisexual," I would have to wonder what that meant, in a way that I would not neccesarily wonder if all I knew was that the person was gay. Now, I know I will get some "flak" for not being "consistent," but I think I am being perfectly consistent.

Big Dog, since you quote the book of Romans as if it is relevant to the discussion, I have a few questions for you: 1. Do you think everyone in this forum believes that the book of Romans contains the word of God? 2. Do you think everyone in the BSA believes that the book of Romans contains the word of God? 3. Do you think the BSA requires its members to believe that the book of Romans contains the word of God? 4. If the answer to all of the above questions is no -- then how is your quotation from the book of Romans relevant to this discussion?

I don't recall seeing any BSA ads on tv in recent years. In fact the last one I remember was the one where a man is walking down a dark alley and notices over his shoulder that 2 or 3 late-teen boys are walking fairly close behind him, and he is really nervous... until the boys walk out into the light and the man sees that they are wearing Boy Scout uniforms. That was probably in the early 70's. Before that (late 60's I guess), I am pretty sure there were commercials based on the BSA's promotional theme at the time, Follow the Rugged Road. I know there are others here who are at least the same vintage as me, who will remember that one. For the present day, my impression is that the BSA has concluded that the best way to get Boy Scouts is to recruit the boys when they of Tiger age -- which basically means recruiting the parents and to try to do what is necessary to retain the boy all the way through Boy Scouting and/or Venturing. It would be interesting to see statistics on what percentage of boys in Boy Scout troops joined as Tigers, and to break it down even further, what percentage joined at each stage within Cub Scouts, and what percentage were never in Cub Scouts at all. I am sure these statistics exist and that the BSA uses them in guiding councils' recruiting efforts.