NJCubScouter

Good job Campfire Fairy! I suspect that the "fun" your grandfather makes of you for your "I knew the answer dance" pales in comparison to the eye-rolling I get from my teenage and near-teen children for my "I knew the answer dance." Not to mention the "wave" when I run an entire category (even if the contestant(s) also knew the answers. The single-question dance is saved for when none of the know-it-alls winning thousands of dollars for being on the show knew the answer.)

My son's pack did Toys for Tots as well as holiday (Christmas and Hanukkah) caroling at some (usually two) nursing homes. At the pack meeting before the nursing home visits, the boys make crafts (holiday-themed) to give as gifts to the residents. Now that my son in the troop I am not seeing anything like this... the only acknowledgment of the holidays is that our annual fund-raiser is a wreath sale. Ti$ the $eason, I guess. I'm not knocking it, it's a great fund-raiser... we apparently have a florist connection who gets us the wreaths literally at his cost. I think the troop's profit per wreath is slightly over $7, of which the boys' accounts get between $2 and $2.50 depending on number of wreaths sold. The troop needs to do more holiday-oriented stuff, though... I think caroling and crafts are out at this level, but a toy drive is reasonable and I will suggest it for next year. With there almost always being a family or two "split" between the pack and troop, we could probably just piggyback on the pack's Toys for Tots drive.

I'm going to jump in here and answer Zahnada's questions, and DS can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure I'm right. I'm changing the order a bit. If a scout says, "I'm gay" but has never committed any homosexual act (and therefore never violated those particular moral guildlines), is that still grounds for removal? First let's make it a leader and not a Scout because from what I have read on the BSA web site in the past, the procedure is not exactly the same for a Scout. As I recall, there is some sort of "counseling" that is supposed to happen if a Scout says he is gay -- I guess to find out if he really means it. It is somewhat similar to what has happened in some of the "atheist" cases, where a person is given a certain amount of time to "clarify" that he really does believe in some sort of higher power, just not a God of any established religion. With that aside, the answer to your question is: Yes, definitely. For an adult leader, a public statement or a statement to the BSA of "I'm gay" is enough for the automatic letter of termination (and notice of the appeal process.) The BSA does not know, and does not ask, whether there has been any particular conduct. I hate to keep typing this name, but the facts do not indicate that James Dale publicly disclosed anything about his actual conduct (at least not before he was terminated, and after my recent exchange with DS I will in the future be more precise that when I talk about what Dale did or did not do, I am talking about what he did or did not do before being terminated.) What I believe the newspaper article said was that he was the president of a college gay rights organization and that he spoke about his experiences in discovering that he was gay -- in other words, in discovering that he was attracted to men and not women. The BSA inferred the conduct from the status (and by the way I am not saying it is unreasonable to do so, although obviously I disagree that the consequence of either the status or the implied conduct should be what it is.) I have heard, though I am less clear on these facts, that there was another case where a person simply wrote "I am gay" on an adult leader application, in order to make himself a "test case." (And just so this is clear, I'm not applauding that, just stating what I believe is the case.) This person was terminated, and I am pretty sure there was no inquiry about what his actual conduct was. Now, a more interesting case for your question, Zahnada, would be where the person not only said "I'm gay" but left his conduct to the imagination -- but actually said, publicly "I'm gay but I have never had sex with another male." (I think this would fall into the category of "too much information.") This seems like a rather unlikely thing for a person to say, but I am pretty sure the BSA would still terminate the person with no further questions asked. As a result, the answer to: Does a person need to be sexually active with members of the same sex for them to be removed from BSA? is, No, and the answer to What if a person is attracted to their same sex, admits this attraction, but never acts on the impulse? is, so long Charlie. The only thing about that last way of phrasing it is, the person has to actually proclaim or declare their sexuality to fall under the "policy." "Admits" sounds like maybe the person has been asked or "accused" and has "admitted" something. In the one case I am aware of where someone was asked and "admitted" it, the BSA decided that the person was not avowed, that the BSA's own policy had been violated by the Scouter who asked the question, and the person was reinstated. And just to throw this in, DS's statement about what would happen to an "avowed bisexual" leader is no different than I would expect. It makes sense under the logic of the policy. The way you could look at it is, the person is both an "avowed homosexual" and an "avowed heterosexual," and since "avowed homosexuals" are barred, the person is out. He has a "banned status" -- the fact that he also has a non-banned status is irrelevant. Or to look at another example (which is intended to be somewhat whimsical), if a troop treasurer stole funds from the troop treasury, it doesn't matter that he donated all the money to his church. The "good news" does not balance out the "bad news." DS, I may not have phrased things the way you would, but what I am saying here is correct, right?

On the "geekiness" issue, as someone else has pointed out, it is not even clear whether James Dale used that term, and if he did, it appears that he was not using it to denigrate the BSA. I think, as has already been discussed, that he was discussing the perception of others outside the BSA. In any event, "geeky" or its derivatives is a pretty mild word as insults go, and depending on the context, it may not even be an insult at all. When applied to a teenager or pre-teen, it often means someone who has chosen to do what his teachers and parents have taught him to do, even though most of his peers want him to do something else. That's usually a good thing. It also can mean someone who does what he wants to do, even though others may make fun of him. Depending on what that is, it can be good or bad. I can give an example a little "geekiness" being a good thing, and it is my own son. (Of course I wouldn't call him that to his face.) This is a kid who brings a small "travel" chess set to some troop meetings and on campouts and when there is "down time," he sits there with any of 2 or 3 other younger boys and plays chess. (My son's patrol leader, now about 13, once beat me at chess when he was about 10, and while I'm no Bobby Fischer, it was still kind of a shock. My son can't beat me yet.) I can see some of the older boys rolling their eyes and wondering, what's with all the chess. However, it's what he wants to do, and it's fine with the Scoutmaster as long as it doesn't mutate into "goofing off" while food is waiting to be cooked or pans are waiting to be washed (which it did a little at the last camping trip, which was quickly corrected.) Someone also mentioned uniforms, I think the problem today is most boys just don't want to wear any uniform... except a sports uniform. Nobody makes fun of the sports uniform. But it's pretty ironic (as someone also alluded to) when you compare some of the physical activities that Scouts do, particularly older Scouts, to "regular sports." Rapelling or soccer, who's the "geek?" (Neither one, of course, but you know what I mean.)

Rooster says: Second, whether its declared in government documents or not, we are a nation primarily composed of Christians. Just to nitpick a little here, we are a nation composed mostly of Christians, or to put it even more accurately, a nation whose population is composed mostly of Christians. "Primarily" has a different connotation, more than just numerical. More importantly, Rooster, I would like to ask you and any others who believe that this is a "Christian nation," one question: And before I ask it, I know that when I was selecting the first proper noun in the question below, I could have chosen Buddhist or Zoroastrian or Sikh or any of the dozens of other religions, but I decided to go with the one where I personally know the answer with certainty. Here's the question: How do you think a Jewish citizen of the United States feels when he hears or reads that this is a "Christian nation?"

Hmm, that link doesn't work. But if you copy and paste it into your browser address bar, then it works. I guess it is because the link is broken up, but I'm not sure why that happened. When it is copied and pasted, it becomes re-united again.

Big Dog says: BTW, have you ever noticed the ACLU is all about free speech unless that speech involves religion? Actually, I have noticed the opposite. The ACLU has been involved in several high-profile cases on behalf of people or groups claiming that the government was infringing on their right to free exercise of religion. I went on their web site to confirm that, check out this page: http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertylist.cfm?c=142 One of the articles is about a case where Jerry Falwell filed suit against the state of Virginia, to challenge a state law banning religious organizations from becoming corporations, and the ACLU filed a brief in support of Falwell's position. (Yes, you read that right.) The page linked above seems to only be about very recent actions by the ACLU, I could not quickly figure out how to get to pages where the ACLU describes cases it has handled in the past. I am sure there are a number of older cases cases filed or joined by the ACLU where they were supporting people trying to practice their religion. What I have noticed is that a lot of people tend to make incorrect statements about what the ACLU stands for. (I'm not a member, though I did join for a couple of years in college until I got tired of paying the dues.) In any event, the ACLU isn't really relevant to what I was talking about. I do realize that this thread is about a case involving the ACLU, but Region 7 made a point about whether Christmas is a religious holiday, which I don't think the ACLU has gotten involved in. I guess this issue was slightly off-thread, but I didn't start it, I just found it interesting so I commented on it. Big Dog, it would seem that you agree with me that Christmas is a religious holiday. Right? Whether the U.S. is, or is supposed to be, a "religious nation," is an issue I have gotten into a few times in this forum and I'm not in the mood right now. Whether it was or not when it was founded, I personally don't think that the answer helps to answer any issues that are relevant today. Whatever else the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution may have written (and you can find quotations going both ways on matters of religion), they also wrote the First Amendment, and it is the interpretation of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of that amendment -- by the courts of today -- that govern the issue discussed in the first post in this thread, and the other contested constitutional issues concerning religion. As far as I know, whether Christmas can be a federal holiday isn't one of those issues.

I will of course bow to KoreaScouter's superior knowledge of things military. It just seems to me that there would be a better way to do this.

Yeah... it does seem a bit odd. I could see if someone was hospitalized in some mobile hospital in the mountains of Afghanistan, there might be a bit of a supply problem. But if someone is at Walter Reed, I would hope they could give him a magazine or a pen. Also, for some of these items, it seems to me that it would cost more for the Red Cross to handle all of these small individual items coming in from all over the place... check the "snacks" and make sure they haven't been tampered with by some nut... check the "phone cards" and make sure they actually have time on them... and whatever else, than for the Red Cross to ask for the usual cash donations and go out and buy items in bulk at a discount, which I am sure it does all the time. One exception might be clothing, which I guess the Red Cross does seek for emergency victims, but again, if someone is injured in a war, I would be more than happy for some of my federal tax dollars to go to buy him a sweat-suit to wear in the hospital.

Region 7 Voyageur says: Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. I personally believe that he was both man and God. My understanding is that the Hebrew and Muslim faith tradition believe that Jesus existed. The United States holiday honors the man, not the religion. If this were not true then the ACLU would be actively working to eliminate the federal holiday observed on December 25. I have not heard of any call by any group to eliminate Christmas as a federal holiday. I disagree with part of this. Christmas is a Christian religious holiday that the United States government (and every other government in this country that I know of) has chosen to recognize as a holiday. This is quite understandable given that approximately 95 percent of U.S. citizens celebrate that holiday in some form. It does not, however, change the fact that it is a religious holiday. Neither does the fact that much of the "celebration" of Christmas (including by some non-Christians, including me, who is married to a Catholic) takes place in a secular way, revolving around the buying of things. The fact that the ACLU has not challenged Christmas as a federal holiday does not change that fact either -- it may mean that the ACLU knows how and when to pick its battles. Nor am I suggesting that Christmas should not be a federal holiday; all I am saying is that, at its core, it is a religious holiday. You say that Jesus Christ was a "real person" and that other religious acknowledge that he "existed," as your basis for concluding that the holiday "honors the man, not the religion." However, the birth of Jesus is not celebrated because he was a "real person," it is celebrated by your religion, because your religion believes he is God, or the Son of God. There are many other "real people" whose birth is not celebrated by a federal holiday. That includes some religious leaders or political leaders who hold places of high honor in a particular religion: For Jews, most prominently Moses, closely followed by such as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, King David and King Solomon. (I know, some may question the actual existence of all but the last two.) For Muslims, Mohammed -- and maybe his birthday is celebrated in some other countries, I don't know. I am not suggesting we add any holidays in this country, I am just suggesting a flaw in your reasoning that the federal Christmas holiday is non-religious in nature. You mention other holidays and throw in the fact that the persons celebrated were not all perfect. However, look at the real, basic reason why we celebrate each holiday. Reduce it to one sentence and see whether that sentence suggests a secular or religious motive for the holiday: George Washington: First president, military leader of the American Revolution. (Secular.) Christopher Columbus: Depending on which description you want to choose: "Discoverer" of America, or Person who initiated the colonization of North America by Europeans. (Both secular) Martin Luther King Jr.: Civil rights leader. (Secular. We don't celebrate his birthday because he was a minister, we do so because of his advocacy of non-violent protest to achieve civl rights.) Jesus Christ: Son of God and founder of the Christian religion. (Religious.) Again, I am not suggesting that any action be taken or anything, based on my conclusion. I am just saying that if you are trying to make some point based on Christmas being a non-religious holiday, I don't think it works.

SR540, a couple of years ago when my son was still in Cub Scouts (probably in the fourth grade) I had almost exactly that conversation with him. I told him about how I, as a Cub Scout, wore my uniform to school every week, then walked to the den mother's (not "leader" yet) house for the den meeting right after school. (And as someone else mentioned, when we said the Cub Scout promise, it included "to be square.") I told my son sort of half-jokingly that maybe he and his den should do that (wouldn't work anyway because all the den leaders worked during the day), and he said, Dad, I would be laughed out of school.

Which article? Commenting totally out of context, I would say that there have always been some people who have called Scouting "geeky"... or before that, "nerdy"... or before that, "uncool"... or before that, "square"... or before that, whatever people who didn't understand the program called it. The sad part is that there are a lot of kids who pay attention to the name-calling, and quit (or don't join) as a result.

If the Scarlet Knight carries a sword or a lance, he (or she) will still be the target of reformers--several mascots have had to give up their muskets, etc. Heh, heh, heh. Not so far, anyway. I think there are some depictions of the Scarlet Knight with a lance, but so far the Lance Control Movement has not made its presence known. I forget whether the "live" incarnation of the knight at games carries any implements of destruction. Of course, that reminds me of yet one more thing that raises an "issue" today. In high school, our arch-rival team's nickname was the Eagles, leading some clever cheerleader or coach to come up with what is my favorite team cheer of all time: What do we eat, what do we eat? Eagle meat, eagle meat! How do we like it, how do we like it? Raw, raw, raw! Let's see, what are the contemporary issues here? 1. Not environmentally friendly. 2. Poor food-handling practice; if one was going to eat eagle meat, it should probably be cooked. 3. Bad pun. Though very funny, at least to me, otherwise I wouldn't remember it after all these years.

When these "mascot" discussions come up, I always consider myself lucky that I attended a college whose teams are the "Scarlet Knights." (Purely by coincidence, my high school had "Scarlet Knights" as well, the only change was from Scarlet and White to Scarlet and Black.) So far, no descendants of medieval knights have presented any petitions to change it. Plus, on the official signs and logos at least, the Scarlet Knight's face is completely covered, so I suppose the face under the helmet could belong whatever race, ethnicity, religion -- or gender -- that any particular observer wishes it to be. Yes, that was mostly tongue-in-cheek.

I don't consider it inconceivable that in the past, especially in the South, that a troop might have been sponsored by some organization that was racist--but I certainly find it inconceivable that such a relationship would exist today. Hunt, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe I should have mentioned it in my earlier post, but I was really dealing only with today. While it seems doubtful that the KKK itself would have been a CO at any point, other segregationist organizations may well have been. It should be kept in mind that up to a certain point during the civil rights era, there were officially-sanctioned whites-only BSA units in the South. (I have read different accounts as to when that point occurred, but the late 60's seems to be the best-supported "date.") So it is conceivable that one or more segregationist groups may been involved. As you say, Hunt, that was then, and this is now. Contrary to what some people seem to think, the BSA does sometimes change to reflect changes in society -- when those changes are positive. It is the current failure to reflect one positive change -- or even to allow for local decisions to do so -- that has created a lot of controversy. (Notice I didn't say the word... I'm not hijacking the thread any more than it has been.)

Or, someone joining the BSA and being upset to find so many traditional values! Ha, ha. I love the values of the BSA. The real ones, not the political one.

Acco, just to make it clear, I am not talking about mascots. If you were responding to hops, ok. If you were responding to me, I think the OA is in a different category. If you disagree, that's ok, it means we only agree 99 percent of the time instead of 100. Adrian, pretty funny about the Vandals. But you want to make sure that if you are at a Vandal tailgate party, they are not parked too close to the Visigoths, that could be real trouble. To say nothing of the Huns.

Adrianvs writes: Not quite, NJ. Most who study "Nazi Affairs and the Holocaust" aren't Nazis or sympathizers. I can't argue with the second sentence, but I can argue with the first. There is a difference between a philosophy that is almost completely a matter of history, as Naziism fortunately is, and a philosophy that has a large number of current adherents. If Mr. Prager was a student specializing in Soviet studies now, you would be correct, because the Soviet Union is history. Marxism is largely history too, though not completely (and we could discuss whether China today is really Marxist or just a brutal dictatorship.) But I think he was at Columbia in the very early 70's, at which time the Soviet Union was very much in the present, and still making moves to expand its power and influence. Under those circumstances, I think that you would find that a lot of people studying it would be adherents of its governing philosophy. And I think Mr. Prager agrees with me: "I was a fellow at the Russian Institute where I specialized in Soviet affairs and Marxism, and so I encountered professor after professor and student after student who truly believed in some variation on Marxism." What he does not seem to get is that there was no reason why he should have been surprised or upset about that fact. If he didn't want to meet so many Marxists, he could have done his graduate studies in business administration or chemistry or something. This whole thing isn't a big deal. I just find it funny.

I had been under the impression that the YMCA had already changed the name of Indian Guides to Y-Guides, several years ago. Maybe I was misinformed, or maybe this was just something someone wanted to happen, or maybe they changed the name but kept the "Indian" regalia, chants, etc. and now those are being removed as well. I don't really know anything about the program; when I was a kid, my "Y" was the YM/YWHA (Young Men and Women's Hebrew Association) and I don't think they had "Indian Guides." All I really remember doing there was swimming and some field trips in the summer. So I can't give an opinion about whether in recent years the "Indian Guides" have made sure their "Indian" references gave honor rather than offense to Native American heritage. I can, however, give an opinion on the OA, which I guess would be the main impact of something like this on the BSA. My recollection of my youthful OA membership is that the intent, at least, was to honor "Indian" heritage and lore, not to insult anyone. It is my understanding that in more recent years, the BSA/OA and Native American leaders have done exactly what FOG has suggested -- worked together to make the reality match the intent, by making sure ceremonies and garb were more authentic, and in some cases discontinuing ceremonial actions and phrases that were considered so sacred that they should not be copied by the OA, or offensive for some other reason. Maybe someone with more direct current involvement with the OA can confirm or correct my understanding. If there are still things that the BSA can do to make clearer that its intention is to honor Native American heritage, I hope that can be done -- rather than lose what I think is a beneficial element of the OA program.

Maybe I'll comment on the main point of this later. For now, I can't help being amused that this guy chose to devote his graduate studies to "Soviet Affairs and Marxism" at the "Russian Institute" (in the early 70's, according to a bio I just found on the web), and he was shocked and upset to find so many Marxists. That sounds like someone majoring in biology and being upset to find so many plants. (I do understand that in the social sciences, one may study things that are contrary to one's own views, either just to understand them, or to try to figure out how to change them. But when you specialize in a philosophy that you disagree with, don't be surprised when you meet people who believe in that philosophy.)

FOG asks me if I have: ever heard of "morally straight"? Uh, yeah. Of course, one need not be "straight" in his sexual orientation to be "morally straight." By the way, Umpire Bob is blind. I haven't seen his vision test results. However, I do notice that you two see "eye to eye" on the exclusion of gays from the BSA. (I am so funny.) Also, while I have been staying out of the "BSA as religious organization" debate, I can't help commenting on this: Based on this statement alone, the KKK, Black Panthers and the IRA would be good Charter Partners. Fortunately, the BSA does not look at one statement alone when seeking or accepting chartering organizations. The BSA also looks at the Scout Oath and Law (which, in fact, are referred to in the quoted statement in the national charter as "kindred virtues.") I think it's clear that the teachings of the groups mentioned are not consistent with all of the values expressed in the Scout Law. Friendly? Courteous? Obedient? That last one is the biggest issue, in my opinion. I believe the Scout handbook still says in the explanation of "Obedient": "If he feels that these laws are wrong, he attempts to change them rather than simply to disobey." I am pretty sure that all three of these groups believe, as part of their philosophy, that violence is an acceptable means of achieving governmental and social change. That might lead to the question as to whether, if Scouting had existed in 1776, John Adams, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been acceptable as Scoutmasters, since they were revolutionaries fighting to overthrow a legally established government. But that would be another thread.

Ooh ooh, I knew, I knew! I saw the that wasn't there. I think TwoCubDad is getting ready for the club circuit. I think that at age 10-11 boys are at a very basic level as far as questions about a Scout troop. Basically all in the "what will I be doing" range. And not, what will I be doing when I am 16, or even 13 -- what will I be doing now. Since they have been Webelos, the questions may express themselves in how things will be different now that I am in Scouting. More frequent meetings of the "whole group" (the troop), parents generally not there unless they are a leader, more frequent campouts, but I don't think they want much more specific than that. I have to say to scoutingagain, while your questions are good ones, I think that most of them are "parent" questions. Maybe this a fine point, but "What do we do at summer camp" would be the question, not "Where do we go." I also don't think, for example, that most Webelos can really conceptualize something like Philmont. I have described Philmont to my son (crossed over in April), and it seems like he can't even imagine himself doing it. I am pretty sure the reason for that is that he is not yet a strong enough hiker to want to attempt something like that. And nobody expects him to be -- he just turned 12. What he doesn't know, but I do know, is that he will be a strong enough hiker, camper, etc. as a result of all the experiences he is going to have in the next couple years, as well as physical growth. When he is ready for Philmont, Philmont will be ready for him. Until then, there's not much point in talking to him about it, and there's not much chance that he would have asked a question about it 8 months ago. Same for things like fund-raising. The kids at that age don't care, and I don't mean that in a bad way. They can be told, "in this troop we sell wreaths," but the closest thing you are likely to get to a question is "Oh, OK." Obviously there are exceptions. I haven't seen any, though -- even from boys who are very bright and could easily think of questions like this -- they just don't. They're not "there" yet. Another example, how is the SPL chosen. When my son was in Webelos, before he had been to a troop meeting, I think the whole idea of a boy only a few years older than him, standing in front of a whole room running a meeting, would have been a foreign concept -- it is something that has to be seen to be believed, at that age. The idea of voting for a leader would have fallen in the same category -- until he got to see the SPL and ASPL in action for a couple months, and then spend a week in summer camp with all of the potential candidates in the next election. When, 2 months after summer camp, he actually got to vote for the new SPL -- and the boy he voted for won, over the incumbent ASPL who is about 2 years older and who the adults thought was a shoo-in... I can't even describe my son's reaction. Though he was quiet about it, he thought that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. (I had to remind him that when you're a voter, the guy you vote for doesn't always win -- something I know from extensive personal experience as a voter, but then you work with the guy who did.) I guess I've made my point -- and worn it down to a stub.

FOG says: No where is it explicitly stated what the values of BSA are. Those values must be inferred and interpolated from other statements by BSA. Hmmmm. . . now just where does it say in those statements that homosexuals are not good role models? Funny you should ask. It doesn't say it anywhere. Of course, this is a poor example of what you are talking about anyway, because the anti-gay thing cannot really be "inferred" or "interpolated" from the Oath or Law, either. Other things can be, though many of them are right in the Handbook in the descriptions under the points of the Oath and Law. By the way, any time you want to hang a slow change-up over the middle of the plate like this, feel free. I can't hold up, even when Umpire Bob says the count is 3-0.

Packsaddle, thank you. You are a gentleman as always. And you are correct. Hunt, you are correct also.

Left this out: FOG, do you really deny that the "past" is a relative term? That was really the whole point of my quotation. Or to put it another way, there is not mathematical measurement to determine when a particular past act or practice is "ok" because "standards" have changed from then to now. What you are really saying is another version of the old line, "the winners write the history books." This is true, though it is now in conflict with a more recent trend to write history as it actually was, and not just from the "winner's" standpoint.