NJCubScouter

OK, Rooster. I had to consider how to respond without trying to turn this into a personal brawl, and also keeping in mind the rules of the forum. I stand by what I have said. I never accused you of intentionally or knowingly "hating" anyone or anything. However, I know what impression I have gotten from some of your posts. The one you quote in this thread is one of them. Maybe you think you were expressing compassion for gay people, but when I read what you write, I certainly get the impression that you consider ALL gays to be of lesser moral character than you, because of what they do, or what some of them do. You base this not on the behavior of any particular individual, but on their behavior as a group, or what you perceive to be their behavior as a group. Is this "hate"? Whether it is or not, that is not the term I used. I said "expressing hatred," which in my mind covers a pretty wide range. It does not depend on what you actually think. It looks only at what you say, and the feelings that your words instill in others. I don't think I specifically accused you of "expressing hate," and I won't now. As I said before, I know what my opinion is, and others can form theirs. You also challenge what I said about past posts. One of the great things about this forum is that the posts stay here, if not forever, then for a long time. Anyone can go back and read them, and if anyone really cares enough about this to go back and read old posts, I would recommend the ones from March of 2002. You will there find Dedicated Dad making a number of truly offensive references, and Rooster agreeing with him. You will also find Rooster personally attacking me, and accusing me of "dishonesty" among other things. (March 14, 2002, at 3:49:12 PM.) So, Rooster, if you want to pretend to be an innocent victim, you can, but anyone can go back and read all the posts. I could respond to the rest of what you write, but I don't see much point. I just have to laugh at the taunt of "be a man," is that how you think you are going to "win" an argument? By using the tactics of a schoolyard bully?

Bob, while I agree that one should not use an accepted meaning for a word as an excuse not to follow the program, the real issue is following the program, not what words one uses. Your first response in this thread was that the saying about leaders and followers was a cliche that was irrelevant to the program, and I agree with that, but you then challenged the cliche itself. The bottom line is that the program should be followed. In terms of the PL position in a New Scout Patrol, if one wants to be literal, it is really only an issue when the patrol is first formed. The first boy elected PL is the ONLY one in the patrol who will have been a "leader" without first being a "follower." (Note "follower" is in quotes, as a shorthand. Anyone who wants to substitute "non-leader" or "person who has not been a patrol leader" or whatever else, can do so without changing the meaning of what I have said.) Everyone else will have been a "follower" for at least one month. Even then, if the "first PL" was in the Cub Scouts, then by definition he was a "follower" because the leader was an adult. Also, the NSP PL (including the "first") has training wheels (if you will) attached to his leadership, primarily in the form of the Troop Guide and the NSP ASM. There is a progression in leadership roles, to a PL position without training wheels, to (sometimes) a staff position for the whole troop (ASPL or other), to SPL, where the boy is "working without a net." (Except of course, there is always a "net" if there needs to be.) So I don't think the cliche of "good leaders must be good followers" would be any reason to avoid using the NSP or any other parts of the BSA program.

One fact we were taught was all adult offenders were juvenile offenders but not all juvenile offenders become adult offenders. Not to send yet another trend off on yet another tangent, but... One thing I have been taught is to be very careful of words like "all." (Or "none," or "never.") In this case, "all" clearly is not correct and I suspect that "almost all" would not be correct either. It probably depends on the type of crime. If, say, a 21-year-old man commits a "street crime" (for example, theft or drugs), then yes, chances are probably pretty good that he had a juvenile record as well. If a middle-aged person decides to kill their cheating spouse or to embezzle money from their employer, or to commit securities fraud, then the correlation with juvenile crime is probably pretty low. Martha Stewart's juvenile record is probably pretty clean. On the other hand, you are correct that not all juvenile offenders go on to commit crimes as adults. In other words, sometimes the "juvenile justice system" actually works, and has the intended effect of persuading the youthful offender that that is not the way to go in the future.

I feel so honored. I'll have to get back to you.

Also, check out these web sites which discuss "followers" in the context of BSA leadership training. I realize that these are NOT official sites. It does appear that the relevant statements in the first site MAY be derived from BSA training materials. The second site seems to be entirely the author's own understanding, but it seems logical. http://www.troop5psc.com/wbleader.html http://scouter659.htmlplanet.com/custom.html After reaching the second site, click on "Troop JLT Course Page Four" on the left side, which has the relevant material. I did not link to that page directly because there is a message on it that seems to say not to.

I was going to say something, but KoreaScouter just said most of it a lot better than I would have. What I wold add is that it seems to me that the "debate" here is largely a matter of semantics. I don't think everybody is using "follower" in the same way. Some seem to be using "follower" simply to mean "non-leader," and I don't think it is objectionable in that way. "Follower" does not necessarily imply an overly hierarchical, "command"-driven style of leadership. It does not preclude the kind of "first among equals" and "representative" style of leadership that I think most of us would agree, is what the BSA is trying to achieve. Just out of curiosity, I did an Internet search to see what, if anything, the BSA has to say about this subject. The first thing I found is very interesting. It is one of the requirements (section IV) for the Venturing Silver Award. It says: Leadership Introduction Leadership is a cornerstone of the Venturing Silver Award. As you work on the Silver Award, you will experience many new things, learn many new skills, and learn to serve others. But to effectively take advantage of all those newly-learned skills and experiences, you must know how to effectively lead. It is true that some people are born with some natural leadership ability, but the best leaders develop leadership sills and continue to expand and hone these skills throughout their lives. We all get the opportunity to be followers and leaders. It takes skill to be a good follower, too, but in this section, you will concentrate on developing leadership skills and implementing those skills as a leader. Requirements: Successfully complete the Venturing Leadership Skills Course. Successfully serve for at least six months in an elected or appointed crew, district, or council leadership position. Since leadership is a form of service to others, don't be afraid to ask your followers, those you serve, how you are doing. If you don't have an occasional assessment of your progress, you might not improve. Learn to value the opinion of others. This must be in addition to the leadership requirement in the Venturing Gold Award. Isn't that interesting? In speaking to the prospective leader, the requirements use "your followers" and "those you serve" as synonyms of each other. It also uses "follower" several other times, and not as a "bad word." I do realize that these are the requirements for one program, and I did not immediately come across anything for Boy Scouts specifically, but it seems to me that the "principles of leadership" applicable to Venturing would not be any different than those applicable to a Boy Scout troop.

Just to be clear on what you are asking, the "new" diamond-shaped Tiger badge would be worn by boys who earned it, meaning boys working out of the handbook that came out in 2001 (?). (Even if that's the wrong year, it is the first and only actual book, as opposed to unbound materials, that has existed for the Tiger program.) If I have my years right, that would mean that boys currently in the fourth and fifth grades, who were Tigers in the first grade and earned the rectangular patch, would still be wearing the rectangular patch. When the current fourth graders leave the pack, the rectangular patch will be obsolete.

NW, that was a good post and I agree with it. I just have one little comment on your statement about the 13th amendment. Unlike all the other amendments prior to the 14th, its effect was not limited to the federal government. In fact, I believe it is the only amendment that reaches beyond ALL governments and directly controls private actions as well. Section 1 of the 13th amendment says: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. As a result, the 13th amendment was immediately effective and enforceable nationwide and did not require the 14th amendment for its enforcement. You are correct that the rights contained in previous amendments (basically, the Bill of Rights) were not enforceable against the states until after the passage of the 14th amendment, and even then it was a number of years before the U.S. Supreme Court determined that that was the case, and it wasn't done wholesale, but on a selective basis. (This is oversimplified; I think there was a whole chapter in my constitutional law textbook about this.)

TwoCubDad says: I'm SAR eligible on both sides of my family. One ancestor was in the NJ Militia (come to think of it, NJ, we may be related after all) Only if the militia in question was located in the greater Lithuania-Ukraine metropolitan area, where all my ancestors were until right before WWI. Thank you for having your ancestors liberate my state, though.

ProudEagle said: I think you all missed my central point about Moore. He took an Oath to uphold the constitution of the state of Alabama. He never took an oath to follow the federal court or to follow the US Constitution. That is incorrect. I am fairly sure that in every state, the oath of office for state officials includes a pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Whether it is actually true in every state or not, it is definitely true in Alabama. Here is Article XVI of the Alabama Constitution: All members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I, , solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God." Additionally, Judge Moore's position on the meaning of the references to God in the Alabama Constitution was considered and rejected by the federal courts. ProudEagle also says: Also, who has control of the state judicial building that the monument was placed in? If control over decorations and the like is given to the chief justice he would have been within his right to at least attempt to place anything he wanted within the building. As I pointed out earlier, his exercise of the powers of his office would always be subject to the Constitutions of the United States and of Alabama. (And if the two constitutions are in conflict, guess which one wins? But I do not think there is any conflict that is relevant to this case.) I should also note that the creation of this monument and its installation was carried out using private funding. No public funds were in any way used. It did sit in a public building. That is all. That may be all, but that is enough. The problem was the placement of a religious monument in a public building. Who paid for it was irrelevant. We must also remember that Judge Moore was elected by the people to his position. He was well known for the display of the ten commandmants in his other court houses and it was a large part of what got him elected. Also irrelevant, because he had to abide by the constitution and orders of federal courts, and in some cases state courts. (And by the way, at some point the remainder of the Alabama Supreme Court countermanded Judge Moore's order regarding the placement of the monument. These were eight justices also elected by the people of Alabama.) What if someone were elected president, on a platform that anyone who criticizes the government should be imprisoned? It would not matter how many people voted for him, if Congress passed such a law and the president signed it, its enforcement would be enjoined by every court up to the Supreme Court, and would never go into effect. The Constitution of the United States is, according to itself, the supreme law of the land. It is bigger than any government official or agency, including a chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Only after the federal court ruled did Pryor have to take on Moore in order to uphold his oath of office. That's correct, because the ethics case against Judge Moore was not about the Ten Commandments -- that issue had already been decided. The case was about a state court judge who repeatedly defied the orders of a federal court. Attorney General Pryor, despite his agreement with Judge Moore on the Ten Commandments issue, did his job and prosecuted that judge.

TwoCubDad, although I don't have the books here, this site http://www.usscouts.org/usscouts/advance/cubscout/changes/webelos-03.html seems to indicate that the Compass badge requirements have not changed. The Webelos badge must be earned first.

FOG says: So what you are saying is that BSA isn't allowed to express its values and exclude people that it believes lead a lifestyle that is contrary to its message? No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the exclusion of gays is incompatible with the BSA's true values. The "message" is not that of the BSA, but rather is the message of groups who control a temporary majority of the decision-making bodies in the BSA and are, on this issue, using the BSA as a vehicle for their political/religious agenda. I'm really surprised that you waste your time with BSA since you seem to feel strongly about this issue. Now you sound like BobWhite. He has said basically the same thing several times. It's good to know that you guys share some common ground, and I am sure that Bob is happy to have you on his side on this issue. Evidently the core values and the message of BSA is less important than the need for you son to have something to do for a couple hours each week. See above. The values he is actually exposed to in Scouting are just fine with me. They are the values he recites at troop meetings every week (we have "graduated" from CubScouts, but my scouter.com name has not.) They are the same values I recited when I was a Boy Scout. None of them have anything to do with excluding gays as leaders. I have explained my decision to remain in Scouting in greater detail previously, but that will do for now. FOG, you are only about the 15th person to suggest in this forum that I leave Scouting, but you aren't any more persuasive than any of the others, including your comrade mentioned above.

Well, Jethro Tull is from another country, so you could call it country music, OGE. Unfortunately, this is me quoting one of my own bad jokes. When I am in the car with one or more of my family and a song comes on the radio that is a British group doing what is really a country song (the Rolling Stones have a few, Genesis one or two, and the Beatles did "Don't Pass Me By"), I say, "here's a country song, but not this country." Nothing from Jethro Tull, that I can think of, falls into that category, however.

What about his right to free speech & freedom of religion as defined under the 1st Ammendment? Wasn't that violated? No, it wasn't. A judge does not own the courthouse in which he presides. He was not acting as an individual. He was acting in the capacity of the head of the branch of government that controlled the building in which he worked. In that capacity, he had to comply with the rules and laws governing his authority. He decided to place a religious symbol in the building, for a religious purpose. As others have pointed out, he said so himself. He was trying to promote his belief in God. A government entity cannot promote a particular belief in God. The courts say that violates the Establishment Clause.

Rooster says: NJ, You're priceless. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that... Yes, I have real heartburn when I see homosexual activists going after the BSA. I also get a little irritated when they attack the Catholic Church, Christians in general, Republicans, and a myriad of other conservative groups. However, despite your implication - we dont hate gays. Were just tired of the never-ending drivel. Your discernment about members of this board being hateful, is just another example of an aspiring activist whos willing to say anything - about anyone - no matter how untrue - no matter how insulting - just to gain sympathy and/or to garner support from naive wannabe tree huggers. Sadly, youre probably having an effect. Stay the course bro. Attica! Attica! Attica! Youll do your mommy proud. In a few years, maybe theyll name a library after you. Personally, Id rather not have that kind of a legacy. Rooster, you're ranting. Maybe you can explain how the "wannabe tree huggers" or "Attica!" got into this. Actually, it's not necessary. Rooster, I do not question your right to express your opinion on this subject, but you question mine. You also try in vain to link me with groups with which I have no involvement. All I have is a particular opinion on the issue of whether the BSA should exclude openly gay leaders. I think I have a good basis for my opinion and one that could persuade some other people to agree with me. So I express my opinion on here, when I have the time and inclination to do so. Now, there are other people who share my opinion on this issue, whose tactics I may not agree with, or whose opinions on other subjects I may not agree with. But that does not change what my opinion is, or the way I express it. As for the "hate" issue, I cannot prove what is in your brain or your heart. All I can do is read what you write. I do not think that calling someone's orientation a "perversion" is a term of endearment. If you'd like me to pull out examples of your use of that and other terms, I can, but I don't think it's necessary. I can also find the posts where you endorse the views of another poster, long departed from this forum, who condemned gays and their orientation in much stronger terms than you tend to use yourself. Again, I'm not going to bother doing that. The posts are there, and people can draw their own conclusions from them. I've drawn mine. Id be happy if I could simply raise my kids as I see fit, associate with the groups of my choosing, and embrace the values that God guides me to, without harassment from outsiders who want to reform the world to their own liking. Nobody's stopping you. And if the BSA allowed units to decide for themselves whether to exclude gays, nobody would still be stopping you. The difficulty arises when you and/or others try to impose one of your values on others in a group that is not "about" that particular value. The BSA is not your church or your home, and it isn't mine either. I don't want to impose my values on you, but you want to impose yours on me. (The value in this case being whether it's acceptable to exclude gays.)

Ed, if you read the document, it answers your questions. I myself have tried to answer the same questions from you about five different times, but you don't like my answers, so I'm not going to bother with it again. Anyway, I think SR540Beaver explained it well.

Ed, here is a link to the decision of the Court of Appeals: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216708.pdf It explains the whole thing, in 50 pages. There's no point in trying to summarize it.

Judge Moore was removed from office for intentionally violating a court order after being given numerous opportunities to obey it. The decision of the court that removed him is here: http://www.judicial.state.al.us/documents/final.pdf The final paragraph of that document makes clear what the issue was: This court has found that Chief Justice Moore not only willfully and publicly defied the orders of a United States district court, but upon direct questioning by the court he also gave the court no assurances that he would follow that order or any similar order in the future. In fact, he affirmed his earlier statements in which he said he would do the same. Under these circumstances, there is no penalty short of removal from office that would resolve this issue. Anything short of removal would only serve to set up another confrontation that would ultimately bring us back to where we are today. This court unanimously concludes that Chief Justice Moore should be removed from the office of Chief Justice. (Now back to me.) I think that makes the issue clear. The Ten Commandments were not the issue. The issue was that a state official was ordered by a federal court to do something, and refused to do it. He appealed, the court of appeals agreed with the lower court, and the official still refused to do what he had been ordered to do. He tried to appeal to the Supreme Court, which decided not to hear the case.. The official continued in his defiance and announced that he would continue to do so. In plain language, he committed contempt of court. An ordinary citizen in a similar position would probably have found himself in jail. I understand that Ed and Rooster and others do not agree with the basis of the court orders that Judge Moore defied. You have a right not to believe that what the federal courts say is the law, is the law. Judge Moore had, and still has, the right not to believe that as well. What he didn't have the right to do was to disobey the final order of a court with proper jurisdiction over the case.

Adrianvs says: Besides, the BOY Scouts already excluded 51% of the youth in membership. What matter does it make that 3% of adults are not allowed admittance? Adrian, would it matter if you were, say a member of an ethnic group that made up 3 percent of the population, and it was that 3 percent that was being excluded. As for the "boy" part, it's a different issue. The 51 percent of youths who are not allowed in the Boy Scouts are allowed in the Girl Scouts. And if you count Venturing, over age 14 the percent goes down to zero.

Rooster says: Youd think I would be more tolerant. Well, no, actually, I wouldn't. BTW, do you have a professional relationship with any of these homosexual activists? Do I ask you about your professional relationships? And if the answer was yes, it wouldn't change anything. But to answer your question, if you mean do I have any of "these homosexual activists" as clients or co-workers or anything like that, no, I don't. I knew some gay-rights activists in law school, but then again one of my friends at the time was the local president of the Federalist Society (http://www.fed-soc.org/). I've known people who have been activists for a lot of different things. I have represented gay clients, but they were not what I would call "activists," to the contrary, they were just ordinary people with ordinary problems and opportunities for which they needed a lawyer. They didn't necessarily make a secret of their orientation, but they didn't really discuss it either, it was just what they were. The same is true for the friends I have had who were gay, they weren't "activists," just people. Your never-ending "pursuit of justice" for "the oppressed" has made me curious, if not nauseous. You make me sound pretty impressive. I am not sure I would describe a few posts on an Internet forum as a never-ending pursuit of justice for the oppressed, but I'll take it. My mother would be proud. The way I was brought up, pursuing justice for the oppressed would be a good thing. However, I think you miss the point of why I do what little (in the greater scheme of things) that I do on this issue. If I was just a free-floating do-gooder advocating for the oppressed and downtrodden, there are other groups I could choose to advocate for. I do what I do because I find myself, and my son, in an organization that has strayed from its own real values. I know you don't agree with that, but I have said it and explained it countless times before and I don't think I need to again. I want the organization to regain its focus on what it is supposed to be doing, and not be known as a "hate group." That's not something I made up, at one point I had a boss who (while not an "activist") referred to the BSA as a "hate group," putting me in the position of defending the BSA and explaining how it isn't a hate group. Then I come onto this forum and see people expressing what I would call "hatred," even though they wouldn't acknowledge it and try to disguise with the rhetoric of "love the sinner, hate the sin" or however it goes. I have stuck with the BSA, but on this issue, the BSA has not stuck with me. Eventually it will, because the values of the organization demand it. I still hold out hope that things will change -- not for the sake of some activists somewhere, but for the sake of an organization that I consider as much mine as anyone else's, and the people in it, most importantly my son. As for your nausea, try Alka Seltzer.

Homophiles? Never heard that one. Is that like X Philes? Or the Rockford Philes? (In keeping with our new forum policy of Leave Nothing to Chance, yes, I misspelled "files" on purpose.) Or does it just mean people who don't think people should be discriminated against just because they're gay?

ProudEagle asks: Oh, here is a question I am uncertain of. I think I know both the book answer and the reality. Can an adult be registered as an unit leader without a position being specified? I have been told by what I consider to be an extremely reliable source that while this isn't specifically provided for, that it can be done. It was suggested by that same source that this could be used as a fix for the problem of parents that either want to be registered "leaders" or have nothing to do with the unit at all, and yet at the same time were largely unwilling to be trained for any position. The "book answer", which you know, is no, you can't. I believe the "reality answer" is, no, even if the council wanted to enter an application without a position code into the computer system (Scoutnet?), the system would not accept it. I would be curious to see the actual charter of this hypothetical unit, and whether there are actual blanks for the positions next to the peoples' names. My guess would be that someone along the line filled in a position.

Speaking of typos, let's try this again. This is sort of a delayed response, I just didn't want anyone to think I missed anything. (Following Acco's lead, I should state that that was partially in jest and partially sarcastic.) FOG says: On the flip side of the coin, the young man who looks at the captain of the football team in his spandex pants and thinks, "Yummy!" is engaging in a form of heterosexual behavior. When he says, "I am a homosexual", he is an avowed homosexual even if he hasn't done the nasty deed itself. I had to read that first sentence a couple of times to see if I was missing something. You meant a form of homosexual behavior, right? Not heterosexual. At first I thought maybe this football team captain is female, but then I saw it says "his" spandex pants. I'm not picking on you for making a typo, even though I am perfect in that regard (ha ha), I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote. As for your second sentence, I think you are proving Acco's point -- his actual point, not the point you think he was making. If someone says that -- not just to himself, but so that other people can hear it -- then yes, he is an "avowed homosexual" regardless of what his conduct has or hasn't been. As I said before, the actual conduct itself is beside the point. The policy is about what a person has expressed about their orientation. As for your other question, why would someone say they were gay if they weren't, the answer is, they probably wouldn't. In fact, up until about 30 years ago or so, almost all gays pretended to be straight, and many still do.

This is sort of a delayed response, I just didn't want anyone to think I missed anything. (Following Acco's lead, I should state that that was partially in jest and partially sarcastic.) FOG says: On the flip side of the coin, the young man who looks at the captain of the football team in his spandex pants and thinks, "Yummy!" is engaging in a form of heterosexual behavior. When he says, "I am a homosexual", he is an avowed homosexual even if he hasn't done the nasty deed itself. I had to read that first sentence a couple of times to see if I was missing something. You meant a form of homosexual behavior, right? Not heterosexual. At first I thought maybe this football team captain is female, but then I saw it says "his" spandex pants. I'm not picking on you for making a typo, even though I am perfect in that regard (ha ha), I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote. As for your second sentence, I think you are proving Acco's point -- his actual point, not the point you think he was making. If someone says that -- not just to himself, but so that other people can hear it -- then yes, he is an "avowed homosexual" regardless of what his conduct has or hasn't been. As I said before, the actual conduct itself is beside the point. The policy is about what a person has expressed about their orientation. As for your other question, why would someone say they were gay if they weren't, the answer is, they probably wouldn't. In fact, up until about 30 years ago or so, almost all gays pretended to be straight, and many still do.

By the way, Rooster, when you say "I wonder why?"; just out of curiosity, what would be your first three guesses?