NJCubScouter

I have run into this exact same issue in my son's troop and patrol. In June (2 months after my son joined), a boy joined who to my observation clearly had behavior and "maturity" problems and he was showing his lack of social skills by picking on the other boys in his patrol, all of whom are bigger than he is and anywhere from 6 to 18 months older. (My son was the only other boy in his "year" joining the troop in the spring, so they stuck both of them in the new-scout patrol that had been formed a year earlier.) To my knowledge, this boy does not suffer from any of the alphabet-soup conditions or any learning or other disability. In chatting with his father (an ASM) I learned that this boy was 10 and a half years old (now approaching 11) and was never in the Cub Scouts. The ASM saw my sort of puzzled look that silently said "So what is he doing here?" and explained that the boy (and all his siblings) are home-schooled and that he had completed the fifth grade. I further gleaned (without interrogating the guy) that the boy has "completed the fifth grade" basically because his parents have decided that he has. Apparently this is permissible under the law of our state. If this boy was not home-schooled, he would have missed the age cutoff in any school district in this state and would NOW be in the fifth grade, and would have his first opportunity to join when he turns 11, which I am guessing will be somewhere in the December-February area. The attitude I take is, what's the rush. I don't think anybody does their child any favors by pushing them into a Boy Scout troop based on a "technicality." My son joined a troop about 2 weeks short of 11-and-a-half, when he earned his Arrow of Light, and I think he has made the transition well. I really don't think that would have been the case a year earlier.

Let's try that again: FOG (that's not me calling you FOG, that's some guy named "New Jersey dude") says: New Jersey dude, I'll tell you what my wife's oncologist told me. With few exceptions, they avoid saying anything "causes" cancer because the correlation isn't high enough. In other words, if smoking caused cancer most smokers would get cancer. Smoking only increases your risk. Oh, I see, it "only" increases your risk. Your risk, that is, of contracting a terrible disease that often leads to a long, slow, horrible painful death, and even if it doesn't, seriously disrupts your life. And here I thought it might be the actual cause, but I feel much better now that I know that it only increases your risk. I think I'll run right out and buy a pack of smokes so I can start getting addicted to this wonderful stuff, so in 20 or 30 years my wife and/or kids can decide whether it's time to disconnect poor old Dad's feeding tube. This reminds me of the old line, "But otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

FOG (that's not me calling you FOG, that's some guy named "New Jersey dude") says: New Jersey dude, I'll tell you what my wife's oncologist told me. With few exceptions, they avoid saying anything "causes" cancer because the correlation isn't high enough. In other words, if smoking caused cancer most smokers would get cancer. Smoking only increases your risk. Oh, I see, it "only" increases your risk. Your risk, that is, of contracting a terrible disease that often leads to a long, slow, horrible painful death, and even if it doesn't, seriously disrupts your life. And here I thought it might be the actual cause, but I feel much better now that I know that it only increases your risk. I think I'll run right out and buy a pack of smokes so I can start getting addicted to this wonderful stuff, so in 20 or 30 years my wife and/or kids can decide whether it's time to disconnect poor old Dad's feeding tube. This reminds me of the old line, "But otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

As I learned this past Friday night at our district camporee, you have to watch who is in charge of preparing the snacks at the cracker barrel. I was standing sort of half-under a tarp (it was raining as it did for about half the weekend) listening to the ADC-in-charge making announcements about the next day's events, while under an adjoining tarp some boys (about 15-16 years old, and presumably from the ADC's troop) were turning a block of Swiss cheese into some sort of sculpture, and getting their fingerprints all over the cheese in the process. Not very appetizing, plus the resulting bits of cheese were just that, bits of cheese. It was probably a ten-dollar block of cheese and they're playing games with it and rendering it not something I wanted to snack on. I wanted to say to the boys (who were out of direct line-of-sight to the ADC), hey, guys, could you please just slice off some rectangular pieces of cheese so the adults can eat it? But it was so difficult for some of us to hear the announcements in the first place that I felt it would be an interruption, plus I knew it would be one of those moments where as I am opening my mouth to speak, the ADC would pause and everybody would hear me breaking into a discussion of the lashings competition with a comment about cheese. Plus with my luck, it probably would have turned out that I was lecturing the ADC's son. So I kept my mouth shut.

SF540Beaver says: But scouting is what it is and it's methods, policies and values are what they are. Change it to appeal to a broader market and it ceases to be the Boy Scouts. I agree with part of this and disagree with part of it. The "methods" (meaning the content of the methods, not their identity) and the "policies" of the BSA have been changed many times and it is still the Boy Scouts. What does not change are the core values of Scouting, though the understanding of those values and their implications may change. The key question here is one that I have asked several times and have never gotten a satisfactory answer: Which value or values of Scouting are violated by allowing someone who is openly gay to be a leader? Or, put another way, which value or values of Scouting require the exclusion of someone who is openly gay? The answers to these questions that I have seen demonstrate that the exclusion is "justified" solely by the beliefs of some (but not all) religions and by social taboos, not by any "value" that is inherent in Scouting. And by the way, and this is in response to Mark and several other people: I have never said that society, or a consensus of society, accepts homosexuality or believes that homosexuality is moral. What I said is that the the social consensus that homosexuality is immoral no longer exists. I'm saying consensus, not majority. Consensus means near-unanimity. In the absence of a consensus, the advocates of the gay ban are essentially advocating that morality be determined by majority vote -- the very thing that some of these same advocates (i.e. BobWhite) say they are opposed to.

I do not pretend to be an expert on the relationship between smoking and cancer, and I have not spent hours reading the studies. Here is what I understand to be the case. Studies HAVE shown a causal relationship between smoking and cancer by demonstrating such a big difference between the cancer rate of smokers and that of non-smokers, and after eliminating other potential causes, that the difference cannot be explained otherwise. This is the best science can do at the moment, and apparerently it is good enough for the scientific community, and it is good enough for me. However, when people say that no study has PROVEN that smoking causes cancer, there is a small grain of truth there. That grain is that nobody has been able to prove HOW smoking causes cancer -- in other words, scientists do not yet know which molecule interacts in what way with which other molecule to cause a cancer to begin forming. But as I say, the statistical evidence in this case is so overwhelming that I think it is "close enough" to say, yes, smoking does cause cancer. I also believe that the "mechanism" type of proof -- HOW smoking causes a particular disease -- DOES exist for some lung and heart diseases, other than cancer. One example is emphysema, which I suspect I have misspelled. FatOldGuy, your anecdote about a smoker living to a ripe old age, cancer-free, doesn't prove anything. I can tell you, anecdotally, that I have never heard of anyone having one particular kind of cancer, throat cancer, who did NOT smoke.

One touchy note - the Council Charter/membership system doesn't always match the Council Training records when it says someone is/isn't trained. Actually, in my council, based on my experience in doing the charters for a Cub pack for two years, I strongly suspect that the council's training records are almost never correct. We had people listed as trained who weren't trained and people not listed as trained who were trained. We'd correct it each year and it would never be correct when it came back. I myself never had the "Y" in the training column next to my name, even though I was trained. The same was true for the ranks of the Cub Scouts as listed on the charter. In a pack of 50 boys we would have four boys who were Webelos and had earned all the ranks, be listed as Bobcat, and the rest had no rank at all. Almost every boy in our pack earned the age-appropriate rank, but the council didn't seem to acknowledge it. I sat there for each of two charters and hand-wrote every boy's rank on the charter, but when it came back, the ranks weren't there. We had submitted the advancement reports also, so I don't know how many different ways we were supposed to give council the same information. To say nothing of the boys who were missing from the charter entirely even though their applications had been submitted, and we would try to fix it at recharter time, only to have the boy remain missing. In Cub Scouts this was mainly a concern if anything went wrong, but in Boy Scouts there are potential Eagle consequences as well. Last night I heard that there is a boy in the troop (who I knew from the pack) whose application was apparently lost by council, and though they had written his name on the charter when it was missing the first time, the CC has now learned that council considers the boy to have never been registered as a Boy Scout. A new app has been submitted... but the boy has been in the troop for more than 2 years, recently made First Class and probably has about 10 merit badges. He probably only needs a few more required merit badges plus time, service and leadership to make Life. But I wonder now if any of it counts. Fortunately the boy is only 13 so if everything did have to be re-signed off after his new app is finally processed, there is time to do it so he can progress toward Eagle. Since I think he had his First Class BOR at summer camp, and does not appear to have any position of responsibility, he actually has not "lost" any time at all. But this is not the way it's supposed to work. Sorry for the digression. Council record-keeping is a hot button with me.

SM406 says: The gathering of patrols for which I am SM... Hee hee. Well, this is my thread, and I give you permission to say "my troop." Thanks to all who have answered so far (especially to the person who I suspect is rolling his eyes right now, and thinking that No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.)

GeBlack, your satire about cars is very amusing. It might be relevant, if I could drive to work or to a camping trip in a cigarette. In other words, there is a risk-reward analysis at work here, or if you want to be even "colder" about it, a cost-benefit analysis. Such analysis is involved in everything we do, even though we don't think about it 99 percent of the time. There is danger in everything we do, including waking up in the morning, but we do it because of what the alternative would be. For one mundane example, I take a shower every day, even though in the back of my mind I know that people have slipped in the shower and died or become permanently injured, because the consequences of not showering outweigh the relatively minute possibility of death or incapacitation. For a somewhat more relevant example, I know people who take medication for very real and severe pain from one condition or another, even though they know they could become addicted to it. This is a tougher call and a personal decision, but the reward (no pain) is plain to see and every person has to weigh the risk against it for themselves. But when I look at smoking tobacco, what's the reward? The only "benefits" anyone has ever been able to tell me about ("it calms me down") sound to me like symptoms of the person's addiction to tobacco, so to me they don't really count. The reasons people have given me for why they started ("it was cool" "everybody else was doing it" "I didn't know the risks" "I heard it would help me lose weight") don't withstand much scrutiny. The "risks" are obvious. I put risks in quotes because it is more like a certainty that eventually there will be some health effects from smoking, and a very high likelihood that these effects will be very serious or fatal. So how can anyone even think that this is something to do in front of children? I don't just mean at Scouting events, I mean any children, including your own. Again, no offense to anyone, and Dsteele, there is nothing in your statements that would offend me. Even if I thought you were "attacking" my point of view, that is what this board is all about. My only problem would be with someone who attacked me as opposed to my "point of view," and you have never even come close to that line. I admire you as well, despite our disagreement on a host of subjects. And for that reason, I do wish you would stop smoking.

This should have been in the previous post. One other thing I realize I must do is to get my own training up to date. I took Cub Leader Basic when that existed, so I did not need New Leader Essentials, but now I do, and due to cancellations and conflicts I have not been able to get to it over the few months that I have wanted to. I think there is one in a few weeks, and I will be there. I have not been able to get a straight answer from the right people as to what else I need to be considered basic-trained as a Troop Committee Member, because all of the other Boy Scout-specific training sessions seem to be geared toward SM's, ASM's and outdoor skills. I asked about something I have heard of, Troop Committee Challenge, but I was told that is something that is done by someone with the committee as a whole. I spoke about that very briefly with the CC last night and he said to find out more and he will think about it. The result of all this is that when I replaced my Assistant Cubmaster patch with my Troop Committee patch, I removed the "Trained" patch and have not put it back on because I have not been able to figure out what I need to do to be able to wear it.

Last night I attended a troop committee meeting, and the CC announced under new business that the troop has fallen behind in having its leaders fully trained and also in YP training, and has not had a training coordinator for awhile. We need a new training coordinator. Everybody took the figurative "one step back" except for me. (Actually the CC was giving me "that look" as he was talking about needing a new training coordinator, because I do not (rather, did not) yet have a specific responsibility, and I have thrown around some loose talk about training and how if the leaders needed a quick YP session I have the certification to do it (though this may be about to lapse), so I guess I talked myself into this.) So now I am a troop training coordinator (not youth training, though one thing the CC talked about was getting together a session where you show the boys whatever video it is ("Time to Tell" is for Cubs I think) that Boy Scouts are supposed to watch and then go home and discuss it with their parents.) Now I have to actually do it, which starts with knowing exactly what to do. I have already asked for the troop's records on who has what training, which I know were recently updated to some degree, but I am sure they are incomplete because they were updated by asking people who happened to be present at one meeting. I have gone to the council's web site and downloaded their training schedules. In a very general sense I think it is my job to match people and their position-functions with specific training sessions that fit into their schedule, and make sure their registration forms are submitted, so all they have to do is go to the right place at the right date and time. Plus we think we have enough people who need YP and Risk Zone for the district to send someone, so I will arrange for someone to do that and a date acceptable to the other leaders. (Potentially I can do the YP myself, but I am wondering whether it would be better for someone with a few more knots to come in and do it, if you know what I mean.) I will learn about the opportunities for supplemental training and Wood Badge and give out the appropropriate flyers to the appropriate people. The one thing I said I would not do is maintain the training records. That would not be good for anybody, and it was agreed that someone else will continue to do that. They all know of my time constraints for non-work activities and how buried I already am in paper(primarily from being on the school board) and will work with that. I figure that, not counting meetings that I would be going to anyway, I can do this job within, stop laughing, an hour a week. So I do have a clue, but I am looking to this group for anything I am missing... any other ideas... any general words of wisdom... any misery-loves-company... that sort of thing. Just kidding about the misery, but you know what I mean.

My Council has a University of Scouting, which this year is November 1. All details are at http://www.ppbsa.org/ That is the main page for the council, but since we are so close to the event, the link is in big type right there on the main page (as of today, anyway.) If you follow the links there is a lot of descriptive information and a schedule of all the sessions. It includes Pow-Wow University for Cub Scout leaders and Boy Scout University for Boy Scout leaders and there are different patches signifying the different programs, but is really run as all one big day-long program. Last year I divided my time between Boy Scout and Cub Scout sessions, and also took some "general" (namely YP facilitator training.) This is a very well attended event, I can't even begin to guess how many people were there. It was in the hundreds. I can tell you that at lunch time we filled up a decent-sized middle-school cafeteria. It looks from this year's schedule (I do not yet know whether I can go) that there are even more sessions than in the 2 years I did attend. A quick glance suggests there are about 80 different sessions, divided into categories of All Leaders, Den and Webelos Leaders, Pack Leaders, All Cub Scout leaders, and All Troop Leaders. The smallest category has 9 different topics, the largest (troop leaders) has well over 30. Just for laughs I did a search on the word "Webelos" and came up with six different sessions. The troop leaders topics include a bewildering variety of things. I cannot think of any more topics that one might have, unless one were to divide the session on "Cooking Stoves and Water Filters" into two separate topics, and that sort of thing. The day is also used as a "program launch" when appropriate and there are opening and closing ceremonies in the school auditorium, with the program coordinators (called "deans") in cap and gown befitting the "university" theme. People who have attended multiple times are called on to stand and be recognized. At the end of it all we sing Scout Vespers and Cub Scout Vespers (which I take it is a new invention since the days of my youth.) It really is a good program. But this thread makes me wonder, does this mean that my council is some sort of model for this sort of thing?

Sorry to resurrect this thread after a whole week, but I've been busy. Bob says to me: The question NJ, is what makes your arbitrary decision (based on your opinion, observations and experience) correct, but the BSA's arbitrary decision based on their opinions, observations and decisions incorrect. You have the right to believe in your sphere of influence that your opinion is superior, but that also gives the BSA the right to determine in there sphere of influence that their opinion is superior. We have had this same basic discussion several times, but since you have introduced a new metaphor, I will respond to the metaphor. First, the phrase "sphere of influence" sounds to me like saying that morality is agreed to by majority vote. I thought we have all agreed that morality by majority is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, I think that for something to be considered immoral, what is required is a social consensus, which is much more than a majority. There is no magic number to determine when a consensus exists, but it is clear that the social consensus that homosexuality is inherently immoral no longer exists. It was merely a social taboo that still exists in some circles, but it is becoming more and more outdated and irrelevant. Second, "sphere of influence" implies that "might makes right." Is that what we want to be teaching the boys? No. To the contrary, the explanation for "A Scout is Obedient" says something along the lines of, when you see something that seems unjust, use peaceful means to try to get it changed. That applies perfectly here. Just because an organization CAN do something does not mean it is the right thing to do. Third, and I think this goes to the heart of our disagreement on this issue, I am part of the sphere. I have my own sphere and am part of other sphere's as well, but Scouting is one of my spheres. I am a tiny insignificant part of the sphere, but the number of people who believe as I do is not insignificant. I think that my opinion will prevail someday; the open issues are whether I will still be alive to see it, and how many states Scouting no longer exists in, by the time this foolishness ends. As to the first paragraph of Bob's quoted above, this is the basic issue, and I have explained and defended my position on it too many times to repeat it. I will just briefly say this. My general attitude in life is that everybody should have the ability to do what they want, unless they have demonstrated that their involvement would be incompatible with what they want to do. Scouting claims to be a diverse, inclusive organization. It actively opposes bigotry -- with one unfortunate exception. That being the case, if someone is going to be excluded from Scouting, there should be a good reason. The only reason for excluding gays from Scouting is that it offends some peoples' religious beliefs. It is no longer an "offense against society" (and I do not mean that in the legal sense) as it once was. It is a contentious issue among people of different religions and even within religions, and in Scouting, one religious vision is carrying the day. That is against the principles of Scouting.

"Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without tobacco and may not allow the use of tobacco products at any BSA activity involving youth participants." -- from the Guide to Safe Scouting, Part IV (bold type in original.) I do not think this is ambiguous. "May not allow" means "must prohibit." Proper English requires that the words "may not" be grouped as a phrase that modifies "allow," rather than "not allow" being a phrase modified by "may." Mother, may I? No, you may not. Mother doesn't mean that you can if you want to. Mother means that you must not, cannot, shall not. I do think that the BSA made an attempt here to provide somewhat "softer" wording than it could have, out of deference to the feelings of the many Scouters who persist in smoking. Unfortunately, the BSA has given the pro-smokers an inch (maybe just a millimeter), and they have taken a mile. So I guess they do need to close this "invented" loophole. I personally wouldn't mind even stronger language. Forget the stuff about "young adults," everybody is better off without tobacco, and everybody is better off not being around people who are smoking (all other things being equal, of course.) Every scientific study says so. Now (as Bob pointed out) even the tobacco companies are saying so, although they are saying so because they agreed to do so a part of a settlement of various lawsuits. Smoking kills and maims people, and in just about the most horrible ways that exist. I have seen that happen, and most of us have. Tobacco is a potent poison intentionally ingested directly into the fragile pair of organs that allow us to breathe, with absolutely predictable results. It is highly addictive, more so than many kinds of illegal narcotics. I have a daughter who managed to conceal from her parents that she was smoking from the age of about 12 to 15. She tried to quit on her own and couldn't, and after the word was finally out, she asked for help in quitting. She was given help, and she quit, and has not started again. It was not easy and it wasn't cheap, but at that point it was my highest priority in life. Don't take my word for any of this, read the package. I find it preposterous that we live in a society where tobacco is legal but marijuana is illegal. Tobacco is much more harmful. I am not advocating legalization of pot, but I guess I wouldn't mind if tobacco were illegal. I know it is not going to happen any time soon. So how about the G2SS saying, "There shall be no smoking at any Scouting event or activity." Period. Not just around the boys, but around anybody. I realize I probably have offended some people, and I apologize. Obviously I feel very strongly about this. Although I object to some of the other "names" that I have seen thrown around for people who believe as I do, call me a "radical" on this issue and I will wear it proudly. Extremism in defense of non-smoking is no vice.

Coin collecting. The main thing I remember about it is that it was with a counselor who was not with our troop but lived in the same town, and as an 11-year-old Second Class Scout I walked alone to his house and met with him alone. How times have changed. I think I met with him twice, at the initial meeting I remember he groused at me for not knowing some obscure fact that was in the pamphlet but not in the requirements, so I got the pamphlet and passed at the second meeting. I'm pretty sure the obscure question was something about nickels, but I don't remember whether it was the buffalo head or the Jefferson. I think it's pretty good that I remember anything about it at all after 34 years, especially considering that quite often I can't remember where I put my keys 10 minutes ago. To answer for my son, at his first summer camp this past July he earned his first three merit badges, Leatherwork, Textiles and Fingerprinting. He's still at "Scout" level (two requirements left for Tenderfoot and then about four for Second Class) but he has three merit badges. I think I had to be Second Class to work on a merit badge, waaaay back when.

I was content to just watch the continuing back-and-forth about laser tag and water pistols (I guess that is New Jersey-ese for squirt gun) until I saw Rooster say this: But if a rule doesnt make sense, no one has an obligation to remain silent. Its just as responsible and noble to call attention to a bad rule, albeit through proper channels, as it is to obey the rules. While this forum doesnt qualify as proper channels, we are here to discuss issues and perhaps garner support for our views. Is there anything wrong with that? Reading this gave me a brief involuntary coughing spasm. No, Rooster, there is nothing wrong with that, and I couldn't have said it better myself -- and I'm not talking about laser tag or capture the flag. (I'm talking about something I can't talk about in Open Discussion.)

Hunt says (and I have broken it up to insert numbers that I can refer to): But I'm unclear exactly why BSA wants to ban this. [That is, laser tag] 1. Is it because of safety issues inherent in the activity itself? This makes sense for paintball, maybe, but lasertag is probably less dangerous than football, and certainly less dangerous than kayaking. 2. Or is it a broader safety issue--ie, pointing any kind of weapon at others promotes unsafe behaviors? I don't really buy this, but it's arguable. 3. Or is it that the powers that be just don't think that pointing weapons at each other is consistent with the values of Scouting? I can accept this too, but if this is the reason, it should be stated clearly and not couched in terms of safety. It is probably not number 1, though the way it is worded in the policy (lumped in with activities that do involve firing a projectile of some sort) leaves this less than completely clear. As you say, though, the physical safety of the activity itself would not justify the ban. The most likely answer would be number 2, although some might (and have, in this forum) phrase it differently. Teaching boys to point weapons at other human beings and pull the trigger, even if nothing comes out, could desensitize some boys to the results of doing it for real. I personally think that this would happen only in extremely rare cases, and therefore I agree with you that it is "arguable," or as I would phrase it, it is a grey area. But within the context of the G2SS, it does make sense to ban it. The G2SS generally takes a "better safe than sorry" approach, and therefore bans or restricts most of the grey areas. I'm comfortable with that approach, even if it sometimes "gets in the way" of activities that are, most of the time, ok. It's not like people can't get together and do laser tag, outside the Scouting context, though I don't like the practice of some people of having an activity with only Scouting families in order to "get around" the G2SS. As it happens, my son wants to have a laser tag party for his next birthday. He would invite friends from both Scouts and school, and a cousin or two, and therefore it would clearly be a non-Scouting activity both in name and in fact. I am confident that my son and the boys he will invite are capable of keeping laser tag and real gunplay separate in their minds, but that is MY call and the call of the other parents in deciding whether to let their sons attend. The BSA not make the call, which makes sense because the BSA is not being asked to sanction the activity or to have any responsibility if something goes wrong. As for number 3, that might be a secondary reason, or looked at another way, number 2 does have a moral component. I think it is an issue of safety first, and values second, but the values and the safety aspect lead to the same conclusion anyway.

Bob, my statement is based on my observations and experience. More to the point, do you disagree with my statement? And if so, on what basis?

Acco, for that matter, why is the President of the U.S. the Honorary President of the BSA, if is a private organization? I think the answer to all of the support and recognition that the BSA (and GSUSA) receive -- presidential attendance at events, honorary office for the President of the U.S., and more tangible favors and benefits that go beyond what other organizations receive -- is that while the BSA is a "private organization," it is a private organization that has a special place in our society. In fact I think the BSA gives something special and unique to society, and society gives back to the BSA. I think that there are some obligations that go along with this relationship, and one of those is that the BSA not arbitrarily exclude people from being involved. And I know this will come as a shock, I think that the exclusion of people on the basis that they are openly gay, is arbitrary and unjustified.

Bob says: If we were to take a scientific survey of the scouters who want to open the BSA membership to anyone, do you forcast that the political affiliations would be primarily Democrats or Republicans? Actually I think that, because of how you have chosen to phrase the question, you would not get a scientifically significant number of people of either party to survey. I don't know of any Scouters "who want to open the BSA membership to anyone." I personally support making one change in BSA membership policy, others support two changes, and I suppose there are some who still wish to debate the "girls" issue as well. Now, if the survey you took was of Scouters who believe that local units should have the option of accepting a leader who happens to be openly gay, if he or she meets all other requirements for membership and the unit finds him or her to be of good character and can offer something positive to the program, I do believe there would be more Democrats than Republicans in that group (though the independents would probably outnumber the Democrats.) From my perspective, of course, that is a plus for the Democrats.

Well, Rooster, let me go back to what you originally said: I believe a nation of people can and should set moral standards for itself. If the collective nation recognizes homosexuality as a perversity, then politicians and the courts should honor that standard. Jurists and those who hold office should not attempt to treat behavior as a protected class, especially when it flies in the face of the peoples will. I think that I (and Kasane) took your statement to mean that you believe that "the collective nation recognizes homosexuality as a perversity." In other words, I read the "If" to be a rhetorical device, meaning: What comes after the "if" is true, and should lead to the results that come later in the sentence. If you truly meant the sentence to merely be hypothetical, then fine, but it sure did not seem that way -- especially in light of the last sentence about jurists and people who hold public office. But I guess that even in that sentence, the word "when" turns it into a mere hypothetical as well. The fact is that the "collective nation" no longer "recognizes" homosexuality to be a "perversity." It did at one time, but it no longer does. Some think it is a "perversity" but others do not. So unless you are talking about particular states where the homosexuality-is-perverse crowd is still in the majority, the "standard" that should be honored is one of treating gays as people, not perversions. I think that in 40 or 50 years this will all be moot -- not because I think God will have descended and given us the definitive answer, Rooster, but because in the polls I have seen, the 18-to-34 year-old age group seems to have much less of an issue with this than society as a whole. I just went back and looked at the poll that was the subject of an earlier thread, and in that age group, 77 percent thought gay people should be able to serve openly in the military while only 16 percent did not. Likewise, in that age group 70 percent did not believe gays should be excluded from leadership positions in youth groups. Someday, Rooster, that age group is going to be in charge of things, including the BSA executive council. It would be nice if this inevitable result could happen a bit sooner, though, because while it remains unresolved, society is going through a lot of pain and damage over this issue.

OK Bob, while I do not necessarily agree with your interpretation of OGE's "rules" for that thread -- I think he just wanted to avoid outright name-calling, not substantive criticism of the policies of the opposing party -- I have started this thread because I know that you really want to respond to my response to your post. It's my thread, so I make the rules, right? My rule is that you have an engraved invitation to respond to this post and to say whatever else you would like to say. As Rocky said in response to Mr. T's character as their fight was about to start, "go for it." So here's my post, verbatim: BobWhite says: My second problem is is that the democratic party does not like things that I like. They don't like Police Officers (two of my brothers are in law enforcement), they don't like scouting, they don't like the rich (by their standards that means anyone who makes over 40,000 and isn't a democrat), and they like the United Nations more than they like the United States. Do not misunderstand I do not dislike a person if they are a democrat, I simply disagree with the ideology of the Democratic Party. They want people to depend on the government, and the want the people who don't depend on the government to take care of them. Bob, most of what you say here is ridiculous. I think you are finally showing your true colors here, by spouting a Rush Limbaugh-like bumper-sticker version of politics that has little or no basis in reality. Let me take these things one by one. What is your basis for saying that the Democratic Party does not like police officers? I don't think this is true at all. I do think that Democrats do tend to be a bit tougher on the few police officers who break the law themselves, and on the occasional police official who has used a police force as a tool for discrimination; but I don't see how you can argue with that. "Liking" police officers who do their jobs and enforce the law with fairness is not a partisan thing. Disliking police officers such as Mark Fuhrmann, who seem to think their job is to protect only their own racial group, should not be a partisan thing either. I think the accusation that the Democratic Party does not "like" Scouting has been dealt with in your exchange with TwoCubDad, at least as far as the "booing" incident is concerned. He is correct. You cannot label a whole political party for what a few people do during a ceremony. On a more global basis, I think that a Democrat would have more of a tendency to oppose the BSA policy on gays, but that does not equate to "disliking" the BSA. Indeed, as I have argued a number of times, those of use within the BSA who oppose the policy are showing true support for the values of Scouting -- both because we want the BSA to abide by its own values, and because of the difficult choices that we have faced in remaining a part of the BSA despite the national leaders having taken the organization down a temporary wrong path that has caused a lot of damage to the organization and its image. As for the "rich," I do think Democrats want the tax burden distributed more fairly than it will be as a result of G.W. Bush's plan. I don't know of anyone who thinks that people making more than $40,000 are "rich." That sounds like more bumper-sticker politics, Bob. Actually, these days when I hear people complaining about the "rich," it is mostly conservative pundits and talk-show hosts talking about "limousine liberals" or "elites." It is really laughable. I don't know anyone in the Democratic Party who likes the U.N. more than the U.S. It's yet another bumper sticker. Wanting to have international support before invading Iraq does not mean one likes the U.N. more than the U.S. (And that wasn't a big issue for me personally; I thought the decision should be based on our own national interest vs. the possible loss of American life, not on what France or Canada said. And I think we should just go ahead there now and do what we have to do as quickly as possible, and not bother asking for aid from other countries that would obviously come with strings attached.) There may be some people in this county who still hold out a utopian vision of one world government, but I'd say most of those people are not Democrats, but rather are members of real left-wing parties. (If it sounds like I may have a more conservative view of foreign policy than most Democrats, that's because I do. I still think Bush has lied to the American people about Iraq, though.) This business about the Democratic Party wanting people to depend on the government is another Limbaugh-ism. It isn't true. There are some problems in our society, and they need to be solved. In many cases, the official Republican response (though not that of many individual Republicans) is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Although I have to say that in the years since 1994 when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress (except for a few months in 2001), I did not notice the Republicans pass any bills to abolish these large social programs. To the contrary, they passed appropriations bills that continued most of these programs. If they had tried to abolish them, presumably the Democratic president would have vetoed these bills, but then what a great issue the Republicans would have had. Unless of course, the Republicans thought that most people actually don't mind paying a little extra in taxes so that the truly needy can get some assistance, which I believe is the case. And actually the one big welfare reform bill, that reduced the number of people on welfare, was actively pushed by the Democratic president. It would not have passed without him. But we wouldn't want actual facts to get in the way of our bumper sticker slogans, would we?

I am just jumping in to the exchange between Rooster and Kasane. Rooster, you say that a majority of voters defines whether homosexuality is a "perversity" or not. I am a bit surprised to see you accept the idea that morality can be determined by a vote. I actually do NOT fully accept that; instead, I believe that in fact, a society's moral standards are determined by a consensus of society, and that the "battleground" issues are those where there is no consensus. On those issues, like acceptance of homosexuality, I would say that because society does not agree with itself that something is immoral, it should not be treated as being immoral. Of course, I understand that those who feel that something is immoral would want to "call the tie" in favor of moral condemnation. But all this aside, let's look at what the majority actually does believe. I do not recall seeing any polls asking flat out, do you think homosexuality is immoral, but I suspect that the numbers of yes and no would each be less than 50 percent with "not sure" taking up the middle. However, the polls are really irrelevant anyway. In our system of government a "majority" is determined by the majority vote of the peoples' representatives sitting in a legislature. That being the case, Rooster, what do you make of the fact that in a number of states, homosexuality is no longer against the law, and that in some of those states, discrimination against gays in jobs, housing etc. is illegal? Obviously a state that outlaws discrimination against gays does not view their conduct as a "perversion." I don't know how many states fall into which category, but I do know that MY state bans discrimination against gays; that is the same statute that got the James Dale case started in the first place. So, the logical result of your argument is that homosexuality is a perversion in Texas or Georgia, but not in New Jersey or New York or California or a host of other states. I'm sure you think it is a "perversion" everywhere, but the "majority" in many states do not agree with you. So who gets the final say? I know you think it's you, or your interpretation of the word of God, but it doesn't work that way. Linking this back up to Scouting, it is yet another reason why there should be local unit option on the gay issue. Perhaps council-wide option would be another variation to consider; I would suggest statewide option, but there is no decision-making body at the state level in Scouting.

What I think is that I can't believe you even started this thread. But maybe other people want to discuss their views about abortion in a Scouting forum. That would not include me.

BobWhite says: My second problem is is that the democratic party does not like things that I like. They don't like Police Officers (two of my brothers are in law enforcement), they don't like scouting, they don't like the rich (by their standards that means anyone who makes over 40,000 and isn't a democrat), and they like the United Nations more than they like the United States. Do not misunderstand I do not dislike a person if they are a democrat, I simply disagree with the ideology of the Democratic Party. They want people to depend on the government, and the want the people who don't depend on the government to take care of them. Bob, most of what you say here is ridiculous. I think you are finally showing your true colors here, by spouting a Rush Limbaugh-like bumper-sticker version of politics that has little or no basis in reality. Let me take these things one by one. What is your basis for saying that the Democratic Party does not like police officers? I don't think this is true at all. I do think that Democrats do tend to be a bit tougher on the few police officers who break the law themselves, and on the occasional police official who has used a police force as a tool for discrimination; but I don't see how you can argue with that. "Liking" police officers who do their jobs and enforce the law with fairness is not a partisan thing. Disliking police officers such as Mark Fuhrmann, who seem to think their job is to protect only their own racial group, should not be a partisan thing either. I think the accusation that the Democratic Party does not "like" Scouting has been dealt with in your exchange with TwoCubDad, at least as far as the "booing" incident is concerned. He is correct. You cannot label a whole political party for what a few people do during a ceremony. On a more global basis, I think that a Democrat would have more of a tendency to oppose the BSA policy on gays, but that does not equate to "disliking" the BSA. Indeed, as I have argued a number of times, those of use within the BSA who oppose the policy are showing true support for the values of Scouting -- both because we want the BSA to abide by its own values, and because of the difficult choices that we have faced in remaining a part of the BSA despite the national leaders having taken the organization down a temporary wrong path that has caused a lot of damage to the organization and its image. As for the "rich," I do think Democrats want the tax burden distributed more fairly than it will be as a result of G.W. Bush's plan. I don't know of anyone who thinks that people making more than $40,000 are "rich." That sounds like more bumper-sticker politics, Bob. Actually, these days when I hear people complaining about the "rich," it is mostly conservative pundits and talk-show hosts talking about "limousine liberals" or "elites." It is really laughable. I don't know anyone in the Democratic Party who likes the U.N. more than the U.S. It's yet another bumper sticker. Wanting to have international support before invading Iraq does not mean one likes the U.N. more than the U.S. (And that wasn't a big issue for me personally; I thought the decision should be based on our own national interest vs. the possible loss of American life, not on what France or Canada said. And I think we should just go ahead there now and do what we have to do as quickly as possible, and not bother asking for aid from other countries that would obviously come with strings attached.) There may be some people in this county who still hold out a utopian vision of one world government, but I'd say most of those people are not Democrats, but rather are members of real left-wing parties. (If it sounds like I may have a more conservative view of foreign policy than most Democrats, that's because I do. I still think Bush has lied to the American people about Iraq, though.) This business about the Democratic Party wanting people to depend on the government is another Limbaugh-ism. It isn't true. There are some problems in our society, and they need to be solved. In many cases, the official Republican response (though not that of many individual Republicans) is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Although I have to say that in the years since 1994 when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress (except for a few months in 2001), I did not notice the Republicans pass any bills to abolish these large social programs. To the contrary, they passed appropriations bills that continued most of these programs. If they had tried to abolish them, presumably the Democratic president would have vetoed these bills, but then what a great issue the Republicans would have had. Unless of course, the Republicans thought that most people actually don't mind paying a little extra in taxes so that the truly needy can get some assistance, which I believe is the case. And actually the one big welfare reform bill, that reduced the number of people on welfare, was actively pushed by the Democratic president. It would not have passed without him. But we wouldn't want actual facts to get in the way of our bumper sticker slogans, would we?