NJCubScouter

I read that article at newsgleaner.com (complete with a rather familiar-sounding response from a reader, and an Internet search on the reader's name appears to confirm the suspicion.) I think that the article and the statements made by the council exec. v.p. are unclear at best. After reading it twice, I still have no idea about what the council is planning to do, or if the city has agreed to anything, other than that the council needs to adopt a non-discrimination statement that national would not approve of. The reference to the Greater New York council is interesting, I am not sure how that council could have adopted a statement like that and not face the same threats from national that Cradle of Liberty did.

Eisely, for your sake and that of all other Californians, I hope your new governor selects good policy advisors and that they give him good advice for getting your state out of the mess that a whole series of governors and legislators, of both parties, have gotten the state into. He'll need those good advisors and good advice more than most governors, because by himself, he has absolutely no qualifications for the job. (As opposed to the ability to get elected, which he obviously had.)

Wow Pack, I never knew that about "Blazing Saddles" and I have seen that movie about 25 times. That Mel, what a zany guy.

There are about 50 things I want to say in this forum today in response to posts over the past few days, but I don't have time to write any of them. But I can't let a statement go by that there are "two sides" to the 9/11 "story." There are not two sides to that story. There can be no possible justification for what was done on that day. And as for a "message," I have heard different theories about what the "message" was and who was sending it, but I don't think anyone who claimed responsibility for the attacks ever said "Here is why we did it." So there really was no message, and even if there was, obviously this was not an acceptable way of sending it. As I read what I have written, I realize that it is not "strong" enough. But I really don't think I am able to put into words the depth of my feeling about 9/11. On the subject of G.W. Bush, my feelings are pretty similar to those of OGE. From the time the administration first starting discussing Iraq to when the war started, they gave out about five different justifications for what they were planning. When one didn't seem to be working with the public, they brought out a different one. Their public statements, and those of the president himself, were contradictory over the many months leading to the war. I am glad Saddam Hussein is gone, but I was really skeptical as to whether it was going to be worth the number of lives lost. The number of people we lost in actual combat was relatively small (which is no comfort to their families), but it seems like we are now losing about 5 to 10 people a week. When does it end? Someone mentioned that the number of people being lost is far fewer than in Vietnam. I don't think that is the point. I do think that because of Vietnam, the tolerance of the American people for being lied to in justification of a war was greatly reduced, and that is one reason a lot of people are questioning what is going on now. Another thing that was greatly reduced because of Vietnam was the tolerance of the American people for large numbers of our people dying in a distant war against a nation that has not directly attacked us. So maybe the relevant number before we say "enough is enough" is not in the tens of thousands as it was in Vietnam. Maybe it is only in the hundreds now, and that's about where we are. Finally, Rooster said this: Third, we conquered a very evil Iraqi administration that killed tens of thousand and tortured hundreds of thousands more. Even if no WMD is ever found, the victory was worth the cost. If we have a collective moral conscience, we should of felt compelled to fight this battle just as our forefathers felt compelled to fight Hitler. Your historical reference to World War II is not accurate. This country did not enter the war when Hitler proved to be an evil ruler of his own people, or when he took over most of Europe, or when it appeared that he was about to conquer Great Britain. We sent the British some equipment and offered some technical support, but we did not become actively involved in the war until more than 2 years after it started, and about a year and a half after Germany overran most of Europe. And even then, we only got involved when Japan attacked us, followed a few days later by Germany's declaration of war against us. So we did not get involved in WW2 as a matter of "moral conscience" or to help those in need. I wish it were otherwise. The fact is that we only responded when we ourselves were attacked. So as an analogy to what we did in Iraq, especially with regard to the argument that the war in Iraq was a response to human suffering, WW2 does not fit.

Kasane says: Wow! What a statement. I wonder if this was the same argument used before the schools and armed forces were integrated? It sure was, among other things. Of course, the supporters of anti-gay policy really, really hate this analogy. (They hate it because it fits the situation so well, which of course they have to deny.)

I wear my Philmont arrowhead pocket flap, earned as a youth. It never occurred to me that other temporary patches in my "Scout box" could also be worn today, but I guess it makes sense. The Philmont one is the one I want to wear anyway.

SPL, first of all, I want to commend you for the amount of thought and energy you have put into this issue and how to deal with it. It is obvious that you place great importance on making sure that your troop is run properly and specifically that you retain the ability to do your job as the top boy leader. However, First, as I and others have said, you were placed in an adult role, and now it appears that you are being placed there again. If any adult(s) in your troop suggested or asked that the PLC draft rules and regulations for the troop committee, they were wrong. It is really up to the Chartered Organization, and if delegated to the troop committee, the troop committee, to decide whether such rules are going to exist and what they are going to be. I think we'd all prefer to see you using your energy and enthusiasm to do YOUR job as Senior Patrol Leader. I think you need to tell your Scoutmaster, again if you have already, firmly but politely, that HE has to do what is necessary to "protect" the boys from improper interference. I don't think you have mentioned your own parents or what their role is or isn't in the troop in all this; maybe one of them could talk to the SM (NOT the woman involved) if you are uncomfortable doing so. Second, as to your rules and regulations themselves: There is an old expression, trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, or other variations on that theme. It seems to me that your rules are too detailed and if they are adopted by the committee, could well end up tying the committee's hands in doing its business. What if, for example, less than eight people are interested in being on the committee. Also, based on my experience in various organizations, I would predict that if these rules are presented to the committee, even if the committee adopts them, the chances that they will actually be enforced in all their detail is very small. What I have seen instead (and this is outside of Scouting) is that even when a group has adopted its own bylaws, after awhile (especially if new people have gotten involved), adherence to the bylaws begins to fade and eventually the bylaws are ignored. If someone forcefully insists that they be followed, the response is often to change the bylaws to follow what the new group is doing anyway. Here you will have a committee that did not even come up with its own bylaws at all, and I doubt that they are going to be fully obeyed for very long. Third, in your first post you said this woman is not a leader. I think most of us took that to mean she is not a member of the committee. In your next-to-last post you say she is a member of the committee. Is she?

Laura, just out of curiosity, how is this going? Has your son worked out some projects to do as Troop Historian? Has an adult been assigned to work with him?

After reading all of this about Gnosticism, I can only conclude that it's all Greek to me. I am so funny sometimes, I can hardly stand it.

Two homosexuals having sex is not only disgusting but is simply biologically impossible for propagation. Why would mother nature intend this??? cj, I'll bet you thought that was a rhetorical question. But there is an answer. Leaving aside the specific issue of homosexuality for a moment, it is fairly obvious that our species was "designed" so that it would survive even though some portion of the population does not reproduce. There are a number of reasons why some people do not, some of which are within the person's control, some of which are not, and some on which the jury is still out. Some people die young before they have an opportunity to become a parent. Some people are physically incapable of having children, and although the number of such people has been reduced somewhat by modern medicine, there are and always will be people who cannot reproduce. And then there are the spouses of those people. Some people simply choose not to have children. And some people are not attracted to the opposite gender. The species gets along quite well with only 95 to 98 percent of population being heterosexual, and the percentage of people who reproduce is significantly less than that for some of the reasons I went through. (Of course I realize that some gay people do reproduce.) I have not noticed any shortage of people around.

If wearing the Scout uniform is not required, I wish someone would explain something to me. I thought, and just confirmed, that the "job descriptions" for every single position of responsibility include a requirement that the uniform be worn. Some say "Wear the Scout uniform correctly," while others say "Enthusiastically wear the Scout uniform correctly." (I have to think that this different is just an editing glitch.) Now, since you need at least one of these positions to advance past First Class, what does this mean? That only boys going for Star and up need to wear the uniform, and then only while they are actually in a position of responsibility? Somehow that doesn't seem right. I'm thinking that whoever wrote those job descriptions intended that the youth leaders wear the uniform, and do so "enthusiastically," to SET AN EXAMPLE for other boys to do the same. In other words, someone somewhere in national thinks everybody should be wearing the uniform -- as do, I think, the vast majority of Scouters and Scouts. Or am I missing something?

Packsaddle, I fear that your post has caused this thread to lose its marbles.

cjmiam replies to me: If we know they are gay, then they are avowed, thus not allowed in Scouting. I am talking about the ones that "we" don't know are gay. The ones in the "closet." Now, you might ask, if we don't know who is gay, how do we know there are any gay leaders. Obviously I can't prove it scientifically (with one exception which I'll get to.) But they are there. They have always been there, and in just about every other activity known to humankind. It's like the tree falling in the forest -- it does make a sound regardless of whether anyone hears it, but by definition you can't prove it. It's just true. The one exception -- in other words, the one actual example I could point to of an apparently closeted gay Scouter -- exists due to the magic of the Internet and the protection of confidentiality for real names in this forum. You might also ask, can I prove he is what he says he is, and of course the answer is no, just like I can't prove that anyone on this forum is what they claim to be. I think we just accept that people are what they say they are, except in those very rare instances in which someone has behaved in a way that suggests otherwise.

Merlyn asks cjmiam, Should Explorers continue to allow gay adult leaders to youth on the same basis as straight adult leaders? and cjmiam answers: No. I see. So when cjmiam opposes a BSA policy, that's ok, but when I do it, suddenly I am opposed to BSA policies as a whole. I have had this same argument with Rooster -- it's ok for you to pick and choose which policies you like, but not for me. There's a real inconsistency and a double standard at work here.

Apparently in response to something I said about youth protection guidelines, cjmiam writes: Introducing a homosexual into that group with the same sex certainly poses a greater risk than introducing a heterosexual into the same group. You ironically point out that Scouting policy would prohibit such acts, but I have to wonder why that should matter for you when it comes from the same group that you criticize with regard to more restrictive policies on homosexuality? Cj, there is no "irony," just your own misconceptions about what I think. You are not the first person who has suggested that because I oppose one BSA policy, I must oppose the rest. Or in your words, that the other policies of the BSA might not "matter" to me. But, like those before you, you are incorrect. The opposite is true: The only BSA policy of which I am aware, that I oppose, is the one about gay leaders. Of course there are some other things that I think could be better, mostly "little things," and I think most of us have our own list of those. Just as one example that comes quickly to mind because I have written about it before, I would not be surprised if within five years, the BSA were to permit a wider range of water activities for Webelos than are currently permitted. I think that would be a good idea, but I am willing to wait, and if it never happens it never happens. To pick out another one in this category, I wish that the BSA had not removed the power of the troop committee to waive the swimming requirements for Second and First Class. The difference (or at least part of the difference) between that kind of policy and the one policy that I strongly advocate changing, is that I do not question the motives of the BSA in shaping the restrictions on water activities or in requiring Scouts to pass swimming requirements, whereas I do question the motivation behind the anti-gay policy; and the policies on water activities or swimming do not violate any other principles of the BSA, whereas I think the anti-gay policy does (the Declaration of Religious Principles.) And by the way, I have never advocated that anyone disobey or ignore the anti-gay policy, and if in real life I found myself in a situation in which it was clearly being violated and nobody else was doing anything about it, I would have to do something about it. So I think I retain my ability to talk about other BSA policies (like in this case, youth protetion) without any "irony" being involved.

Merlyn's last post took the words out of my mouth. Most of them, anyway. An assumption is being made that "homosexuals" present an unacceptable risk of sexual activity with youth members but that heterosexuals do not. There is no support for this distinction. The BSA agrees with me. Either now or in the past, the YP guidelines or some of the explanatory material disavowed any connection between homosexuality and sexual abuse. (Admittedly I have not been able to find that sentence on the Internet and I am beginning to wonder whether it has been deleted, but that would not change the facts.) In any event, the YP guidelines do not depend on what a person's orientation is. The guidelines are intended to make it difficult if not impossible for any person to have the opportunity to commit abuse, and also to protect a leader against false accusations. Also, as I have mentioned beforem, if the BSA felt that gay persons posed a special risk of abuse, they would not have a "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding gays. There are gay leaders now, but the BSA doesn't bother them because they are "closeted" so nobody knows who they are. The BSA does not ask when you apply, and they don't investigate rumors unless they involve actual child abuse (as far as I know.) The BSA believes that gay leaders only pose a "problem" when they make their orientation known, thus making them inappropriate as role models. (Obviously I don't agree with that, but I would disagree more with a "witch hunt.")

I would also add that "respect" works both ways. The boys should respect the adults, but the adults also should have respect for the role of the boy leaders in the troop. Apparently this particular parent showed complete disrespect both for the role of the boy leaders AND the adult leaders, since (as the facts have been reported) she was apparently trying to play the role of both, and doing it badly. Normally, the responsibilty for "enforcing" the respect to be shown the role of the boy leaders is carried out by the SM or ASM. The fact that the SM abdicated this responsibility to the SPL didn't mean it shouldn't be carried out.

Rooster, I don't think there is anything wrong with one ASM joining the SM at a PLC, as long as he/she doesn't say anything except in an "emergency." Beyond that, I think the more adults that are present at a PLC, the greater the likelihood that the boys start getting a bit of "stage fright" or feeling overwhelmed, and start deferring to the adults. That isn't the point of the PLC. Also, the more adults you have in the room, the greater chance of having one who will not "know their place" and start interfering. The rest of the ASMs can get their awareness of what is going on when the SM tells them what has been decided at the PLC meeting -- the same way the troop committee receives this information. As for getting to know the boys, the ASMs see the boys "in action" at troop meetings, campouts and other events. If there is a particular issue with the interaction of boys in the PLC, or with any particular boy leader, the SM can inform the ASMs, so that if they are called in to attend in the SM's absence, they will know what to expect. In other words I think that any "need" that would have the result of putting a crowd of adults in the room should be handled in some other manner, whenever possible. I also agree with those who have said that in this case, the SM placed SPL into a situation that he should not have placed him in, but once that occurred, the SPL acted properly. The SM placed the SPL in what is really an adult role, dealing with a meddlesome parent who is the spouse of a leader. When push came to shove, the one adult leader in the room (the meddlesome parent's husband) did not do his job, so the boy did it, as he was instructed to do. At least that is what appears from the SPL's posts. It sounds like the only other alternative to confronting the parent was to basically allow her to run the PLC meeting, and that is not acceptable.

CubsRgr8, I think your interest and energy in doing your own legal research on this subject is admirable, but don't you think the Cradle of Liberty council has its own lawyer? Or at least a lawyer available if it chooses to contest this? But it may be moot. I can think of reasons why a council would choose not to sue the city whose youth it serves, or even threaten to sue, even if the council believes it is correct legally.

CubsRgr8 says: I find it hard to believe that the 1928 ordinance doesn't grandfather COL and protect it from the Fair Practices ordinance. I would find it hard to believe that it does. How could it? Do you think there's a sentence that says "any anti-discrimination laws that may be passed in the future do not apply?" And besides, the resolution passed in the 20's was not a perpetual, irrevocable grant of land. It was a no-rent lease that under its own terms, could be terminated on a year's notice. The news articles have not been completely clear, but my impression was that the city was giving the year's notice. The fact that the city is motivated to do so by an anti-discrimination policy does not change that fact. If this was a regular long-term lease, say for example a 50-year lease, that had no provision for termination "at will" by the city, I do not think the city would be able to do what it is doing. In effect, the Scout council would be "grandfathered," until the term of the lease expired.

Also, cj and Rooster and others are always talking about "homosexual activists" trying to change the BSA policy. I am sure if you took a survey, you would find that the large majority of people who have expressed opposition to the BSA anti-gay policy aren't gay.

cjmiam, your argument is absurd. A Scout leader (gay or straight) would be prohibited from engaging in sexual acts with youth members regardless of what the age of consent is. By your argument, if the age of consent is 13 in a state, a 14-year-old female Venturer would be "fair game" for an adult male heterosexual crew advisor, because his "sexual orientation" attracts him to females. Of course, that is not the case. Scouting policy takes precedence over the law in this situation because it is more restrictive. (And I am not so sure that under the law in any given state, the "age of consent" even applies to an adult youth group leader and a minor group member. I don't have time to check right now. But as a general matter, an adult who is entrusted (even temporarily) with the care of a minor has special responsibilities under the law.)

In my son's former pack, we did our first Show and Sell (which some in our pack insisted on pronouncing Show and Sale, but anyway) two years ago, and based on the results, I imagine they will never stop. For pack fund-raising it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or if you prefer, since buttered popcorn. Not only did it dramatically increase the total amount of sales, but our council has an incentive program where if you place a Show and Sell order of at least a certain amount (and meet some other requirements), you receive a higher percentage on ALL your sales. In one year our pack went from ending the school year with a nearly empty checkbook and several IOU's to various leaders, to having enough money to start saving up for some pack equipment. There were no individual accounts, all the money went to the pack. By the time my son and I "graduated," the pack almost had more money than it knew what to do with and was lowering annual dues and subsidizing all kinds of fees for various events. If there was one thing I would change it would be that the pack would have had a better idea of how to handle the money once we got it; but the revenue problem itself was resolved, and the Show and Sell was a major reason why. Of course we also had boys going out and selling as much on their own as possible, but even there, the Show and Sell (usually being within a week of the beginning of the sale period) served as kind of a "pep rally" to go out and sell sell sell.

One more thing, I have known people whose daughters or sisters were working on their Gold Award projects, and based on what I have heard and seen, the amount of effort, planning and leadership that is expected of the girls is equivalent to what is expected for an Eagle project. In fact, every Gold Award project I have heard about has involved months of effort, whereas I have seen a few Eagle projects that were a matter of weeks from conception to completion. (Not that most of the latter were very good projects, and you can guess what event was weeks away when the mad scramble began.) I am sure that individual projects vary in both programs, but on the whole, a Gold Award or Eagle project is a great accomplishment for a young person, regardless of what other requirements and prerequisites for the award may exist in each respective program.

Thank you Campaholic and yarrow for your posts, I think they are excellent. It would be interesting to see a study of what percentages of participants in the respective programs join at what ages. I suspect that the results would be similar between Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts (at least after accounting for the fact that Daisies are a year younger than Tigers.) I also suspect that the highest percentages join as Tigers or Daisies and that second-highest would be in the year after that. I have read on here about recruiting fourth, fifth and sixth grade boys into Scouting, but I just don't see much of that in my area. Maybe not enough of an effort is made, but there are good reasons why it is difficult to get a boy to join at that age -- sports being foremost. I'd venture a guess that between 70-80 percent of my son's troop were Tigers.