NJCubScouter

Since I can't edit my posts, let me say, please ignore the last sentence of my last post. It may tend to confuse the issue of one award vs. the other (though standing by itself, I think it is true.)

I think most people would consider Eagle and the GS Gold Award are "corresponding" awards (I am intentionally not saying "equal" or "equivalent" though you will see the latter term on some sites on the Internet). This is based on factors that include the following:

Each is the "highest" youth award in its program;

Each requires a considerable effort;

Each has a "leadership" requirement;

Each requires a service project.

There may be other similarities. There are also differences that have been pointed out here, the most significant one (at least for purposes of the original post) being that a youth earning one award will not necessarily have learned all the same skills as a youth earning the other. The programs are different, which I personally think is a good thing for the high-school-age girls because it gives them a choice between the GS program, the Venturing program or both.

Rooster, I have to laugh. That is some of most slanted writing I have ever read in my life. These articles "prove" their conclusions by assuming the conclusions in the first place. That method saves a lot of effort and uncertainty, but it isn't persuasive.

They are two great happening young ladies who I am totally down with and respect in a far out way

Um, OGE, that sounds so... what? Groovy? Funky? Cosmic? Yeah, that's it, man, cosmic.

OGE, in the other examples you give (troop-crew, ASM-crew, crew-ship) there is a purpose to each registration. Either the programs are different or the person's role is different. I don't think that would be true if a boy were registered in two troops.

OK, scrambled eggs, I get it. Yes, that is what the adult leader hats have on the brim, in the same gold color as the lettering on the hat. (On some it seems more yellowish.) We don't have any color coding like you do, all leaders have the eggs and youth do not. I don't think it would be a bad idea for the SM to have something distinctive such as a different color, but I personally would probably say that all youth should have the brim undecorated and let the Eagle award stand for itself. It's not a big deal, that's just my instant, not-much-thought-on, reaction.

TwoCubDad, I was wondering the same thing about Bob's post. From Phil's posts it seemed like he was already pretty "avowed" -- in real life, not just in this forum.

OGE asks:

Related to this is Courtroom procedure, do you really think it means much to a muslim, hindu, etc to swear to tell the truth with his/her hand on the bible? (do they do that anymore? I havent been in a courtroom in a long time and try to stay as far away as legally possible)

First of all, yes they still do that. (And as far as avoiding courtrooms, you are a wise man.) At least, in New Jersey they still do it, and I assume elsewhere as well. However, the witness is specifically asked to "swear or affirm." The affirmation is not an oath, it is a promise (sound familiar? Scout Oath or Promise? Swearing an oath, or affirming, or promising -- as far as the law is concerned, it is all the same thing. The point is that a witness, or person about to take a public office, is stating in a solemn manner that he/she will tell the truth or faithfully execute the duties of office, and the ceremonial aspect (hand raised, hand on Bible) is designed to impress upon that person (as well as the court, the jury, the public, etc.) the special importance of doing what he/she has promised to do. The "religious" aspect, in calling it an "oath" and saying "I swear," is optional. I suspect, though I am not positive, that placing one's hand on the Bible must also be optional. So if a Hindu or Muslim person did not want to place his/her hand on the Bible (or if a Jewish person decided not to place his/her hand on a Bible containing the New Testament), I do not think there would be any consequences. (Other than, if he/she was a witness in court, the jury might look at him funny and might be less receptive to his/her testimony, which they aren't supposed to do, but I am sure it happens.)

Was just wondering what an Atheist president would do, would he/she swear or affirm? He/she would have to do something that did not compromise his belief or lack there of system.

An atheist could "affirm" or possibly could feel that "swear" had no special significance to him/her other than a promise, and do it that way. By the way, presidents generally say the oath with their hand on a Bible, but I believe they provide the Bible -- usually a family bible. It could be the Koran or other book that is special or holy to that person. Or I guess it could be no book at all. And by the way, if Senator Lieberman were elected president or vice president (as he very nearly was), I assume he would take the oath on a family bible -- which would not include the New Testament.

This business of the oath (or affirmation) of office applies to every level of public office -- including all attorneys, including those in private practice. I have twice taken the oath of office as a member of my local school board, though as it happens we do not have the custom of taking the oath on a Bible. We currently have one member who was (from all appearances, anyway) born in India, I do not know whether he is Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or otherwise. We said the oath as a group so I do not know whether he actually said "swear" or "affirm."

A bit more on the old hats: I heard somewhere, don't know if it was in this forum, about at least one unit re-adopting the red beret even though the BSA has not sold it for years. Apparently the boys scrounged some up on e-bay, Army-Navy stores or wherever, and/or were buying non-BSA red berets and sewing on the appropriate insignia.

Seems like a lot of trouble and expense to go through especially considering that a lot of boys wanted nothing to do with the red beret when it came out.

I also thought I saw or heard of the BSA again producing an official "campaign hat" (Smokey) but I have not seen it. Every Boy Scout I see with a hat these days is either wearing the official green and red baseball-style cap or a custom troop baseball-style cap (as my son's troop does; leaders get a special version of the cap with a "gold leaf" design sown onto the brim. It looks to me like whoever designed this cap was trying to get as close to a military-like design as possible. Shhhh.)

DS, I am aware that the chances of my suggestion actually being followed are slim to none. I never thought otherwise, and that's part of my point. Scouting (nationwide) is either unwilling, or unable, or both, to pay for the consequences of its policies, which affect different communities differently because different states and localities have different laws and policies regarding giving special favors to groups who discriminate.

I am aware of the financial problems Scout councils face, in fact my district was eliminated and the pieces merged with other districts, resulting in a bunch of renaming, effective the beginning of this month. Over the summer, both council service centers (probably a leftover from the two councils that were merged around 1999) were closed and a single new (though not newly built, I don't think, and probably rented) center was opened. I also know that other non-profits are having difficulty raising funds, but I wonder whether the BSA has brought a higher level of difficulty upon itself, at least in certain areas.

Bob, I have to wonder whether we are reading the same article. The SE of the council (identified in the story as the "executive director" but the council's web site makes clear that he is the SE) says this:

Dwyer said moving from the city would destroy the city scouting program.

"What it takes away is our urban presence totally," Dwyer said. "It takes us out of Philadelphia. We can't support it without the dollars and without the presence. We become, all of a sudden, a suburban program. But the kids who need it most are the ones in the city."

That sounds to me like kids and the program are going to be impacted.

Here is another quote from a council official that I thought was interesting:

Lipson said that council executives were going to ask the city representatives for time to work out the problems.

"Give us some time and some good planning. I think we can bring about change, and everyone will be happy. We say give us time. We want to end discrimination in Philadelphia. It's painful because you wish it would happen for a lot of reasons. Discrimination is wrong," Lipson said.

One wonders what exactly he thinks he is going to "work out." And it does not sound to me like he is just talking about Learning for Life being non-discriminatory, as in the previous story about the United Way funding. This story involves the council headquarters, and the city's policy is not going to be satisfied just by holding up LFL as being non-discriminatory. He talking about "bringing about change." Change in what, I wonder?

OGE asks:

Ok you history nuts, and presidential trivia experts as well. Can anyone name one president of the United States (I only know one, there may be others) who never took the Oath of Office?

And yes there is a point

Hmm. I never heard of a president not taking the oath of office but I can take a guess. Both Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon were Quakers. Quakers do not believe in taking oaths or in "swearing" (as in "I swear to faithfully execute the laws" etc.) They instead "affirm" (which is one of the reasons you often see in a written oath "I swear (or affirm." In fact, here is what the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, clause 8, says about the "oath of office" for the president:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So right there, it says "oath or affirmation," and the new president may "affirm" rather than "swear."

So if the president who "never took the oath of office" is either Hoover or Nixon, I suspect that what one or both of them actually did was to take it as an affirmation rather than an oath. And my guess would be that Nixon took it as an oath but that Hoover did not.

How close am I?

Now that I think about it, it's kind of funny, I never even knew the hat had a name until a few years ago. When I was wearing it we just called it the "Boy Scout hat" because that was the only kind of hat available. After I had been in Scouting for a couple of years they came out with new options including the red beret, and what we called the "Smokey the Bear hat." This was 1972, I guess. I remember we had a troop election and elected the Smokey the Bear hat. (Which I now know is called the campaign hat.) At that point the "Boy Scout hat" became "the old hat," as well as "old hat."

Ed says:

Every piece of US currency has the words "In God We Trust" on it. Why? Because it can.

Actually, it is not completely clear that it can. I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court has ever decided the issue. However, it probably can. "Ceremonial" or incidental mentions of religion or God have sometimes been considered to have insufficient religious content to constitute an establishment of religion. Such things as In God We Trust, or the fact that Congress opens its sessions with a prayer, do not make prayer in schools or religious displays on public property constitutional.

And if a branch of government wants to display a menorah or picture of Allah they can!

Actually, I don't think Muslims (Moslems? Islamic persons? I'm not sure about that) make pictures of Allah, just as Jews do not make pictures of the similarly-named Elohim. (God, that is.) As for menorahs, actually the government can't, at least not by itself. Out of curiosity, I went into my firm's law library and actually read (part of) the Supreme Court decision you have been talking about. It is called Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU. I can't get into a whole dissertation about it now. Here is a link to it:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=492&page=573

Uh oh, now I'm the one posting a long URL.

Anyway, the reason the menorah was ok in that case is partly that it was part of a group of symbols including a Christmas tree and a mayoral proclamation along the lines of these lights being the lights of liberty. The Supreme Court decided that overall the collection of items had a secular purpose of symbolizing the winter holiday scene, while the nativity scene had a religious purpose. Interestingly, though, only 2 of the 9 justices thought there was a constitutional difference between the nativity scene and the collection of symbols (including the Christmas tree and menorah.) Four (Kennedy, Rehnquist, White, Scalia) thought BOTH were constitutional. Three (Brennan, Marshall, Stevens) thought both we UNconstitutional. The difference was that O'Connor and Blackmun voted that the nativity scene was unconstitutional (making a 5-4 vote for unconstitutional) while the collection of symbols was not (making a 6-3 vote for constitutional.)

So you can keep saying if you want that nobody tries to have a menorah declared unconstitutional, but it isn't true. The ACLU did try and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. And if the Christmas tree and mayoral proclamation had not been alongside the menorah, the menorah would have been declared unconstitutional.

Saltheart, I think at that point we will discussing whether they should install a GPS in each computerized handbook device, for help in locating it when my son (and those like him) manage to lose it.

I was not really seeing it as a legal issue, I just threw that in at the end of my post. It really bothered me more on a "gut" level. I don't think kids, not just in Scouts but any kids, should be exposed to smoking.

Ed, I think you missed TwoCubDad's point.

But in any event, you say you would choose to publicly display a religious symbol because you "can." Point is, you are not the government. The government cannot display a religious symbol, at least not when it is for the purpose of promoting religion. (Not necessarily "a" religion, just religion.) That is how the courts have interpreted the establishment clause, however much you might disagree.

By the way, the First Amendment also does not mention the right of expressive association, and yet that is the right on which the BSA won the Dale case. So if you want to get rid of all court decisions based on interpretations rather than the express words of the Constitution, all I can say is: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

This does not directly relate to Scouting but does relate to children, or specifically a child, so I figured this would be the "board" for it. I guess it is just an illustration of how people need to "think" a little when dealing with children.

Last night I went into a convenience store on the way home from work, to get a cup of coffee. Behind the counter was a young woman probably about age 20 or a few years older. Sitting on the counter slightly off to the side was a little girl, I would guess about six or seven, though small for her age. Whatever relationship the clerk and the little girl may have had I do not know, if I had to guess it would be that the little girl belonged to another employee. The clerk was letting the little girl help "ring up" purchases by handing her each item, and the little girl would put the bar-code symbol under the scanner. Evidently she had done this before and was having fun doing it. It was all very cute.

Until, the person in front of me in line asked for a pack of cigarettes, and the clerk took it off the rack AND HANDED IT TO THE LITTLE GIRL to put under the scanner. Which she did and everybody went about their business.

This bothered me. Obviously the little girl was not smoking, but she should she really be participating at all in the sale of cigarettes? Presumably she knows what is in the pack. This does not seem to exactly send the message of "don't smoke" to this child... or for that matter to any other children who may have been in the store and saw this.

Legally, I think that if there had been a state inspector in the store making sure they ask for ID's for cigarettes, the inspector would have had to say something about this. When my 16-year-old daughter was looking for summer jobs this year, she was told in a number of places that they did not hire minors because the job would involve selling tobacco products. Ironically, if my daughter had applied in this same store, that is probably what she would have been told. And yet it is ok to have this little girl scanning packs of cigarettes?

Bob says:

The Scout unit is no different than the youth choir at the church. If the choir raises a bunch of money it is still the churches money as the choir is a function and organization of the church. The Charter organization owns the unit. It is their youth outreach program. The unit is administered by adults selected and approved by the CO. is it your suggestion that the CO has claim to everything accept the money?

I guess I have been fortunate enough to have been involved with units that have CO's that do not exercise all of the power and control that they theoretically have. They basically leave the money in the hands of the unit treasurer. The committee perpetuates itself by recruiting new members from among the parents, with the CR signing whatever he is asked to sign. I know some won't like that. I guess I am saying that I am more comfortable with a CO that just lets the unit run itself.

Also, with the possible exception of the church that is CO for my son's current troop, I don't think that these CO's really see the Scout unit as "their youth outreach program." These units keep going because the parents of the current and former youth members want them to keep going and do what is necessary to keep them going. The CO is essentially an entity with a facility that is available and convenient. In some cases these have been organizations that many or all of the parents were members of (parent-teacher organization, property-owners association), so it is almost like the unit is controlling the CO for Scouting purposes and not the other way around. The church that is CO of my son's troop probably functions more as a CO is supposed to function, but I know they have not meddled in the troop's finances (other than to donate money to the troop.)

I went looking on the Internet to see if I could find a comparison of the different editions. This seems like a good site:

http://www.troop97.net/bshb1.htm

Maybe someone here has posted it before.

Ed says to me:

In some case you are correct but the removal of the menorah never makes the 6:00 news the removal of the creche does.

I don't know, I don't get to watch the 6 o'clock news. Since Jewish people only make up about 1 percent of the population nationwide, maybe more towns try to display Christian symbols than Jewish ones, so that's what you hear about more. Just a guess. Or are you suggesting something else?

Still, how does having either on the courthouse steps establish a religion?

I don't have my Establishment Clause research file handy, so I'll have to get back to you on that. I know Merlyn has suggested some cases you might read for the answer. I would note, however, that the clause refers to "establishment of religion," not "establishment of a religion. That little word makes a difference in this case. Without getting into specific quotes, I know that some decisions have said that the clause means the government should not be "promoting" religion and that displays of religious symbols do that. I agree.

In my troop, the SM convinces all parents of new Scouts (including me) to buy the nylon book cover because otherwise the book will end up looking like confetti after a year. Since the book costs $7.95 and the cover costs $8.95 (I had to shake my head when I saw that the cover costs more than the book itself) that's basically $17, almost the cost of the hardcover or spiral versions. (Though the softcover is still more convenient in my opinion. With the spiral, I bet they figured that a lot of units might get one for the SM/ASMs to pass around among themselves.)

So, FatOldGuys asks me:

How often do you voice a complaint when Bob makes his snide comments to anyone who disagrees with him?

Maybe you think this is a rhetorical question. I'm not sure what you think the correct answer would be in my case. I think it would be "Occasionally." Usually I just respond to his snide (or just outright insulting) comments directed to me personally, but I do it once, not over and over again...

and I don't make references to whatever the disagreement is on 10 different threads, including ones that he hasn't even posted in. There are some people who just read selected "boards" in this forum and I suspect you have them scratching their heads when they read about "evil" old handbooks and have not read whatever posts started you off on that.

It does sound to me like the BSA ought to combine the best features of the 9th, 10th and 11th editions when they do the next one. It's just common sense, not anything that anyone has to become "snide" over.

I made a suggestion in the other thread but nobody responded to, so I'll make it again. Since it seems that this council cannot afford to pay rent in Philadelphia, and is being thrown out of its free space due to a policy it does not support, why don't those from around the country who do support the anti-gay policy step forward with some cash so they can pay rent? I am not suggesting any particular way of doing this, it could be done by council, by unit, by voluntary donations, the specifics are not important. What is important is that those who support this policy should put their money where their collective mouths are. (And yes, I realize that to the extent this action results from the ban on atheists, one of those mouths is mine. So I guess it should be done by the councils. )

Ed says:

And what about the menorah right beside it? No one ever tries to get that removed!

Ed, I have seen you say things like this several times. It is not true. (See TwoCubDad's post) Jewish symbols (including menorahs) have been mentioned in some of these lawsuits seeking to remove religious symbols from public places. I think there was one case in which a court said that a nativity scene was a religious symbol but a menorah was not. Sounds ridiculous to me. But one bad decision does not mean that Jewish symbols have been exempted from the constitution (nor should they be; I do not think any religious symbols should be displayed on public property.)

Matua, as you said, the answer to the "dual registration" question itself is clear. However, I don't know if that fully answers the question. The issue here is not really a Scouting question at all, so it is not really a question that you have to deal with. The policy in question is not a Scouting policy, it is a "policy" of that particular school. (Scout policy as far as I know, is that boys and parents get to choose what unit they are going to join, and while a unit can say that only members of a certain church or whatever may join, there is nothing that says that if you live in a particular area or go to a particular school, you have to join a particular unit.

However, there are people who can, at least potentially, deal with this, and they are the boy's parents. Presumably they pay for their son to attend this parochial school and may be members of the church that runs it. They can go to whoever is in charge and tell them that they do not think the school should be dictating which troop boys should belong to. Or they could ask that an exception be made for their son since he started out in your troop. Or maybe they feel that they don't want to get into a disagreement with the school officials, either for educational or religious reasons, and are willing to live with this. But either way, it is their issue to deal with however they decide, not yours. (In my opinion.)