NJCubScouter

I'm always amazed that anyone thinks that it is possible to prove that God, god, gods or any deity exist, OR do not exist. There's no proof either way. It's a matter of "faith," right? We all believe what we choose. I also don't understand why it's such a big deal. As I believe it was Benjamin Franklin (a Deist who disclaimed any belief in the divinity of Christ), who said (something like), we will all find out in our own time what is correct and what is not -- though not until we've passed on.

And, I notice that people keeping asking Merlyn to explain things. I don't see why that is relevant. The absence of an explanation does not prove anything.

This does not necessarily sound like a "problem." I personally think it MAY become a problem if dad and/or don't decide after a few campouts that the best place for the son is in a tent with another boy(s). When I think back on my Scouting experience, I was in tents with other boys from the beginning. I seem to recall a few times in a tent with my father but no consistent pattern. I also seem to recall that after the age of 15 or 16 I generally stayed in a small tent by myself except at summer camp.

I would be curious as to whether this father and son went on Cub Scout campouts. My son and I tented together twice a year from his Wolf year through the fall of Webelos II. After crossing over I decided he was ready to tent with other boys, though I was (and still am) just a bit concerned because he is in my opinion overly jealous of his privacy, shall we say. Due to circumstances he has not actually stayed in a tent with other Scouts yet. At his only Boy Scout campout during the spring, he stayed in a tent with me because he was the "odd man out" in the younger-boy tent. At summer camp, he was again "odd man out" which he thought was great because he had a 2-cot tent all to himself. But I was not there at all, so his first night of camping ever without me was followed by five more nights, in a row. And he survived, probably better than his slightly anxious parents at home.

Red Feather says:

Each of us keeps our own peace.

I think that is a really good concept. It would be a better world if people could respect the right of others to keep their own peace.

Packsaddle: I'm listening. I thought your post was excellent. I agreed with RedFeather's also. (Of course I am sure this does not come as a big shock.)

If you were to look down the list of old threads in the "Open Discussion" topic, and maybe also in this topic, you would find a number of threads in which people have discussed situations in which other Scouters have allegedly (note that word) acted unreasonably, unfairly, vindictively, nepotistically (I may have made that word up) unsafely, perhaps corruptly (though I do not recall reading of actual "bribes"), and in all sorts of other undesirable and sometimes prohibited ways. The initial question or scenario is often followed by a series of responses in which some other forum members try to answer the question that has been asked, while others seek to speculate about additional, or mitigating, or contradictory facts that they think might have taken place in the situation, which often seem to be based on their own experiences or attitudes.

What you have to understand about all these threads, and any other "stories" that might be added to this thread, is that you are only getting one side of the story. (Well, as I suggest above, often you get multiple sides of the "story" but only one provided by a person who actually knows any of the facts.) Sometimes the information is second-hand, sometimes it has been relayed through a boy who is upset about something, so caution is indicated. Sometimes the information is perfectly accurate. Sometimes it is "slanted." My attitude has always been to just assume that the information is accurate and respond accordingly, unless it is blatantly and obviously false, self-contradictory, or seems be describing creatures from another planet rather than human beings. But I would use great caution before using any of these "stories," or any others that might be added to this thread, for "research." There is no way to "test" their accuracy, so your outcome would not be "scientific."

I also want to add this: Even if you were to collect a whole bunch of true examples of "bad behavior" by adult leaders, I am not sure what it would prove. Other than the fact that adult Scout leaders are human beings, subject to the same failings as people in every other type of endeavor, including youth groups, businesses, government, religious and civic organizations, and every other "enterprise" that depends on imperfect beings (that's us) to accomplish its mission. You would also learn that different people can see the same situation differently. If you need to write a reseach paper on something, I might consider seeking a different topicc.

since there is no way to "tes

This was never a problem with my pack while I was assistant cubmaster, as we realized the position we would be putting everybody in if the paperwork was delayed. Everybody = The boy who is not a registered member of Scouting when he and his parents think he is; the parents who (as dsteele points out) are paying for a service; the leaders who, as we realized, would be putting ourselves in a difficult position (perhaps personal liability) if a boy were injured at a meeting or den trip or whatever and it turned out that the boy was officially unregistered because his form was sitting in the cubmaster's brieface. I suppose I could add various DE's, commissioner-types who on occasion reminded us that council (and sometimes either explicitly or implicitly, themselves personally) needed to "make our numbers" by a certain date.

Therefore, we always tried to get this stuff in either within a week, or sometimes (usually on the instructions of the DE or commissioners) by the next roundtable.

One thing that the council started doing was to give the packs a free Bobcat badge for each application turned in by a certain date. If I recall correctly, it was June 1 for spring roundup and October 1 for fall. I suppose that this made sense as a "bribe", using that word in the nicest possible sense. Perhaps

"incentive" would be preferable. In either case, it was not too costly for the council; it made the point that the paperwork needed to be in; and it saved the pack a bit of money because every boy was going to earn Bobcat at some point -- right away for the new boys at second grade and up, and the following spring or fall for new Tigers.

I think something has gotten a bit lost in translation here.

Neither my pack nor anyone in it chose the site. This was a council event, each district having the camp to itself for one weekend. I made that clear in the other thread, from which a portion of my post was extracted. I am sure sctmom did not mean to do it, but from my words as they appear in this thread it WOULD appear as if this was a pack event. It was not. As for why the council chose to have the event in this camp... well, it's the council's camp. The council has two full-fledged camps (not counting a high adventure base in another state), and the other one (which is used exclusively for Boy Scout summer camp and weekend camping as well as adult training) is probably LESS suitable for Cub Scouts and their younger siblings.

Finally, I want to point out that "I" don't "keep going back," as one person mentioned. My posts about this subject have been mostly in the past tense, because they deal with the time period when my son was in the Cub Scouts. He is now a Boy Scout and my leadership position is now with his troop, no longer with the pack.

It's really not relevant who said what about the resolution -- and that includes the reporter who wrote the newspaper article and the headline-writer who stuck the word "condemn" in there. What is relevant is what the resolution said, that's why I asked about the actual text. Thanks to Merlyn for providing it.

Aside from a few little factual issues that are arguably mis-stated, obviously I agree with the sentiment of the California resolution as far as sexual orientation is concerned. I wish the BSA would do as they suggest. As far as atheism, I don't think there is anything wrong in asking for a reconsideration of the policy, but it probably is unreasonable to expect that the BSA is going to do something contrary to its own basic documents. This situation really is the opposite of the "gay policy," which under the circumstances existing today, is itself contrary to the Declaration of Religious Principles. I believe the BSA would have a lot more credibility on the "atheism" issue if it would allow local option on gays, because then rather than looking like a "big bad bully," the BSA could credibly say that all it is doing is enforcing its founding principles. Right now, it cannot.

I'd be curious to see the actual resolution, which I could not find on the Internet and is not linked-to in this article. The headline says "condemns" and the first paragraph of the story says "criticizes" but later when it makes a quick reference to what the resolution actually says, it sounds a lot "milder" than that. It never actually quotes any language that sounds like a condemnation or even criticism. The only reference is that it asks the BSA to change it policy -- something that several BSA councils have already done.

However, I am sure everybody will just focus on the "condemn" part without really being sure what was actually said.

bsat4jb, my favorite is the Marxist-rhetoric-spouting feudal peasant. "'Elp! I'm bein' oppressed!"

MaineScouter, you are welcome in New Jersey any time.

You said you are a "YPT administrator." What does that position do? Do you schedule YP sessions? Do you supervise the trainers? Collect the fees and paperwork afterward? Or other things? And, are you "a" YPT administrator, or "THE" YPT administrator for the whole district?

Depending on the answers, is it possible that the best place for you is as a member of the District Training Committee? I do not know, however, if being a member of a district-level (or council-level) committee like that is a "registered" position in and of itself. (I can think of at least two people on here who definitely do know, but I am not one of them.) Or to put it another way, everybody I know who is on a district-level committee has some other position, i.e. either unit-level or district-level. My father, for example, has long been an active member of the district activities committee and council high adventure committee, but his registration has always been with his troop.

OGE, how does "Deism" come into the discussion. I thought you were discussing atheism, which is the belief that there is no deity. Deism involves belief in a "creator" but one who is not necessarily currently "active in the affairs of man." (To put it one way.)

Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant.

Hey, no offense meant there, sctmom.

What I was mainly referring to there were a few instances where the person who really was not having a great time was the younger sister. These were girls 4, 5, 6 years old. It seems to me that there was one very young boy there at one time, maybe 2 or 3 years old. It was my opinion that the situation really was not very suitable for them, but I never said anything. Evidently their parents agreed, because the young children did not come back the next time, and invariably it seemed to be Mom who chose to stay home with the little sister. In each case I can think of, the father was also a den leader, so it really did make sense in those cases for the father to be the one to return.

I also don't think the mothers were given the feeling that they weren't wanted. In fact, there were mothers on every trip. A few of them attended every time, and they had as good a time as everybody else. We had some mothers who were great campers. The fact of the matter, though, is that 70 to 80 percent of the adults on every trip were male. In the situations where there were no fathers, there was an uncle. It appeared, however, that we only had one or two single-parent families at any given time. Nobody ever said it was just for fathers and sons, but the majority of the time that was who was there.

As far as why the situation was not suitable for young children, the facilities were only one factor. There were no flush toilets. There were latrines with a hole with a toilet seat on it. Factor two were the sites themselves, most of them were very rocky -- many large rocks. Everybody had to be pretty careful not to get hurt. (Of course, some of the older Cubs seemed to be on a mission to end up with stitches in their heads, dashing through the campsites as if it were a smooth lawn. I remember one time seeing two boys running, one after the other, and calling to them "Stop running!" On "stop" boy number 1 tripped on a rock and went down with a thud. On "running" boy number 2 tripped, probably on the same rock, and went down with a thud. Fortunately they did not fall on any other rocks. Factor three, I think, was the distance that usually had to be walked between the parking lot, the campsites and the various activities, over hilly terrain. It was a little too much for some of the younger Cubs (and frankly one time the walk didn't do me that much good over the course of the weekend, either.) But again, it was roughest on the kids below Cub age. What usually happened was that the carts a lot of families brought to carry equipment ended up carrying little children as well... and again, over rocks.

My main point really, is that in this particular case I thought that these Boy Scout campsites really should have been reserved for Boy Scouts, or older Cub Scouts. Even some of the Tigers were probably too young for this.

And I haven't even mentioned what happened the one time it rained all weekend...

Wallace, try to ask something more difficult next time so we can disagree.

I did not know that OGE, but according to this:

http://www.usscouts.org/usscouts/eagle/eaglejudges.html

yes he is. It also lists Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy as having been Scouts but not Eagle Scouts. Sort of interesting then that these latter three were among the five-member majority that upheld the BSA's policy in the Dale case while Breyer, the Eagle Scout, was one of the four dissenters.

TwoCubDad, you are absolutely right about Clinton, the whole time he was president I kept hearing from the "right" about how "liberal" he was and wondered where all the liberalism in his policies was hiding. In addition to what you mentioned, don't forget the whole NAFTA/GATT/free trade thing. That was a conservative, business-oriented policy that Clinton not only supported, but twisted arms in Congress in order to get a majority vote. Al Gore went on TV to debate Ross Perot (gosh that seems like another century; oops, I guess it was.) In contrast, when he was trying to advocate a "liberal" position and there was the slightest amount of resistence, he backed off in a quick hurry, examples being his health care program and (I hesitate to mention it) gays in the military. (On the latter he ended up with "don't ask don't tell" which didn't change the policy against gays in the military, it just made it slightly more difficult to enforce it.) Other examples were some of his appointments. Some were undeniably liberal. Others, well, if you remember his first try at an attorney general he appointed Zoe Baird who caused howls of protest from "liberals" because she had been a corporate lawyer her entire career and had no "liberal" credentials at all. She went away due to a "babysitting" problem (failure to pay Social Security, as has sunk several appointments of both parties since then) and we ended up with that darling of the right, Janet Reno. (As my boss likes to say, irony can be so ironic.) Then there was Steven Breyer on the Supreme Court, really not a liberal by any means and he has not turned out to be consistently liberal (or conservative) on the court -- at times he has given the "right" the fifth vote for a majority because some of the others have a way of straying from the fold on one issue or another.

It is really all a matter of perspective.

I have said a number of times that this whole thing is really about religion (and religious politics) and as times goes on I see more and more confirmation that I am correct. Rooster and Ed Mori and others, in various threads, do not deny this? How could they? In light of the fact that old social consensus against homosexuality is slowly fading away, and at present is maybe half-here and half-gone, all that is left is religion as a basis for the BSA's policy. Now, if it were all religions that would be one thing, but it isn't. One group of religions and denominations still sticks to the old view that the orientation is "immoral" and the other group does not. They all have the right to do what they do, as their own believers determine. But the BSA does NOT have the right to violate its OWN principles, and those principles include the concept that the BSA is "absolutely non-sectarian" in matters of religion. In choosing sides on this issue, the BSA violates the Declaration of Religious Principles. Until society sorts this all out in 5 or 10 or 50 years, it seems to me that "local option" is the ONLY way the BSA can abide by its own Declaration of Religious Principles.

OGE, sometime I could expound on the theory of "political realignment" that I learned about in college, which is really what you are talking about. There have been several elections (or series of elections) in our history that are considered by political scientists to be "realignments." One was 1932 in which FDR put together what came to be known as the Roosevelt Coalition -- which included Roman Catholics (resulting in part from the fact that the Democrats had nominated the first Roman Catholic for president, Al Smith, 4 years earlier.) Also included were many blacks, who previously had been overwhelmingly Republican, the party of Lincoln. When the next realignment took place, or if the whole theory has become outdated and we are now in just a big muddle with different groups going different ways in different elections, is not clear. Some believe 1980 and 84 were realigning elections with many Roman Catholics being included among the "Reagan Democrats" that swung things to the Republicans for awhile. This did not work for Bush I the second time out, or for Dole, and the fact that the last election was for all intents and purposes a tie, and that "group identity" has faded a bit as a factor in politics (not necessarily a bad thing) makes this whole subject a big puzzle as it applies to future elections. That is one reason why the California recall is such a big deal in the nationwide media, because now ANY significant factor (such as who is running the state that has close to 10 percent of the electoral votes) becomes very big in deciding presidential elections.

Gee, I guess I just expounded. Is it a surprise that I was a political science major?

I've also noticed, over the years, that the close relatives of persons who have committed serious crimes often have a different perspective than the rest of society on the actions of their mother, father, child or whoever. Mom may be a murderer, but she's still mom. (In this case technically a felony-murderer, she didn't pull the trigger nor did the government prove she knew her fellow robbers intended to shoot anyone, but she was still convicted of murder because she knowingly participated in the robbery in which the officers and guard were killed. I remember all this very vividly, I was a newspaper reporter at the time and the Nyack newspaper was owned by the same company.)

But anyway: While the murderer's relatives may have their own perspective, usually they have the good grace to keep it within their own circle of family, friends and lawyers. This one didn't. I don't think it has any great significance for our political/social/ideological structure.

I can't help feeling a bit of sympathy for him, he didn't kill anyone, and his mother was in prison for all his conscious childhood. That can't have been easy, but it doesn't change what his mother did and it does not give any weight to his opinions.

Oh, man, I can't believe I did that again. My first line should say, I do NOT agree. NOT. I have not had a personality transplant.

One of these days I will get around to writing to the good folk who moderate this forum and try to get some help in figuring why everybody else can edit their posts except me. I noticed it the first time I tried to edit after the 3 or 4 month "break" that I took from this forum in the spring/early summer.

ItsTrailDay says:

I want to put aside for a moment how some religions do not approve of the gay lifestyle. I think the biggest problem with it is the stereotypical promiscuity. This immoral behavior is what I do not want BSA to condone by allowing openly gay (avowed) leaders.

I do agree that "stereotypical promiscuity" justifies the policy. As you say, it is "stereotypical." I don't think policy should be based on stereotypes. It should be based on individuals and their individual merits or demerits, not on what "group" they are a member of -- unless it is a "group" whose members have committed harmful conduct, such as "criminals." But that is not a stereotype, it is an individually-based decision based on what a person has done. I would think that "open promiscuity" is a good reason for rejecting someone as a leader regardless of his/her orientation. There are promiscuous straight people and promiscuous gay people. If I had to guess it would be that there are more promiscuous straight people numerically, but that it's the other way around percentage wise, or maybe this WAS true in the past, which led to the stereotype. I have known a number of gay people who were in committed relationships and others who wanted to be... just like the straight people I have known (or been.) I have also known a percentage of each orientation -- a minority in each case -- who seemed disposed to "running around."

Personally I don't think the numbers really matter. What does matter is that we do NOT use the promiscuity of some straight people as an excuse for banning all of us -- if we did, this would be a pretty quiet forum -- and we should not do so for gays. So therefore, I do not think that permitting "well-behaved" gay people to be Scout leaders would "condone" the actions of those who are promiscuous.

However here is where it gets interesting. To combat promiscuity society needs to encourage Monogamy i.e. Civil Union or whatever you want to call it. What does the poll say about this? It is against it. Granted the question was poor as was pointed out. Then in poll 5 it is for gay youth leaders. The poll is interesting because the results are confusing maybe from poor questions...

I think you have answered your own question. The respondents to the poll were NOT "against" measures that in your words would "encourage Monogamy i.e. Civil Union or whatever you want to call it." What they were "against" was gays getting MARRIED. Period. No other terminology or options seem to have been presented. As I said earlier, I think the word "marriage" makes a big difference to a lot of people. I am not sure that polls have been done regarding "civil unions" or similar terminology. It would not be an easy poll do in a fair manner because you would really have to explain what "civil union" means in a neutral manner. Most of these polls seem to be designed to obtain a more "reflexive" reaction rather than one that is well-thought-out.

I also question the relevance of gay marriage, civil unions or whatever to the issue that currently divides Scouting. Last time I checked, there was no requirement that straight leaders be married. Why is it necessary to adopt a measure to "encourage monogamy" for one orientation but not the other? And of course this brings up the catch-22 that gay people face. They are told that what they do is immoral because intimate relations between unmarried people are immoral (and as a matter of fact, that is how the BSA web site justifies the anti-gay policy, or at least it did in one of its incarnations.) Then they say to society, ok, let us get married, and society says no, that is just for straight people. Can't we give these poor folks a break, already? Meet them halfway and let them have SOME "status" that is considered legitimate, preserving the word "marriage" for ourselves in observance of tradition? The fact that that may not satisfy some "gay activists" is frankly irrelevant to me. I really think that our society (of which Scouting is a part) needs to put this whole issue behind us and move on to more important things,and it is obviously going to take some compromising to do it.

... or maybe Fox News they spin we decide?

ITD, you have always struck me as a reasonable person even though we don't always agree, and I knew that if I read down to the very end, there would be a part of your post I agreed with.

So, the self-absorbed comments of one college student translates into "Narcissism of the Left?" The entire "Left"? And who is this "Left," anyway? It's tough keeping track these days.

MaineScouter, although you say you checked with your UC, I just want to second Bob's suggestion that you check with the District Executive or other professional in your council office assigned to your district. (My district usually seems to have a District Director but in practice it is the same.) A UC does not necessarily know any more than you (or I) about what position would be appropriate for you at the council level, and how to get there, because that is really not part of the UC's job. (No offense to present or former UC's. There are UC's that WOULD know, but I guess it's like asking a police officer for directions. If you ask for a location in town, he'll be able to help. If you ask for directions to a city 500 miles away, he may know that also, but there are better sources. You could end up where you're going, or you could end up in New Jersey, and we wouldn't want that.)

Good luck.

I didn't necessarily mean to start a debate on gays in the military. I suppose it is fairly obvious that I agree with TwoCubDad's opinion and OGE's (apparent) opinion. I think it is really much more analagous to the racial integration of the military than it is to gender equality in the military (and by the way officially women are still excluded from "combat" by law, but the definition of "combat" has been modified so they really are in combat, as became clear in Op. Iraqi Freedom and in some earlier operations like the one where we got Noriega in Panama.)

Rooster, it is very nice for you to say that race is not an issue and obviously I agree, but that is NOT what a lot of people were saying in 1949 when the miliary was integrated. I do not need to go into the whole history of racial hatred and injustice in this country. Even the BSA was not immune (there were some segregated units until the 60s.) It was a very big deal to a lot of people, and many people did argue that integration would be disruptive. This was an era where people were being lynched, where churches were being bombed, where people (of all races and religions) were being murdered because they were fighting for racial justice. It was an era in which some states banned interracial marriages; as late as 1970 Virginia was fighting in the Supreme Court to be able to enforce that law.

My point is that what is obvious to us now was not obvious to many people a very short time ago. I do agree with the others that the attitude toward gays and their inclusion in the military is moving in the same direction, and in the future all but a few people will marvel that it was even an issue.

But even forgetting all that: Doesn't the fact that 60+ percent of our society (according to this poll) does not have a problem with gays in the military tell us something about our society? And where it is heading? Something good in my opinion. And just as Scouting is not immune from the bad in society, it will not be immune from the good, either.

I just wish it didn't take so much grief, dissension, litigation and damage to the organization and what it stands for, to get there.

Cublaree, huh? That's a new one. In one of our "old" councils there was a twice-annual Cub family camping trip called a "Cub Camporee", pretty straightforward. In the other (mine), it was called "Cubelos." Pronounced like "Cub" followed by the last part of "Webelos." Get it? I never thought it made much sense as the name of a camping trip, but hey, nobody ever asked me. But it was one of those things that would definitely be a good item for a "Cub glossary", because every year the new Tiger parents (including me, way back then) would hear the word "Cubelos" being thrown around and have to ask what it meant. In the merged council, they now call it "District Cub Family Camping" or something equally bureaucratic-sounding. At least nobody has to ask what it means, but I would still put it on the glossary if I were doing one.

(But now that I think about it, even calling it family camping is misleading to a degree. The name Cub Camporee was probably the most descriptive of the the three. It really is a Camporee scaled down to Cub Scout size, with the "unit competition" aspect removed and everything being planned and run by adults with some assistance from older Boy Scouts. As far as the camping itself, the focus was really on the pack rather than the family. (And the "family" was usually a father and son(s) in their own tent, though there were usually 2 or 3 mothers along as well, either with husband or not. Now and then a family would be there with dad, mom, Cub and 4-year-old little sister; but since this was happening at a Boy Scout camp, with all the (ahem) accommodations of a Boy Scout campsite, by the next trip mom and little sis mysteriously found something better to do for the weekend, in the warmth and dryness of their home, with its beds and bathrooms.) The pack was together in a site, and we cooked as a pack, with the adults leading the way, usually assisted by boys going for their Outdoorsman badge.)