NJCubScouter

Packsaddle says: It is my understanding that the degree of difficulty for the religious award is also dependent on age group. Cubs may not be held to as rigorous requirements as Boy Scouts or older children. Actually, in looking around the Internet a bit, many of the religions have different awards depending on age group. "God and Country" is actually four different awards with eligibility determined by grade level (1-3, 4-5, 6-8 and 9-12, which follows the major divisions of the Scouting program except that a brand new Boy Scout who has not finished fifth grade would still go for the same award as a Webelos Scout. See http://www.praypub.org/main_frameset.htm In other parts of that same web site we see that Roman Catholicism has 4 different awards, explicitly divded according to level in Scouting (1 for Tiger-Wolf, 1 for Bear-Webelos, 1 for Boy Scouts not yet in 9th grade and 1 for Boy Scouts and Venturers 9th grade and above.) (Plus 1 more for Eastern rite Boy Scouts.) Judaism also has four awards, with Bears in the youngest group. Interestingly, the PRAY site indicates that some religions have different awards, with different requirements and groupings, for Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and Campfire Boys/Girls.

Packsaddle, as for Jerry Lewis, I used to watch some of his movies when I was a kid and thought they were funny -- "Way Way Out" is one I remember and I remember seeing some of the Martin/Lewis movies though their names escape me) -- but when I see them now, they really aren't. They just don't hold up in my opinion. And this is someone who is the only celebrity (to my knowledge) to go to the same elementary school that I did, and who (family legend has it) used to visit the house I lived in in that town, because it was owned by his aunt and uncle. (Hmmmm; if that isn't clear: Supposedly Jerry Lewis's aunt and uncle owned a house that was later my house, and when the aunt and uncle owned it, Jerry would visit. I don't think my parents or I ever met Jerry.)

Bob, if the UU award did not "count" toward the the requirement (which it does, according to dsteele), what you're basically saying is that as long as there is an option, it's ok. I don't think so. You would be saying to boys that if you're this religion you get to choose, but if you're that religion you don't. You don't see a problem with that? How is that "non-sectarian"?

Well, dsteele, obviously that is not the answer I was expecting. I apologize for my assumption. But it does raise another issue, that of fairness and, I guess, "quality control." What if a local church decides it is going to have its own religious award and the requirements are "Attend church 5 times in a year." Unless I am mistaken, the requirements for the "recognized" relgious awards are all much, much more rigorous than that. I never earned one, nor has my son, but parents of boys who have earned them have described the work the boys had to put into them. They are real achievements requiring a lot of effort. I have to assume that if a church gave the BSA its emblem program for review and the requirements were as deficient as my ridiculous hypothetical has described, the BSA would not approve the award for uniform wear and would tell the organization to improve the requirements if it wants approval. And yet can it be the case that an award with so few requirements counts just like "God and Family" or the "Aleph" award toward the Wolf and Bear requirements? (Just to check THIS assumption a bit, I found an online source for requirements for the Bear/Webelos religious award of my faith, the Aleph award. Check this out: http://laurence_18.tripod.com/jewishscouts/id8.html Those are some pretty impressive requirements. And although I am not aware of any Boy Scout requirement that can be fulfilled by earning a religious award, here are the requirements for the Jewish award at that level: http://laurence_18.tripod.com/jewishscouts/id9.html You'd probably place into the second or third year at a rabbinical seminary after all that. ) Anyhoo, I still do have to question the statements of BobWhite and dsteele that draw a parallel between the religious awards and such things as a Little League award, President's Physical Fitness, American Legion etc. Unless I am mistaken, none of those awards are pictured in any Boy Scout youth handbook. Religious awards (not necessarily every one available, but as a group) are listed and pictured in EVERY BSA youth handbook. So it seems to be that there is a bit more of an affiliation there.

I was going to respond to TwoCubDad, but OGE has said basically everything I was going to say. There is a big distinction between the government allowing use of its facilities on an even-handed basis, and actually "owning" a unit by being the CO. I don't see how a military unit (which is just a subdivision of the government) can own a sub-organization that is required by its own national rules to discriminate on the basis of religion. I think that eventually, this issue will be decided against the government. Note, not "against the BSA," which is really just a bystander on this issue, though the result will be that military units cannot be CO's of Scout units. That would not necessarily deprive anyone of Scouting, by the way. The units could try to do what one troop in my town does, for other reasons. Troop 62 (not the real number) is chartered to Friends of Troop 62, Inc., which is a nonprofit corporation consisting of parents and leaders of the troop. "Friends" applies to the school district just like the Girl Scouts, rec basketball, senior citizens club and whoever else to use the school gym on certain nights -- without fee, because all of these groups fall into various fee-waiver categories. "Friends" also made arrangements with a church to park the troop trailer, store the equipment and also allow use of a meeting room at times when school is closed. Obviously the benefits of having a "real" CO are absent, but there also is a degree of independence that has a certain appeal. So, back to Camp Swampy, if the military base can't be the CO for Troop 62, why can't the parents and leaders (though gov't employees) form Friends of Troop 62? Then if the base allows meetings of the chess club, youth basketball etc., Troop 62 gets to use the meeting room on the same footing. It's not an elegant solution. It is not exactly the way Scouting is supposed to work. If the troop gets direct cash assistance from the military base (as my troop does from its CO, a church), then the troop would have to find an alternative source of these funds. But people have to find other sources of funds all the time. It could work, right?

BobWhite says: The scout did no less a worthy deed for not being able to put someone elses award on the BSA's uniform, nor is his participation in the scouting program altered by one iota. I have a question about this. Both the Bear and Webelos ranks have requirements that say: "Earn the religious emblem of your faith." Can a boy satisfy these requirements by earning the UU religious emblem? And, if the answer is no, doesn't that affect the boy's participation in the Scouting program, by more than just an iota? Now, I realize that each of these requirements does have a matching option, in other words there are religious requirements that can be fulfilled instead of earning the religious emblem. But if a boy is told that all the Catholics and Jews and Hindus and whoever in his den can choose a or b, but he gets no choice because he is a Unitarian, I don't know, that seems like it might have an effect. These requirements also suggest to me that the statements that I have seen some make, that the religious awards are completely separate and apart from the BSA except for the "uniform wear" issue, are not completely correct. If the BSA has nothing else to do with these awards, what are they doing being part of the Cub Scout advancement program?

My son's troop has been around for more than 75 years, and has the "75 year" bar built into the special troop numeral patches they had made up. (The name of the town is in there (in tiny letters) too, I think that is good because I miss the old community strips.) I think some of the boys, especially the older ones, do take notice of the "75 years" and take some pride in it. Not a big thing, just a small aspect of "troop spirit." When they have an Eagle COH they make a big thing about the boy adding his name-plate to the board that has the name of all 80-something Eagles the troop has had, going back to the beginning, with the year of the troop's founding on it. I think that if you soft-pedal historical things like this and not try to hit them over the head with it, some will make it part of their experience as a Scout and gain something from it.

Merlyn, as I recall, a number of prominent Jewish supporters of the ACLU didn't get the joke either, because they withdrew their financial support over the ACLU's position in the Skokie case. I also happened to have known some members of the Jewish Defense League at the time, who were making travel plans to go to Skokie and "greet" the Nazis if they marched there. (Ideology, like politics, makes strange bedfellows.) Although I generally agree with the ACLU's positions, I had some trouble with this one as well. A group of Nazis marching through a community where most of the residents had to witness people being murdered by people wearing the same uniform and symbols, and barely missed being killed themselves, strikes me as going beyond "speech." I thought that under those unique circumstances, it could have been argued that the residents would perceive the "parade" as being an imminent threat of physical violence and therefore outside the First Amendment. I don't recall whether the city's attorney tried that approach or not.

Acco, I know you asked BobWhite, but I'm pretty sure I know this answer. The Council President is a volunteer (unlike all the other positions listed, which are professional positions) who is the head of the Council Executive Committee, which oversees the operations of the council. He/she is part of the Council "Key 3" which also includes the Scout Executive and Council Commissioner.

BobWhite says: No leader has ever been removed or exiled for expressing an opinion or idea to the BSA in a scout-like manner. You may be right, but I personally have decided not to take the chance that you may be wrong. I have thought about writing letters to the SE or to national on this issue. But then I have thought about the statements on the BSA web site to the effect that homosexuality violates traditional moral values, and have thought, how can can I really be sure that someone won't decide that if I think homosexuality is not immoral, then I must be immoral too. And then how exactly would I explain to my son that I can no longer be your den leader, or your assistant cubmaster, and I can no longer wear the uniform? (Aside from the effect on other Cub Scouts, of course.) It didn't seem worth the risk. Now that my position is Troop Committee Member and my son is starting to approach that age where he's not really sure he wants Dad hanging around all the time, such an event would not be as traumatic, but it's still not something I need to risk. I'm not really interested in being a test case. Your fear-mongering is unwarranted. I would call it a reasonable exercise of prudence and caution on my part, which I have chosen to share with others, who can make their own decisions.

Not to worry, Acco, all the boys in your den (and mine) paid den dues. You (and I) set the dues rate at zero, which all the boys paid. So, at least on that score, they were all active.

Another failed attempt at editing a post. BobWhite (welcome back) replies to Acco as follows: Acco, you can express your views to your local council president, scout executive, or any member of the national council board in your area (you can get their names from the council office). Or, contact the Relationships division at the National Council Office in Irving, TX. They will welcome your input. Yeah, sure. What they probably will welcome is putting your name on a list... if not putting your name and address on a termination letter.

Acco, thank you for asking that question, I'll be interested in seeing the answer myself.

Rooster says: Look at the BSAs mission. OK, let's. This is right off the BSA's web site, though I had to reformat it a bit. Hopefully the formatting will be correct: Mission Statement The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. Scout Oath On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. Scout Law A Scout is: Trustworthy Loyal Helpful Friendly Courteous Kind Obedient Cheerful Thrifty Brave Clean Reverent Sounds like a good mission to me. Nowhere do I see anything that says, or even suggests, that an openly gay leader cannot be part of achieving this mission. The exclusion of gays really has nothing to do with the mission or values of the BSA.

Focusing only on Webelos here: I see they have made Outdoorsman activity badge "required" for Arrow of Light, which seems like a good thing. And at the same time they have made clear that the outdoor activity for Outdoorsman does not count for the outdoor activity requirement for Arrow of Light. They also seem to have changed the Outdoorsman requirements, and if I am reading this correctly, one MUST spend at least one night camping (as opposed to an "outdoor activity" that could be a day hike) to get Arrow of Light, and more camping and other outdoor activities are encouraged. This is all good. Citizen badge is now required for Webelos badge rather than Arrow of Light. I am not sure what the point is, though it can't hurt anything. They have re-worded the requirements relating to the Scout Oath, Law, sign, parts of the First Class badge, etc. They also have re-worded the "faith" requirement and seem to have significantly expanded it. When I get the time to read these closely I may have more to say about them. They also have added the "character connection" for "honesty" which certainly seems like a good thing. They have deleted an Arrow of Light requirement that experience had shown was VERY confusing. The requirement of visiting a Boy Scout troop meeting and having a conference with the Scoutmaster ended with the following sentence: Complete and turn in a "Join Boy Scouting" application to the Scoutmaster during the conference. They have now deleted this sentence, which is a good thing. As recognized in several different places I have read online, and in my own discussions with other leaders, this requirement could not be taken completely literally. Remember that this was a requirement for Arrow of Light. So let's say the boy turns 11 and then goes to a troop meeting and turns in the application. If the Scoutmaster actually sends the application in to Council, guess what? The boy is now a Boy Scout (because he meets the joining requirements by being 11) and no longer a Cub Scout. Which technically means he cannot earn the Arrow of Light, which was the point of turning in the application. It msy still be months from when the boy plans to cross over. Also, there was no reason to believe that the troop with whom you meet this requirement is necessarily the troop you decide to join -- but again, if the requirement was taken literally and the SM turned in the app to council, you've joined. This had led some (like the editors of usscouts.org, where cubmaster.org is located) to suggest that the boy literally comply with the requirement by handing in the application to the SM -- and then having the SM hand it back to the boy. See the following: http://usscouts.org/usscouts/advance/cubscout/old/arrowoflight.html If this seems silly, it is, but it was one way to avoid having a problem. Fortunately, they have now eliminated this whole mess, by deleting that one sentence. I think the whole point was really the SM conference anyway, and now the emphasis is back on that instead of a paperwork nightmare.

But dsteele, I never enganged in any inflammatory extemporation on this issue (nor do I on any issue, at least not outside the Issues and Politics board), and I'm curious about it too. Can't I have some of your theories and knowledge about why the name Venturing was chosen, instead of leaving the "traditional" programs with the Explorer label and renaming what was left as part of LFL? I suppose not. But it's worth a try.

I hate to be the self-appointed thread monitor here, but hey guys, this is Open Discussion and not Issue and Politics. People who don't want to read about controversial issues are watching. The question was what movies you think are funny, not which movie production companies, directors and sponsors you find to be politically incorrect, and why. Packsaddle, thank you for mentioning Galaxy Quest, I forgot about that one, it is very funny. I have it on tape and watch it now and then. But if we are going to talk about space movies, how about the Star Trek movie that (gently) spoofed Star Trek? Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is a legitimate comedy and has some very funny scenes. Admittedly, you have to be a Trek fan or at least familiar with the old series and/or movies to appreciate much of it. Otherwise, you would probably focus more on how bad Walter Koenig's Russian accent is than on the absolutely hilarious conversation between him and the two U.S. Navy intelligence guys (or whatever they are) on the nuclear sub after he is arrested. And, you wouldn't be quite sure why the spike-haired punk-rocker playing his music too loud on the bus, falls unconscious when Spock puts his hand on his shoulder. And, I suppose, the novelty of Kirk and Spock saying "damn" and other mild expletives every few minutes wouldn't seem so funny either.

FatOldGuy, in the absence of someone here actually knowing the official answer to your question, I think a good theory would be this. The BSA may have thought that the volunteers who serve as sponsors and advisers to "career" Explorer Posts -- the highest-profile of which are the Police Explorers -- might get ticked off if they changed the name to something else. I don't know if any of them would have gone so far as to give up the program over a name change, but maybe they would have been less enthusiastic. Maybe the BSA didn't want to have to explain it to anybody. So instead they renamed the "traditional" component of Exploring to Venturing, probably in the belief that the only people who would get ticked off, or in reality just confused, would be the committed BSA volunteers (like us) who might post our questions and complaints on the Internet but in "real life," wouldn't go anywhere. And/or: Maybe the "traditional" Exploring -- in other words "outdoor" or "high adventure" posts, had dwindled down to very, very few anyway, and they figured they needed to jump-start it, and the new name was part of it. I do not have any actual numbers on Exploring, but that is just my impression -- that Exploring had basically become career Exploring (including Police Explorers) and Sea Scouts... and career Exploring was spun off to LFL, and Sea Scouts are Sea Scouts and wouldn't care about the name of the "division" they were assigned to. Are those good theories?

The mention of Michael Keaton (Mr. Mom) made me think of sort of a lesser comedy, "Night Shift" (with him, Henry Winkler, and Shelley Long), but also what I think is the funniest movie he was ever in, "The Dream Team" with him, Christopher Lloyd, Peter Boyle and Steven Furst as patients in a psychiatric hospital who are accidentally let loose on the streets of New York City. My favorite part was with Peter Boyle, whose character thinks he is Jesus Christ, and one of the hospital people who is trying to recapture him says that Jesus wouldn't do (whatever Peter Boyle is doing) and Peter Boyle says: "Stay out of my psychosis!"

And imagine MY surprise, opening a thread about Venturing that had 6 posts in it, and thinking that I was actually going to learn something about Venturing...

Um, The Green Berets is a comedy? Not that I have ever actually seen it, but it is not a comedy! It has been about 10 years since I saw Harold and Maude, but I would not have listed it as a comedy. The Internet Movie Database does list it as a comedy/romance/drama, but it does not fit easily into any category, because it is such a strange movie. But I guess since comedy is in there somewhere, it meets the requirements of the thread. The Green Berets, though... What's next, Platoon? By the way, the IMDB lists one of my choices, Mister Roberts, as comedy/drama/war, which certainly seems correct, but I think it is more of a comedy than Harold and Maude. But of course, one "cult" movie leads to another, and I think in college once I saw these two as a double feature, the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Now, IMDB lists THAT one as a comedy/horror/musical/sci-fi, but since it's really a spoof of horror and sci-fi movies, I think it counts as a comedy. I'm not even counting what goes on in the audience, though I don't know if it is even shown in theatres anymore. All but two times I have ever seen it were in the privacy of my own living room. And now, looking back, I can't believe I didn't mention The Producers -- the movie, not the musical that is now going back on Broadway (or maybe it didn't leave, but Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick are coming back.) Thinking of comedy/musicals (though not musical comedies which is something else), like Rocky Horror, made me think of the Producers, although actually it only has one complete song and part of a second.

LeVoy, I was just referring to the comment you made about getting in trouble in this forum. I love Victor/Victoria also, I have probably seen the whole thing 5 times or so in the movies or on tape, and probably parts of it a dozen more times on tv. Along the same lines of getting in trouble in this forum, one of the funniest movies I have ever seen is The Birdcage. Someone mentioned something animated before, so if we are counting that, Monsters, Inc. has to be put on the list, and not as a kids' movie. It ranks up there with the funniest movies. And on a more kid-oriented level, but still very funny to me, was The Emperor's New Groove. Oh, and back to real-live movies, how could I have forgotten another very funny movie: Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Just on a humorous note, and not to "start" anything in the Open Discussion topic, but I can't help but notice that most of the first few movies named take an interesting approach to, shall we say, moral role-modeling. Don't get me wrong, I love all of these movies with the exception of the two I have never gotten around to seeing, "Dumb and Dumber" and "Happy Gilmore." But here, for example, we have "Some Like It Hot," starring two men dressed as women, and "Victor Victoria" (which I realize LeVoy named mainly to be "cute," in which a majority (or close to it) of the characters seen onscreen during the movie are, shall we say, of an orientation that is much discussed in the Issue and Politics area, and the main character is a woman pretending to be a man (of that same orientation) who is a professional female impersonator. To the movies already on the list I would add a somewhat lesser-known Mel Brooks movie, "High Anxiety" and any of a bunch of Woody Allen movies, starting with "Bananas." (Though for some reason they seem to show Woody Allen movies only on A&E these days.) And in a somewhat different direction, and probably something that I'd be more likely to want to show a group of Boy Scouts if that was the purpose of making the list, "Mister Roberts." I love that movie. I realize that it might be better classified as a comedy-drama and that the ending is not what one typically finds in comedies (which I won't spoil in case anyone hasn't gotten around to seeing it in the past 48 years.) But parts of it are very funny.

In discussing his belief that gay men pose a danger of improper advances toward boys, Rooster says: There is nothing special about homosexual men other than their perversion. I find that to be an interesting statement. It means that if one does not not think that a gay person necessarilty has a "perversion," then there is nothing "special" about gay people at all. The idea that being gay is a "perversion" is something that is shared by fewer and fewer people as time goes on. There is no longer a consensus in our society that it is a "perversion," or immoral. The idea that it is a "perversion" is merely a belief held by some religions, and it has no business being used as the basis for a policy in an organization that welcomes all religions. My religion no longer teaches that it is a perversion. And, as your comment implicitly recognizes, someone who does not believe it is a "perversion" would have no reason to support the current, temporary, National Executive Committee misinterpretation of the Scout Oath and Law. Additionally, the BSA itself disclaims any link between homosexuality and child abuse. You are allowed to disagree with the BSA, of course, but I don't see anybody asking you to go form your own organization because you disagree with the BSA. Also, Rooster, it became clear to me awhile back that your support for what the BSA says is rather selective -- not only on the non-relationship between homosexualtiy and child abuse, but also in your non-acceptance of the statement in the Scout Handbook that being "reverent" means that you "respect" the beliefs of others.

What about a Boy Scout camp with a "GE Science Building" with a GE logo on it? The building at the camp my son just attended had sign saying either that exactly, or maybe it said "Science Building courtesy of GE" with the logo. Either way, the deal was clear: You give us the $ for this building, you get the sign with your name and logo on it in front of the building. I did not get to go into the building, so I do not know whether the boys can see a GE logo and references how we bring good things to light in every direction or not. The sign is probably more for the parents' consumption, anyway. You drop your son off and drive or walk past a sign that basically says "GE donated the $ for this building for the Boy Scouts, isn't that nice." You may not feel a compulsion to stop into the next store on the way home from camp and buy a GE light bulb or toaster oven, but when you do make a buying decision, GE has just made it slightly more likely that you will buy their product. I don't think I have a problem with this, though I'm not sure. Corporate names on merit badges sound ridiculous, though. I guess the difference is between making the parents and boys look at an advertisement in exchange for being able to use the building, and making the boys become an adverstisement by putting it on their uniform.