NJCubScouter

I want to "second" what littlebillie said. In particular, if anyone really does want Scouting to "disappear," those people really are irrelevant to the discussion of either the gay issue (on which I disagree with the BSA's current interpretation of its own governing documents) or the atheist issue (on which I can't object to the BSA's policy, as currently enforced, because it is based on the same documents, though I do think they were a little silly to file the lawsuit mentioned in this thread, because it looks like a sure loser to me based on past precedent, which Merlyn correctly recites. And now they have actually lost, at the lowest court level at least.)

The reason it is irrelevant is that as littlebille says, most people who object to the BSA policies simply want the BSA to change them. Many of these people are WITHIN the BSA and only have its best interests at heart. (If anyone questions the word "many," please consider that nine BSA COUNCILS -- not nine Scouters or nine units or nine CO's, but nine COUNCILS -- are on record asking the BSA to change its policy on the gay issue. (I'm not talking about the nondiscrimination policies that appear in articles that Eisely sometimes posts, and then the SE or council president always "clarifies" later that they were only talking about LFL -- no doubt after getting a call from National. I'm talking about resolutions that were actually sent to National, which if I am not mistaken, asked for consideration of "local option.") It's not a numbers game, and I don't doubt that the people who want to change the policy are a minority within the BSA, but it's not some tiny crackpot group that wants to destroy the BSA. On the gay issue, it's a bunch of people, myself included, who want to IMPROVE the BSA -- and by the way, we're right.

Right, Littlebillie. A lot of people who claim to be big on "rules" suddenly sing a different tune when they find a rule they don't like.

Lythops and Ed Mori:

Although I disagree with your interpretation of the First Amendment establishment clause, I have to say I do have some sympathy for you guys. Isn't it rough when the body (or bodies) with authority to interpret a governing document adopts an interpretation that you just don't agree with? In your case, it is the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts interpreting the establishment clause to prohibit government endorsement and financial support for religion, and to prohibit government discrimination against atheists. In my case, it is the BSA National Executive Committee adopting a ridiculous interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law to justify their exclusion of gay leaders. It's tough to fight City Hall, ain't it? That's why I haven't posted that much on the gay issue lately. It sort of gets tiresome after awhile, but I do admire you Ed because you never seem to get tired of posting that the Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. I doubt that the courts that have interpreted the First Amendment to mean otherwise are going to change just for you, but you just keep going. Maybe I'll find a renewal of energy to start posting about the gay issue 5 times a day like I used to, so I can rejoin you as you tilt at the great evil windmills of life. Hey, that was almost poetic.

Cynically yours,

NJ-now-just-a-Scouter

I should clarify one thing that I said:

Interestingly, all of Judaism is representated to the BSA by a single Jewish Committee on Scouting, though the three main branches of Judaism have vastly different viewpoints on gay rabbis, gay "unions" and all other related subjects.

What I meant was that all of Judaism (in other words, all movements within Judaism that choose to be involved) are represented to the BSA (at the national level) by a single NATIONAL Jewish Committee on Scouting. The "National" is in the committee's name, I believe. There are "local" Jewish Committees on Scouting in some councils and perhaps at other levels as well. (For example, my guess would be that in New York City and its environs, there are JCOS's at both the council level and in some districts within those councils as well, and I assume that something similar is true for other religions depending their numbers within any given area.)

My point was that the different "movements" with Judaism (which are not considered separate religions or even separate denominations) do NOT have separate liaison groups to the BSA (to my knowledge), but they do have radically different viewpoints on at least one issue of concern to the BSA.

In thinking about the whole current issue involving the Episcopal Church (concluded, at least for this specific issue, by last night's vote), it really is irrelevant to any issue involving the BSA. The issue was not whether Episcopal churches may have openly gay priests. (I believe that is the correct terminology for Episcopalians, priests rather than ministers.) They have had openly gay priests for years, although evidently there are still a number of church leaders who do not believe that should be the case. The issue before the church this week was whether an openly gay man (who already was a priest), who had been elected (or nominated) a bishop by his statewide leadership group (again I am way weak on the terminology here) should be confirmed as a bishop by the national church body. I do not think the BSA cares, or would have any reason to care, what rank in the clergy of a church is held by an openly gay person. If the BSA was potentially going to care about something, it would be about one or both of two situations:

1. The religious organization (as a whole, on a national level if the faith has a national level) has openly gay clergy AT ALL (regardless of the rank they hold), when some units within that organization (meaning the local church, synagogue, temple, mosque, whatever) are serving as chartered organizations for BSA packs, troops, teams or crews.

2. The particular local church, synagogue, etc. is a CO and also is led by an openly gay clergyman, um, clergyperson.

To see the effect of the difference between 1 and 2, look at the Episcopal Church as a whole. It has some gay priests. Based on newspaper articles I have read about this current issue, there are a few openly gay priests in the State of New Jersey. In fact, on the front page of my local daily paper this morning was a photo of an Episcopal priest of a church in a town near mine, with a caption saying that he is openly gay (and that the person standing next to him in the photo is his "partner" and also active in the church.) But let's a assume for a moment that none of these particular local churches, with openly gay priests, are CO's for BSA units. (I have no idea whether any of them are or not.) Does the BSA prohibit ANOTHER local Episcopal church, whose priest is NOT gay, from being a CO, because the national organization admits gay priests? I think the answer to that is: No. If the answer was yes, there would be no units chartered to Episcopal churches, or Reform Jewish congregations, or to local units of any of several other religious denominations or movements. (The Reform Jewish situation is admittedly a bit more complicated, because there is no overall "authority." Each individual congregation can hire anyone it wishes to be its rabbi, though the vast majority (if not all) will only hire someone who has been ordained by one of the recognized seminaries. The nationwide organizations of rabbis (of which there are more than one, even within each of the three major "movements" within Judaism) can do nothing more than make recommendations, and the recommendation of the largest Reform organization is that congregations should not prohibit an openly gay person, otherwise qualified, from being their rabbi. Most congregations within that organization would not do so anyway, which makes sense because it is their representatives who adopted the recommendation in the first place. Interestingly, all of Judaism is representated to the BSA by a single Jewish Committee on Scouting, though the three main branches of Judaism have vastly different viewpoints on gay rabbis, gay "unions" and all other related subjects. Reform organizations submitted (or joined in) a "friend of the court" brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the plaintiff in the Dale case, while Orthodox organizations were part of a brief supporting the BSA's position.)

Which leads to the question that I have asked a couple of times now and have not heard a definitive answer: What about the CO that is a place of worship that DOES have an openly gay minister, priest, rabbi or whatever? In other words, Whatevertown Episcopal Church or Congregation Beth Whatever is the CO for a Boy Scout troop, and the priest or rabbi is openly gay. (As I have said, this is probably not all that likely to happen, but I suspect there are a few places where it has.) The openly gay religious leader's name will be on the charter as IH. If the IH is willing to sign the charter agreement that says his/her place of worship will abide by all BSA policies, etc. (including the "policy" (really an interpretation of the Oath and Law) prohibiting openly gay leaders), will the BSA have a problem with this? Does the current "policy" prohibit it? Does anyone know of a situation where this has taken place?

(Incidentally, the largest organization of Reform Jewish rabbis has recommended to its members that they NOT agree to charter BSA units because of the gay policy. I suspect that, as a result, the number of Reform Jewish congregations that charter BSA units is small and decreasing, though probably not zero at this point. I find the whole thing regrettable for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that if the current situation existed back in 1938, I suspect that my father (who got his 65-year pin from the BSA this year, was a Scout from the age of 12, has served in almost every unit-level Scouting capacity including unit leader in three or four different places, and also on various district and council committees, and is my source of wisdom and strength on all things Scouting) quite possibly never would have become a Scout in the first place. I don't think there were too many little Jewish boys in Scout troops sponsored by Christian churches back then, as there are today.)

I'm not sure what the big deal is, at least as far as it relates to an Episcopal church continuing to be a CO even if the nationwide church body accepts gay clergy. They would not be the first religion or denomination to have gay clergy. Reform Judaism has had openly gay rabbis for probably more than 10 years now, and I am fairly sure that the BSA does not prohibit Reform Jewish synagogues from being CO's. (This is still an open issue within the Conservative Jewish movement, and probably never will be an issue for Orthodox Jews, who probably will never have either female rabbis or openly gay rabbis.) Incidentally, some Reform rabbis will perform gay "union ceremonies" (or whatever terminology they choose to use), and some will not... just as some congregations will not hire an openly gay rabbi. (Hmm, sounds like "local option" to me.)

Anyway, I am sure Reform Judaism is not the only religous denomination or movement to ordain openly gay clergy, and at the same time to have some of its places of worship serve as CO's for BSA units. Whatever got the Unitarian Universalists banned from being CO's (as opposed to just having their religious award banned from uniform wear), it must have been something more than that.

I did raise on another thread the issue of what would happen if a place of worship with an openly gay leader were a CO, but I don't think I got an answer. As has been pointed out, IH is not a registered position. The IH would be in a rather awkward position, which is why I suspect there are not too many situations like this that actually exist. (But there are probably a few, at least.) Among other things, unlike any other IH, the IH could not appoint himself/herself to be CR. Other odd situations come to mind, like an openly gay rabbi giving the invocation at an Eagle court of honor, though (obviously) not saying anything about sexual orientation. It wouldn't exactly support the BSA's claim that an openly gay person cannot be a good role model for youth.

Thanks OGE, those last 2 songs I do know. I don't think we ever sung the last one in Scouting, I remember learning it in music class in elementary school.

Talk about hijacking a thread... I guess music hath charms to soothe a savage forum.

Ya know, you come back from a week's vacation (where there was no computer) and you find that all holy heck has broken loose.

I wasn't going to say anything in this particular thread because there didn't seem to be anything to say... until I got to OGE's posts.

OGE, where do those songs come from? I have never heard either of them before. (Well, I guess I still haven't actually heard them, but you know what I mean.) Are they sung to the tunes of other well-known songs (a la "Scout Vespers") or do they have their own melodies? Do boys sing them now? (We used to sing a bit when I was a Scout in the early-to-mid-70s, but it's difficult for me to imagine the boys in my son's troop agreeing to sing, or the adults asking them to, for that matter.)

The first one "sounds" a bit like a college "fight" song. Cheer, cheer for old BSA...

By the way, OGE (and this does belong in a whole other topic, but anyway) have you ever been to Camp Ockanickon? I think your council is the next one to the north of this camp's council. My son's troop has basically made this "their" camp even though it is out-of-council. My son was recently there as a first-year summer camper and had a great time... and seems to have actually learned a thing or two or three... including that he can survive on a camping trip without his father, and for a week no less. Can't beat that.

OK, everybody can go back to posting about how nobody should be posting in this thread.

I would just add: If he does join, and it doesn't work out, it's not the end of the world. Many, many boys quit Scouting after a year, or half a year, or two years, for a wide variety of reasons. Is the time completely wasted? I don't think so. If they had some fun, learned some skills, maybe learned some leadership skills, learned some citizenship, improved their physical fitness, they do get some benefit. Maybe, as my previous sentence suggests, this boy makes some progress in two of the three "aims," maybe they even get "partials" (to coin a phrase) in all three, but don't make it all the way. Is this bad? And if he experiences some "disappointment" when it doesn't work out, well I really don't think that is a risk that should stop him from trying. Disappointment is part of life, it doesn't mean you don't try. (That may even be one way of saying one of the sentences in the description of "A Scout is Brave," I don't remember but the concept sort of rings a bell.)

(First of all, did AdviserFB's post jump into the wrong thread? I was going to answer it, but then saw that it seems to be in the wrong thread and I did not want to send Sager's thread off into you-know-what-land.)

I have written here before about my own experiences with the "religion" part of Scouting. When I was 16 or so, and up, I was basically this kid, sometimes thinking I was an atheist, sometimes an agnostic, usually not being sure, sometimes not caring, but interspersed with all of that, also feeling (especially when in the outdoors with Scouting) feeling like there was some greater something, but not being exactly sure what it was and what it did and how I related to it. I could go on, including where I have "gone" since then, but I already wrote that somewhere, and it isn't critical.

I think the critical point is this sentence in Sager's first post:

He does not want to be hypocritical in promising "duty to God" when he's not sure God exists.

Very simply, though it's not simple, he has to decide whether he can say the Oath and Law, including all the words. That's all he has to do. He is not required to be a member of an organized religion, though this will require some extra effort (though not an insurmountable obstacle) when he goes to fill out his Eagle application. Also, I really don't think he should be asked questions (Rooster) about how there can be love without God and why are we here, or anything like that, because I can tell you from personal experience in being a semi-agnostic-confused-teenager, that the best answer you are going to get is "I don't know." I don't think anyone should try to convince this boy of anything at this point. (Rooster, I'd really be curious to know if anybody has ever really been persuaded that there is a God, by being asked those questions. I personally do believe in God, though not as you envision God, and I (the current me, not just the teenaged me) would not answer the questions the way you think they should be answered. My belief in God is sufficient for Scouting, though I suspect you would not define it as a belief in God at all.)

What I do think someone should do, as I said, is have a conversation with this boy about whether he can say those words. If he can, there is no reason he cannot be a Scout. But, to partially agree with Bob, the boy should be told ahead of time that it may not work out for him in Scouting. If he decides he can no longer say the words, he can't be a Scout anymore.

Now, I can hear someone saying, he can't just say the words, he has to mean them. I say, give the kid a chance if he wants it. I personally think that if B-P was faced with this kind of kid, he would be rolling out the red carpet and tossing the boy a free handbook. Get him into the outdoors, B-P said, and see what happens. (Well, he didn't say exactly that, but that's what he meant.)

What I really mean is, the boy should be asked, can you acknowledge that there may be a God, or higher power, or force that set the Universe in motion, or whatever you want to call it? And when you say the Scout Oath, can you call "it" God, because that's what the BSA calls it, keeping in mind that the BSA does not necessarily mean the God of the Bible? And if he has trouble with that, when he says "God" can he avoid hypocrisy by adding (to himself) the words "if any"? (I suspect I will get some flak for that last one.)

Nobody ever asked me those questions. But I think that subconsciously, that is probably the thought process I went through that allowed me to stay in Scouting without considering myself a hypocrite.

Flyingember, I do not know how many members my local OA lodge has. I guess I am not actually a member of the lodge at this point, having last paid my dues when I was 18, which was 27 years ago. And the lodge no longer exists, though I live in the area covered by the lodge into which it was merged. (In other words I grew up in Council A but now live in Council B, except about 4 years ago A and B merged and now it's all Council C, and the OA lodges followed suit.) I'm told I can present my membership card from Lodge A, pay my dues and join Lodge C, which I haven't gotten around to doing yet. My son is 11 and not yet Tenderfoot, so OA is not an issue for him yet.

The only statistic I do know is that when I look around at troop meetings, there are 2 or 3 adults and 3 or 4 boys wearing flaps, out of about 8 uniformed adults and about 25 active boys.

BobWhite says:

The "outdoor program" goal is often misquoted. The BSA does not say an active unit needs to camp once a month. It says you need to get outdoors once a month. Hiking, skiing, cycling, smimming, nature observations, climbing and rappeling, swimming, boating, pioneering, skating, rifle and shotgun, archery, cooking, firebuilding, survival skills,and many other scout skills can be done without camping.

Those things CAN be done without camping. But remember that this thread was prompted by a troop that ONLY camps at summer camp, and self identifies as a "non camping troop." Given those facts, what do you think are the chances that this particular troop engages in those or other outdoor activities once a month? Or, I'm guessing, once every two months? I am sure some of them are done sometimes, but it sounds to me like they are probably not done with sufficient frequency to really satisfy the "outdoor method." Admittedly that is just a guess, but I usually guess right.

As for advancement, as Bob points out, summer camp alone is not going to do it. Btps later confirms that in this troop, all camping advancement requirements are to be passed at summer camp. Now I have not studied all the advancement requirements in detail, but I know that for one or more of the first three ranks you have to sleep in a tent YOU HAVE PITCHED and you have to prepare, or help prepare, one or more meals, plus meal planning, cleanup, etc. Now, my son just attended his first week of summer camp. Similar to most of my summer camping experiences as a boy, his tent had been set up by staff, and all of his meals were taken in a dining hall (though unlike in my day, it was air-conditioned), in which his role (other than eating) was limited to serving as one of the "waiters" for his troop when it was his turn. Which is useful experience, but I don't think it got him any boxes checked off. The point is, he really did not have the opportunity to pass some of those camping requirements at summer camp, but he did not need to. He had already passed the Tenderfoot camping requirements on an earlier camping trip, and will presumably move on to the requirements for the next two ranks in the fall when they start camping again. And of course at the same time, is starting to build up his "days and nights" toward Camping merit badge.

I have never heard of a troop where the boys, in general, did not like to camp. Individual boys, yes, but they usually went on to other things before long anyway. My son is growing to really like camping, though his first trip could have been a bit drier, but I think that could be said for most camping trips in this part of the country so far this year. I wonder if, in that "non camping troop," that attitude really comes from the boys, or if it is influenced by parents whining and complaining about having to drive XYZ miles every month, etc. And whining and complaining about having to help their kids prepare for camp -- because I suspect that in a troop that does not camp, the kids do not know how to prepare themselves. If they camped, they'd have the impetus to learn now, they'd be able to practice those skills, their parents would have less reason to complain, and they'd go camping more. Circular logic? I suppose, but I suspect there is some truth to it. If I am right that it is the parents influencing the boys' non-camping attitude, the way to break the circle is to schedule a camping trip.

Dsteele, I have never heard of a "Den Aide," but I did an Internet search on that phrase and got 94 hits, so it may not be so arcane or archaic. Here is a link to something that appears to be authoritative (though not an official BSA national site, and possibly a copyright violation if it is a direct quote from a BSA publication, but anyway...):

http://www.geocities.com/~pack215/da.html

So it is not a registered or membership position, and is mainly used when den chiefs are not available, but is not officially limited to that situation. I guess it is just used to provide a little extra official sanction to the girl's presence at the meetings. As you basically point out, but in my own words, it is not necessary to fill out a form or get a patch every time a Boy Scout and a Cub Scout are in the same room together. In my son's old pack, several Boy Scouts (kids who have graduated from that pack into my son's new troop) attend the Pinewood Derby every year as "junior race officials." (Mainly they walk the cars from the finish line back to the staging area, and they place the cars on the track for each heat.) It's nothing official and I don't think the Boy Scouts can get service hours for that, they just do it, the boys get to help out while looking "important" in front of their former pack-mates, everybody has a good time and everybody benefits.

So, CrewGirl, there are definite opportunities to help out, and you will be doing a good thing.

Well Bob, to answer your question with a question, what "value" are you talking about, exactly? Heterosexuality? Is that a "value"? Or is it just a characteristic that the large majority of people (though not all) have in common?

And if it is a "value," how did it become a "value"? And, specifically, how did it become a "value" of the BSA? What is its source? Is it a religious value? Because if that is what it is, and nothing more, I do not see how the BSA can enforce it on members who do not share that religious value, without violating the BSA's own declaration of religious principles. If, on the other hand, it is (or was) a value of "society," and was adopted by the BSA from "society," then it IS relevant that society's values have changed.

I do not mean that all changes in society must be reflected in the BSA. I do not mean that at all. To use an example, it is probably not the best one, but it is the first one that comes to mind for an obvious reason: We (I just thought that I'd temporarily adopt your penchant for referring to the BSA as "we," Bob) require that a Scout be "trustworthy." If society has become more tolerant of lying and cheating, that does not mean the BSA has to move in that direction, because it contradicts what it says right there in the Scout Law, trustworthy. There might be slight nuances in interpretation that change over time, and some of the descriptions in the handbook HAVE changed over time, but the core values stay the same. Now, nowhere in the Scout Oath and Law does it say you have to be heterosexual. Nor (to pick the most extreme example) does it specifically say you can't murder anybody. But the prohibition against murder is a "value" that everybody agrees with. It is a societal value, not simply a religious value, and therefore the BSA enforces it without violating its own Declaration of Religious Principles. I do not think the same can any longer be said about the "value" of heterosexuality, if that is what it is.

Ooh, OGE, I like that rule, 50 pounds over "ideal" weight. Since I am about 60 pounds over "ideal" weight (at least the last time I read a chart, ideal for 6'0" was about 180), and I thought I had to lose 40-45 to even get somwhere in the general neighborhood of the vicinity of my ideal weight, this is great! Now I only have to lose 10 pounds!

btps, what does that mean, "not a camping troop"? You do SOME camping, right?

Ack, I missed a close-italics, and the editing function still is not working for me. I hope this works so that I do not italicize later posts.

Kwc says to me:

With all due respect, how you choose to interpret the Scout Oath and Law as opposed to the folks at National who determine policy really makes little difference.

And then goes on to compare it to an employment relationship. And FatOldGuy says of the BSA National Executive Committee, "By defininiton they are correct."

Obviously I recognize that those who presently make up a majority of the National Executive Committee have the power to enforce their interpretation, and that they are using their power to do so. I, and those who agree with me, do not currently have that power. But their interpretation is just an opinion, as is mine. My opinion is that my interpretation is more consistent with the true values of Scouting (including the Declaration of Religious Principles) than is that of the current leadership. That doesn't change the "rules," at least not this week. But they may change someday, and if they do, I think Scouting will benefit. In the meantime, here I am, part of the organization, and if the opportunity comes to help be a part of that change (with my real name attached) without negatively affecting my primary reason for being part of the program, I may take that opportunity. (That is unlikely to occur prior to October 12, 2009, and maybe after that I will just be the proud father of an adult Eagle, if that happens, and move on to other things.)

And, I think a better anaology than the employment situation would be my relationship with the United States government. I do not agree with everything Congress does, or that any given president does. I suspect that most people in this forum could say the same thing. We can work to change what our government does, and it does not make us any less American. In fact, healthy and peaceful debate is part of being a citizen. I do recognize the differences, and that the BSA calls itself a "private organization," though I would be interested to find any references by the BSA to itself as being "private" before the gay issue or the atheism issue came up. I doubt that the BSA ever called itself that when I was a Scout, or in the preceding decades. However, though it is a private organization, it is a private organization of which I happen to be a member, and my opinions are no less valid than any other member.

Kwc says:

Just who would you have interpret it?

People who are interpreting it for what it says and means, and not according to a political-religious agenda.

In the BSA's world, being gay IS immoral and defies the "morally straight" point.

As I have said, I do not think that is true. In the world of the current leadership of the BSA, yes, but not the real world of the BSA, and not permanently. The day will come when it is seen as an anachronism. I don't know how long it will take, or if it will be in my lifetime or my son's lifetime. I obviously think it would be better if it happened sooner, rather than later. (And what I am talking about is local option; I am not trying to force anyone to accept gays into their unit.)

And then FatOldGuy says the increasing acceptance of gay people "is being forced down our throats by Hollywood." I don't think so. My opinions don't come from Hollywood. None of the people I know who oppose exclusion of gays got their opinions from Hollywood. I do not care what Harrison Ford or any other entertainer thinks about any issue (and in the specific case of Harrison Ford, I do not even know what he thinks. I know that he is pretty good at playing a likeable rogue, which may be what he also is in real life, I don't know.) I get my opinions aprtly from knowing a number of gay people over the years, some of whom would be excellent role models for boys in Scouting. Some, but not all -- just as not all straight people are good role models. The simple fact of being openly gay does not, and should not, disqualify someone from being a good role model for youth, and if some units and CO's cannot accept that fact, then at least those that do should be able to do so. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

I have never heard Mic-O-Say mentioned except on the Internet (including here.) Is it a regional thing? If so, the region does not seem to include New Jersey and adjacent parts of NY and PA. Unless I have missed it, both as a youth and adult member. OA, on the other hand, is strong and well-promoted in my area.

You're welcome. I guess I should add, just to be clear, that what I am talking about is what is necessary to START the prosecution. "Probable cause" is enough to make an arrest, get an indictment, require the accused to post bail, or in some cases, confine the person without bail. To get a conviction requires more than that, and as should be familiar to every TV viewer, it is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In my earlier example, the prosecutor could have Witnesses A through G or A through Z and still not get a conviction, if it turns out that critical witnesses are lying, or didn't actually see what they thought they saw, or the accused has an alibi... or the glove doesn't fit, or the blood would have had to soak through the person's leg to get to the other side of the sock, or the blood wasn't on the gate when it should have been but mysteriously appeared there later. (Get it?) Or whatever. So you can have all the charges pressed in the world and still not be able to prove guilt.

Someone asked for a "real lawyer."

Acco asks:

If the "state" presses charges, why do police officers ask citizens if "they would like to press charges?"

Rooster says:

Theory #2 - Perhaps the intent behind that question is, if charges are pressed, "Are you willing to cooperate with the prosecution?" It's probably a waste of time and money (for the state), if the purported victim gets on the stand and states something to the affect, "No he wasn't assaulting me. We always goof around like that."

Rooster, you are on the right track though only partially correct. The phrase "pressing charges" is not a technical legal term, but it usually refers to either signing a "complaint" (the terminology may vary from state to state) or providing the police with evidence that the police may use to issue their own complaint. The initiation of a prosecution (whether by summons, arrest warrant or other procedural means) requires a finding of "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person in question has committed it. When a police officer witnesses a crime, or personally gathers the evidence that creates the "probable cause," then the police officer him/herself signs the complaint, and the summons or warrant is issued based on that complaint. There is no issue of whether to "press charges" or not, because the police officer him/herself essentially does so by deciding to sign the complaint. When, however, the only witness to a crime is a citizen (often the victim), then that person has to sign the complaint, or at least make a statement to the police so the police can sign the complaint, otherwise there can be no prosecution. That act of signing the complaint or providing the necessary information is what is usually called "pressing charges."

(I hear someone asking, what if nobody (at least nobody who can testify, other than the criminal) actually sees the crime being committed? This happens all the time in murder cases, where the victim is obviously unavailable to sign anything. What happens is, Witness A finds John's dead body, Witness B (the county medical examiner) says John died of gunshot wounds, Witness C finds the gun, Witness D (a police officer) dusts the gun for prints, Witness E (the lab supervisor) matches the prints up to Charlie. If Charlie wants to make everybody's life easier, there will also be a Witness F who says that Charlie told him last week that he was going to kill John, and or a Witness G (hotel desk clerk) who can show in his records that Charlie used John's credit card (after the body was found) to book a room. Put all these things together, and the police have probable cause to charge Charlie with the murder, even though no single individual saw enough to prosecute Charlie. Nobody needs to "press charges," though that is in effect what the lead investigating officer, who has collected statements from Witnesses A through G, does when he signs the complaint.)

A long-winded answer, but hey, what do you expect from a "real lawyer"?

Yes, Bob, I remember that press release and the resolution on which it was based. I am sure that I wrote about it in this forum. Obviously, I do not agree with it. All that the National Executive Committee "reaffirmed" was its own interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law, and I (and others) believe that that interpretation was and is erroneous and does not reflect the true values of Scouting. Just because the National Executive Committee has the power to interpret the Oath and Law does not mean they are correct, and it does not mean that the interpretation will not change some day. Once upon a time, the BSA permitted racially segregated units, but as society changed, the BSA changed as well. I believe that as society continues to change in the area of acceptance of gays, the BSA leadership will ultimately change to the point where the National Executive Committee recognizes that exclusion of gays is not a "value" of Scouting.

As for my own "tough decision" as to whether to remain in Scouting, I made it almost three years ago, and have "re-made" it several times, always with the same result. I have explained my decision-making process on this board a few times. I think I have made, and continue to make, the "right choice" -- for my son, for Scouting and for me.

There's no question about it, and I think the parents need to understand that the 2-deep rule is not aimed only at the kind of conduct we primarily think about when YP is discussed. What if the other ASM continued with the 5 boys and HE was injured, or became ill, or whatever, and could not continue on? Where would the boys have been then? You can't protect against everything, but when a crisis has occurred, you need to think about what would happen if something ELSE goes wrong. It sounds like you did that, and arrived at the right answer. The trip was over, and by the way, the boys learned something. A couple of whiny parents can't change that.

Advisor, you were getting reimbursed within 1 or 2 months? In some units that might be considered pretty good.

Actually, an 18-to-20-year-old (male or female) can hold any of the "assistant" positions in a Cub Scout pack: Assistant Cubmaster, Assistant Den Leader, Assistant Webelos Den Leader. (Someday I'd like someone to explain why, when they officially created the position of Tiger Cub Den Leader about 2 years ago, they did not create a corresponding "assistant" position. Maybe they thought that those working with the youngest Cubs should be 21 or over, but I don't see how that applies any more to a 6-year-old Tiger than a 7-year-old in a Wolf den.)

As for a female Venturer under the age of 18, I do know that she cannot be a den chief. As the official den chief qualifications state: "Be an older, experienced Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, or Venturer who has been a Boy Scout." Since a female Venturer cannot have been a Boy Scout, she cannot be a den chief. I am fairly sure that that result is intentional, even though it is produced by indirect wording. I am not familiar enough with Venturing to know whether there are other legitimate ways that a female Venturer could "work with" a Cub Scout pack. For example, if Venturers do "service projects," perhaps she could work with the Cubs as a service project. That would probably only be valid up to the age of 18, at that point she should be registered in one of the positions mentioned above. As an adult, working with boys, she needs to subscribe to the responsibilities of an adult leader and receive the appropriate training, starting with Youth Protection.