NJCubScouter

Ed says: Someone please show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights it says there is to be a separation of church & state. Not an interpretation but the actual text that states this. Ed, if you want to ignore all constitutional principles that are based on "interpretations" of the Constitution rather than the plain language of the text, you wipe out a great deal of law that you probably don't really want to wipe out. For example, it doesn't say in the Constitution that there is a right to "freedom of association" or "freedom of expressive association," and yet the Supreme Court says these are guaranteed by the First Amendment. (By the way, if they were not, the BSA would have lost the "Dale" case because there would have been no constitutional principle available to override New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, of which the BSA was otherwise in violation because it discriminates against gays. So before you insist on the "plain text" of the Constitution, be careful what you wish for, you may get it.) There are other examples, for example the "right to marry" and the "right to travel" come to mind. (The first was used to strike down a Virginia law in the 1960s that prohibited marriage between persons of different races; the latter is generally understood to mean that U.S. citizens basically have a right to travel where they want, though apparently there is a "national security" exception to this because otherwise I don't know how the travel restrictions on Cuba would be valid.) Indeed, the Constitution does not explicitly say that the Supreme Court has the power to declare federal and state laws unconstitutional. This power is based on an "interpretation" of the words of the constitution, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 1803. In fact, most of the major Supreme Court decisions on the Constitution are based on interpretations from the text, for the simple reason that if the text is clear enough, there is no reason for a lawsuit about it to even get to the Supreme Court. And so, that's where it says that legislation must have a secular purpose and secular effect, among other things, that are usually lumped together into the oft-misunderstood phrase, "separation of church and state." The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to say it.

Well RobK, that is an interesting article. It suggests to me that perhaps the BSA does NOT assert a monopoly on the use of the word "Scout(s)" in connection with a youth group -- only the term "Boy Scouts." In that case, the SpiralScouts would not have a problem using that name. As I said before, the likelihood of "confusion" does not seem very high. (On the other hand, if using "Scouts" was a problem, who would get to sue, the BSA or the GSUSA? Or both? Apparently the SpiralScouts admits both boys and girls.)

I just looked at the SpiralScouts uniforms again, it has been awhile. http://www.aquatabch.org/spiralscouts/uniform.html The uniform I was talking about is the "dress uniform," with the robe or whatever that thing is. The "activity uniform" is just a forest green shirt with khaki pants, the parts of which are of course similar to what the BSA has used, but I do not think the BSA has ever used that specific combination in the same uniform. I may be wrong about that. In any event, the huge "SpiralScouts" patch, and lack of any other insignia, would seem sufficient to prevent any major confusion. There does not seem to be a neckerchief with the activity uniform, and that rope thing on the dress uniform looks pretty unique -- though of course if the boy had it over his shoulder instead of around his neck, and it was a different color, it would look like a den chief's cord.

The provision of BSA's Congressional Charter regarding exclusive use of the "name" is as follows: 27. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words or phrases. The corporation shall have the sole and exclusive right to have and to use, in carrying out its purposes, all emblems and badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases now or heretofore used by the Boy Scouts of America in carrying out its program, it being distinctly and definitely understood, however, that nothing in this chapter shall interfere or conflict with established or vested rights. Taken literally, this provision would prevent others from using the word "Scouts" since it is a "word" in use by the BSA "in carrying out its program." I strongly suspect that the GSUSA Charter (adopted around the same time) contains a similar if not identical provision. So who gets to use the word "Scouts"? Obviously, both; even if the language above includes the word "Scouts," that last little clause at the end about established rights protects the BSA and GSUSA from each other and allows both to use the word "Scouts." I read somewhere that, early in its history, there were a number of other youth organizations using the word "Scouts," and the BSA went to court to stop them. While the BSA was ultimately successful in this campaign, I am not sure whether there were ever any actual published court decisions addressing this issue. I believe that at least some of the suits were "settled" by the other organizations being folded into the BSA. The SpiralScouts has existed for several years. I first became aware of them about 2 years ago on an America Online Scouting board. I have to assume that the BSA is aware of their existence. However, I have heard nothing about the BSA suing. I can think of several possible reasons for this. 1: Over the years, courts have become less receptive to the trademarking of "common words," of which "scout(s)" is one. (This is why so many businesses or products have names that are made-up words or are spelled a bit differently than the English words they are patterned on.) In other words, BSA's lawyers may be concerned that if they go to court, they may not win. 2: The main "official" reason for trademark laws is to prevent "consumer confusion." Once someone has done what is necessary to qualify for a trademark on a word or symbol, they are protected from other firms "stealing away" their customers by confusing them as to who is who. (The real reason behind many trademark infringement suits is to prevent competition, but this is not a governmentally endorsed objective.) I suspect that the BSA is not very worried about people thinking that the SpiralScouts are the Boy Scouts. I just looked at their web site, and SpiralScouts has about 30 units nationwide, their terminology is different, and their uniform... my oh my, take a look at that uniform. I can just imagine trying to get my son to wear that. On the other hand, he is not a Wiccan. His older sister says she is, but that is another subject. 3: The BSA may be worried about negative publicity if they are seen as "picking on" a tiny little group that has no chance whatsoever of posing a threat to the BSA's nationwide predominance as a youth organization. 4: It may of course be that there has been a lawsuit and I don't know about. But I would have to think that some news organization would pick up such a thing and that there would be nationwide publicity. I suspect that the reason for no lawsuit is a combination of reasons 3, 1 and 2, in that order of priority. That is just my guess.

OK, so Mr. Newdow is a troublemaker. It's not such a terrible thing to be. I think a democracy needs a few of them. I wonder, eisely, might not the honorable title "troublemaker" also be applied to someone who has started 6 of the last 9, and 5 of the last 6, threads in the "Issues and Politics" board?

Rooster says: Duty to God is about loving and worshiping God. ... Obviously, BSA and its members, not only recognize God, but they see value in loving and worshiping Him. For some reason, I keep feeling this need to point out that the BSA's conception of "Duty to God" is broader than a lot of people portray it. "Worship" is not required, if your beliefs do not require it. Obviously, most peoples' beliefs do involve "worship," so some may forget that there are others' who do not. "Deists" and others who are not in any organized religion often do not "worship," but they can fulfill their Duty to God as well as anyone else, since the BSA lets each individual decide what that "duty" means. As for "loving God," I'll abstain from that philosophical discussion, at least for now. Except to say that "loving" may imply that God is necessarily an individual, conscious entity. Not everybody believes that, and in the BSA, you don't have to. I also think that there's really nothing to be gained from beating up on Mr. Lambert. I don't think that what he has done is necessarily bad. The bottom line is that he is not qualified to be a Scout leader because he does not, in reality, subscribe to the requirements, which have been clearly spelled out and are fundamental to the organization. (Which makes this the exact opposite of the gay issue, by the way.) What the BSA has done with Mr. Lambert is fine with me. All of the negative commentary from people outside the "chain of command" in this case, including most of the people who have posted in this forum, is not fine with me. It is un-Scoutlike and unnecessary. I am a bit ashamed that I agree with some of you about the ultimate result.

I do not believe that the people referred to in this story are representative of gays as a whole, and what they do should not be used to draw any conclusions, except about those individuals. I have known a number of gay people in my life, and none of them were the kind that would engage in public activity like this; the vast majority of them were not what we used to call "promiscuous"; most of them were in monogamous relationships, the only "unusual" thing being the gender of their "roommate." Rooster, if you want to legitimately compare gays to straights, I think you have to look at all types of sexual behavior. Maybe gays do have a higher percentage of "sex in public places" than straights, though I have to report anecdotally that the only time I have ever personally glimpsed 2 people "in the act" in a public park, they were of opposite genders. But so what? Both "orientations" have their share of evil-doers. Since only straight people can get married, we have to conclude that one hundred percent of adultery is committed by straights (except maybe in Vermont, depending on how you want to look at it.) And then there are Sctmom's statistics. If a woman were beaten every 15 minutes or 15 hours instead of 15 seconds, what difference would it make? It doesn't change the point, which I think is that a substantial amount of violence is perpetrated by men, straight men, against women with whom they have relationships. It does not mean all men are bad, just as the antics of some juvenile gay people in a park somewhere do not reflect on the vast majority of gay folks who are law-abiding, respect the rights of others, and who conduct their personal relations in private where they are supposed to be. Rooster, I think the problem is that for whatever reason, you are incapable of viewing gay people and straight people on a "level playing field." Gay is bad, straight is good, and everything else flows from that. I think the double-standard is hard-wired into your brain, and as a result you are incapable of evaluating the facts clearly. That is not meant as a personal attack; I just wish you could see things as they are. Maybe there is a pill you can take.

gshafer, I understand your concern about appearances when you are SM and your son is running for SPL. My father went through that when became SM, at which time I was an experienced PL, getting ready for a larger role. And at that time, for whatever reason, my troop had no elections. The troop committee picked the SPL and ASPL, and he influenced them to pick the other natural candidate as SPL, leaving me as ASPL. Then he told me that if I was ever going to be the SPL, there were going to have to be elections. I took the hint, wrote up a procedure for the elections, eligibility requirements, term limits, etc., presented it to what was then called the TLC (now PLC), it was adopted and guess who won the first election? But the important thing was, nobody could accuse my father of giving me anything. And nobody can accuse you, either. Unless there is a written rule stating that a former SPL cannot run again, he can run. It is not you "allowing" him to run, it is the rules allowing him to run, even through their silence. If your son wins, you didn't elect him, the boys did. Now, if I were you, and if your son wins, I might make a subtle suggestion that he might want to make this his last term in order to give the other boys a chance. But that's just me.

Let's see, in order of the issues you raised: No, no legitimate environmentalist would place something in a tree knowing it would likely kill or injure another human being. No, mostly; I try to maintain a healthy skepticism about anything ANYBODY says, whether in a position of authority or not. I don't automatically believe OR disbelieve persons in authority, or anybody else. My trust must be earned. I have never looked into joining PETA, I don't think my food preferences would pass their membership requirments. And I appear to be wearing leather shoes and a leather belt. On the "domestic terrorist groups," I have never heard anything about that. I think PETA generally gets a "bad rap" from conservatives and the media in general, but I have no sympathy for them when they infringe on others' rights to live their lives. If they are indeed involved with "terrorism," which I find a bit difficult to believe, obviously I would not go for that. I also don't know about the thing with the cattle farmers. I jokingly call myself an "environmentalist wacko" because from what I have heard on the radio at times, some people apply that sort of label to people who believe what I do believe, which is basically "mainstream" environmentalism. This reason I think that even "moderate" environmentalism gets attacked by some is that it often does place a higher priority on protecting the environment (reasonable protections, not halting all human progress) than on economics or convenience. I'm not sure what this thread, in its current state, is doing in "Open Discussion" as opposed to "Issues and Politics." Compass, I think that happened because you insisted on making this bear-shooting story into a political thing. I still haven't seen anyone criticize this quick-witted young man.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Compass, I am proud to be what a certain conservative radio talk show host would call an "environmentalist wacko," and I also tend to take a skeptical eye toward "official statements." So maybe I am one of who you are talking about. Yet, it is obvious that this boy did exactly what he should have done, and had to do. I cannot imagine anyone (well, ok, not anyone I have seen post in THIS forum) believing otherwise. I think you have the right to kill an animal, endangered or not, even if it's the last one left on earth, if it is a 400-pound (I'm guessing) killing machine that is heading right towards you with teeth and claws bared (no pun intended.) I would go so far as to say you have have the right to protect your family pet, as well as livestock, from being eaten by a bear, and both of those seem to have been factors here as well. I am not sure, however, what the law says about shooting the endangered grizzly bear to protect the dog and chickens. It is clear what it says about protecting yourself.

Rooster says to me: Given your responses, I have no argument with you. Wow, that would be a first. However, I must assume that you do not believe in the Bible. Or, if you do, it is a tenuous belief at best. I do not believe that the Bible is "God's Word." I don't actually know it isn't, just like you don't actually know it is. You think you know it is, but you don't actually know. In reality, you think it is, you believe it is, and I don't. I think it is the work of men -- who albeit probably thought that they were correctly reporting the word of God. In their minds, they were correct. I am not criticizing them. They saw rampant lawlessness, people hurting each other without cause, injustice, etc. and they decided to write down the law, and in order to ensure greater acceptance for the law, chose to say that this law was imposed by God. In order to do that, they had to create a background for (what they were calling) God and a reason for people to believe in him, and by extension the law that "he" was imposing. They summarized how they thought God created the Earth, how mankind came to be, and why things are the way they are. I think that a good deal of it, especially the early chapters of Genesis (which are what give rise to the whole attack on evolutionary science), were intended to be parable and metaphor. In some thread somewhere, I have discussed how the story of Cain (Genesis 4 I believe) would seem to indicate that the writer himself was acknowledging that Cain's parents were not unique, and had contemporaries who were not their offspring. A bit later we have the story of the Tower of Babel, which is the clearest example of pure parable that I can think of at the moment. Why do we human beings speak different languages? Well, here's why, mankind disobeyed God and tried to be like God, and God decided to knock mankind down a notch (literally) and prevent further encroachments on his domain. You want to believe that that all literally happened, be my guest. But (and back to the point of this thread) I have to wonder whether the writers of Genesis 1 and 2 would be happy or dismayed at the fact that, three or four thousand years later, their obvious attempts at allegory were being used as the basis for rejecting scientific discoveries that they themselves could not even have imagined. Actually, I don't wonder. I don't think they would be happy at all. If man has corrupted God's Word, how does one determine which parts are true and which are not? The same as with any other book. Now, for most books, there is other evidence, sources, etc. that the reader can look at and decide for himself/herself. Even then, it's tough to really know. Most people have had the philosophical conversation along the lines of "if you have never been to China, how do you know it really exists?" My answer is, I guess I don't know with absolute certainty. But with every map and book on the subject saying it exists, and all of the people I know who were born there saying it exists, and the satellite photos of the Earth showing that there is some big piece of land between Russia, India, Vietnam and Korea, and all the other references to its existence, and nobody saying it doesn't exist, I am sufficiently convinced of its existence to say that I "know" it is there. Could there be a big conspiracy involving several billion people to convince me alone that it is there, when it isn't? I suppose there could be, but if they want to go to that much trouble, I guess they've tricked me. With the Bible, the problem is that, with some exceptions, there really are no other sources to confirm what is in there. Most of the attempts that I have seen to "prove" the overall validity of the Bible or individual statements in it, involve references to the contents of the Bible itself. It doesn't work that way. The book cannot prove itself. Now, that doesn't mean I don't believe that parts of it are historically true, or at least historically based, with some embellishments. This is particularly true for the later books of the Old Testament. (I am not going to address the New Testament, for obvious reasons.) The further along you go in the Old Testament, the more and more detail you find, and the more things start to match up with extrinsic sources. For example, it says there was a King Solomon and that he built a huge temple in Jerusalem, and there is today a huge wall in Jerusalem that appears to be in the right place and of the right vintage, and there is other evidence as well, so I have no problem believing that part of it, at least the rough outlines. On the other extreme, I think Adam, Eve, Cain, Able and Seth are allegorical and not historical figures. My guess is that Noah is allegorical, but that Moses is historical. The real puzzle for me is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I'd like to believe they were real, but I just don't know. If the point you are trying to make is that only a belief in the literal truth of the entire document will prevent uncertainty as to what is true and what is not, I'd have to agree. The argument proves itself, but the answer is really meaningless. If, however, you are trying to make the point that it is either all-true or all-not-true, I don't think there is any logical basis for that.

I said: "What I do know is that God created something that led through some unknown number of steps to what we are and what we see around us." and ScoutParent replies: and what led you to the conclusion there was a something in the middle? That I know about for certain, nothing, I guess. Notice I said "unknown number," and zero is a number. However, as firstpusk said, I do believe that there is sufficiently strong scientific evidence for evolution. (Note "believe" as opposed to "believe in," which would suggest religion, which evolution is not.) Also, when I say "steps," I am not necessarily just talking about evolution, or life on Earth. I am not sure that God needed to be involved in "our" affairs after creating the material and force for the Big Bang. The seeds of life may have been contained in that material. Science is still working on that, and I'm willing to wait. (But since I know that science will not find the answer to the origins of life in my lifetime, I just have to be satsified with not knowing, and I am.) So, what has God been doing since the Big Bang, assuming that his intervention was not needed to start life on Earth? Well, he could have personally created every planet and every living thing on every planet that has life. He could have personally created you and me and all our ancestors, and he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake. I just don't think there's any evidence for that, I don't think it's necessary, and don't happen to believe in it. It's equally likely that he's been busy creating an infinite number of other universes, or that he's just been playing solitaire for the last 15 billion years. He's got time. And it's also possible that "he" is not a conscious entity at all. I certainly don't think we were created in his image, because I have no idea if "he" even has an image. I think the old guy with the white beard in the paintings of Michelangelo (a famous gay guy, by the way) is just our imagining of what God should look like. It has been said by some wise guy that man created God in his own image; since I do believe in God, I have to amend that to, man created his image(s) of God in his own image. At least, that's what I believe, with an acknowledgement that I could be completely wrong.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

I wouldn't be surprised if national was considering it. I have seen it suggested in online forums enough times, the idea must have filtered up the line by now. It would bring in more fees, I mean members. Plus maybe that way they could get rid of the leftover orange shirts faster, at least the extra-small sizes. Just kidding, mostly. I personally do NOT think Cubs should start in kindergarten. I think many of the boys in Tigers now are really too young to get a lot out of the program, at least in the fall of first grade. I do see the benefit in starting them a bit before they are really ready, so that when they ARE ready, they are already signed up and don't have to decide whether to join. They are already there. But that's for Tigers -- in my school district those are boys who are between 5 years 11 months and 6 years 11 months old when they get started in September. Roll that back a year -- as early as 4 years 11 months old! -- and I really don't think more than a few of them would be anywhere close to ready. It's really too soon, in my opinion. Also, there is the burnout factor. Right now boys are in Tigers-Cubs-Webelos for a bit more than 4.5 years before they cross over, and that is enough time for a lot of kids to decide they have had enough. Do we really want to increase that to 5.5 years? As for Daisies, I don't know if that provides any support for Cubs starting younger. One of my daughters was a Daisy, and this is 10 years ago now so I don't remember it with precise clarity, but I do seem to recall wondering at the time what she was really getting out of it. On the other hand, the average 5-year-old girl is better at sitting down for a meeting than the average 5-year-old boy, and specifically is more interested in the artsy-craftsy stuff, so I don't know how valid the comparison is. (This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Be thankful, I remember the last time they were down (that I knew of), it was for a few weeks (or at least a week), because their site host had gone out of business or something. That was probably about 1.5 to 2 years ago. They have an excellent site -- almost as good as scouter.com. I especially like the way they have the advancement requirements linked together, it makes it very easy to find something fast.

I agree, sctmom. Training is not the "magic bullet" that some people in this forum may think it is, or to put in another way, while an untrained leader is probably a poor leader, a poor leader is not necessarily an untrained leader. In some class somewhere I learned the difference between what is "necessary" and what is "sufficient." I believe that, with rare exceptions, training is necessary to be a good leader, but it is not always sufficient.

Rooster says: The book is not mine, it's God's. Well, that's the whole point. You are making an assumption that I am not making, or if you prefer, you have a belief that I do not share regarding the origin of the book in question. (Not the "mine" part which is obvious, but the "God's" part which is not so obvious.) I am not necessarily saying that your assumption or belief is wrong; it is possible that it could be right, just as it is possible that "God manifests himself in nature" or "God is in all of us" or any number of other possibilities. I don't presume to know. What I do know is that God created something that led through some unknown number of steps to what we are and what we see around us. This is not something I invented myself. It falls into the general category of "deism," and appropos to a discussion that has been winding through this thread, the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin also fall into this category, for at least part of their lives. If you read your Bible, God condemns many folks in the harshest language. I know that. That's part of my point. I have a lot easier time believing that the "harshest language" is the work of one or more of my fellow human beings, than believing it is the work of God. And I see no evidence that it is otherwise. (This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

I never have time to answer even 1 percent of the statements I'd like to answer in these posts, but let me pick out a few at random. Rooster says: I'd rather be called a fool by man than by God. I find that an interesting statement. In my own little view of things, God does not call people names. Rooster has also made a number of statements in this thread and others, to the effect that "God is not limited." I do not mean to question your beliefs, only to demonstrate that there is another perspective, and here it is. It seems to me that when you believe that God's nature and acts can be described in a book, you are the one who is "limiting" God. I believe that God is so far beyond us, and so unfathomable that man can never know exactly what he did or what he did or what his nature is. (Or what his "name" is or what his gender is or if he even has a gender. I use male pronouns, and the word "God" itself, mainly as a matter of convenience.) At the very least, I don't know any of these things, but I really don't see how anyone else can know the answers either. Believe they know, yes, but actually know, no. I seriously doubt that the answers are in the pages of any book. Anything is possible, but since I can't live my life as if every possibility is correct, I am basically forced to just live my life as well and good as I can (which includes probably about 95 percent of the same moral code as anyone else on this board), and let the rest sort itself out, as the British say. ScoutParent says: It's interesting to me that if you look at gallup poll results; most Americans do not buy into this hoax and that as the level of education goes up the level of belief in evolution goes down. I generally don't believe in polls, and I definitely don't think that the origin of the species can be determined by a poll. However, this inverse correlation between level of education and belief in evolution is so contrary to what I would expect, that I have to question it. I don't normally ask for citations to things, but I'm just curious to see whether you know of a specific source for this polling data.

Glad you think it's all a game, Ed.

After reading the suggestion about going to a youth-protective services-type agency, or the board of health, I guess I need to be more emphatic about my earlier advice. Sctmom, I think you should call the superintendent of the school district, and then if that does not produce results, call the person you know on the school board. If you feel more comfortable calling the person you know first, that's ok, but do not be surprised if he refers you to the superintendent. In my state, I as a school board member would be required to do that. (New Jersey School Board Member Code of Ethics, Point 10: "I will refer all complaints to the chief administrative officer and will act on such complaints at public meetings only after failure of an administrative solution.") So the chain of command thing in my state is not just a suggestion, it's the law. Now, if you have gone to the web site and the chain of command is a tangle, there is no reason not to call the school board member and ask for help. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the events you have attended together. Tell him what the issue is, and ask him, not to intervene, but to just tell you who is the correct person to talk to. Believe me, I would love to get calls like that -- not the comments I do get at places like Cub Scout meetings, which are more along the lines of "I don't like (fill in complaint about the schools), can't you do something about it?" If it's a global issue, maybe I can do something about it. But if it's something about their school, what I'd like to know is, what have they done about it. Of course, I am more diplomatic than that, after all, if I decide to continue with this madness, I will actually have to run for election next spring. The one thing I would not want to see as a school board member would be a letter from youth and family services or the board of health to the superintendent, asking about a situation that neither the administration or the board were given an opportunity to address first. I would really be offended that the school district was being made to look bad, when the proper steps had not been taken to seek corrective action from the district leadership and ultimately, the citizens elected to oversee it. You did the right thing by going to the principal, now you just need to keep going. If the administration and the board turn you down, then more drastic, and embarrassing, actions are appropriate. I really did not mean to turn this into a lecture. Sctmom, I know you well enough by now to know that you would not do what ScoutParent is suggesting anyway. But I will freely admit that her suggestion touched a raw nerve with me, because I can very easily see myself in the shoes of your friendly local school board members. Because of things that have happened since I was appointed (not involving me personally), let's just say that opening up the local newspaper every morning has become a new kind of experience. (Uhoh, 3 smileys in 1 post, I hope that doesn't break the rule.) A final word, Sctmom, if you do go all the way up to the school board and you get the same attitude that you did from the principal, then maybe you have a problem in your school district that goes deeper than bathroom policies. Can you guess what my suggestion would be then? It has nothing to do with picket signs, just the signs on your neighbors' lawns next election time, with your name on them! (That's 4!)

Well Sctmom, as a recently-appointed and trained member of my local school board (I'm still waiting for my "Trained" patch ) I have to advocate that you continue up the "chain of command" before you go picketing or to the newspapers, or worse yet, suing anybody. (Which I suspect you have no plans to do.) If the principal is being unreasonable, there is probably no point in going to the PTO. However, the principal has a boss, whether he/she is called the superintendent, assistant superintendent or some other administrator. There may be more than one level of bureacracy above the principal. In my district, people would probably go straight to the superintendent on something like this, because it doesn't really fall within any particular person's cubbyhole. Then, if that administrator does not return your call within a reasonable time, or gives you the same answer as the principal, it is time to go to the school board. Some people like to call a school board member, others just show up at the next school board meeting and speak during the appropriate portion of the meeting. If your board is anything like mine, the first thing they will want to know is that you have gone up the chain of command to the chief school administrator, and have not gotten satisfaction. And of course if that fails, you can "go public." Considering what the issue is about, I'd hate to think what you might write on the picket signs if you are really irate. (Just kidding, I am sure you mind your manners at all times.)

BobWhite says: A leader who does not support scouting values of patriotism or participating citizenship is just as likely to be removed from membership as a leader that does not support the character values. The same is true of fitness. A good example is a leader that promotes the use of tobacco or drugs is not doing their best to support fitness and can be, and have been, removed. Those kinds of things are not as controversial or news worthy and do not interfere with a vocal political agenda and so there is not as much made of them by disgruntled members or outside political action groups. So what you're saying is that only things that are controversial are controversial. Is that a surprise? Anyway, I have not seen anyone say, and I certainly have not said, that Scouters do not get removed for violating rules unrelated to "character." Of course they do, but it has nothing to do with the issues of avowed gay leaders (on which I disagree with the BSA) or avowed atheist leaders (on which I do not disagree with the BSA, with some qualifications I have mentioned in other posts.) Each ground (or proposed ground) for removing a leader has to be evaluated on its own merits. As for "vocal political agenda," well, which vocal political agenda are you referring to? The agenda that calls for the automatic exclusion of gay leaders? Because no matter how much you (or the BSA) try to couch it in terms of "character" or "values," it is part of a political agenda. (Or if you prefer, a religious agenda, but in this situation politics and religion become interchangeable. And, regardless of terminology, the anti-gay agenda should not be codified in BSA policy even if it is a religious agenda -- especially if it is a relgious agenda. The same Declaration of Religious Principle that compels me to support (or at least accept) the removal of avowed atheists, declares that the BSA is nonsectarian, yet sectarian is exactly what it is when it requires members to follow a precept of one group of religions over another group of religions.) By the way, of course I know that the anti-gay political agenda is not the agenda you are referring to. You are referring to the "agenda" that believes that a person is not automatically of bad character solely because they are an avowed homosexual. If that is a "political agenda," I plead guilty to being part of it. As for "disgruntled members," is that what you call members of an organization or society who would like to see the authorities change their policy, and who exercise their powers of speech and the available media to petition for redress of grievances? All such people are to be dismissed as "disgruntled members"? So much for citizenship, I guess. I know the BSA is technically a "private organization," but in an organization that is based on the principle of citizenship in the community, nation and world, there is nothing wrong with a little internal citizenship either.

I left out one thing. I doubt there is a rule that prohibits Webelos from ATTENDING a Klondike Derby. There may very well be a rule that would prohibit all Cubs from PARTICIPATING in Klondike Derbies. I believe there is a rule prohibiting Webelos and other Cubs from staying overnight at Boy Scout events such as camporees and Klondike Derbies. But "attending" during daytime hours would just be "visiting," which is required for the Arrow of Light.

There is no Arrow of Light requirement to PARTICIPATE in a Boy Scout event. Here is what requirement number 4 says: With your Webelos den, visit at least one Boy Scout troop meeting, and one Boy Scout-oriented outdoor activity. Just for purposes of comparison, here is requirement number 5: Participate in a Webelos overnight campout or day hike. One thing that has been drummed into me in Scout training is that when writing advancement requirements, Scouting picks its verbs very carefully, and they mean different things. So when it says to "tell" something, the boy is not required to "show" that thing, and when it says "show," talking isn't enough. Same is true with "visit" and "participate." It's not an accident that when talking about Boy Scout activities, the Arrow of Light requirements say "visit," and when talking about a Webelos outdoor activity, it says "participate." The boys can "visit" a Klondike Derby, camporee, outdoor skills demonstration, or whatever. They don't need any "skills" to do that (except for being on their best behavior, if that is a "skill") because they are not required to "participate." They are not SUPPOSED to "participate." That's the whole point of the visit, they are there to watch, and to become interested and excited about doing what they are seeing the Boy Scouts do, so they want to do those things when their times comes. Now, I don't think that means they have to stand there with their hands in their pockets, and there also is no rule against the Webelos learning something along the way. Nor do I think they are prohibited from trying their hand at some basic skill if it takes place in a controlled, supervised setting, with safety paramount. For example, a Boy Scout patrol is cooking lunch, and the visiting Webelos are with that patrol, and the patrol leader shows how to prepare some part of the meal, and says to the first boy, "now you try it." In a few minutes, each of the Webelos has now prepared part of his own lunch, and he's learned something; he'll probably learn it again after he is a Scout, but he has at least gotten a "taste," no pun intended. Technically speaking that is "participation," but it is not what I am talking about. It does not require any previously learned skills. I recall that last winter, the Webelos 2's from my pack attended the district Klondike Derby as invited guests of the troop they were considering joining. It was all held on an open field so the Webelos got to see what all the troops were doing. All the Webelos really did was stand at the edge of the field and watch. Maybe they got to handle the sled for a few feet after the event itself was over. Point of the story is, they didn't even have to touch the sled to fulfill the Arrow of Light requirement. They just had to be there and watch.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

I find it interesting that the original post assumed that most (or some) people responding would have a problem with adult leaders bringing PDA's or similar devices, and nobody has. The issues that have come up on camping trips in my pack are videogame machines (like gameboys) that some of the boys bring, and in one case a portable tv that one of the fathers brought. Saturday morning his son and a few others are sitting in the middle of the campsite watching cartoons. It detracts what we are all out there for. But a device like a PDA that a Scouter wants to use for troop business? I cannot see why that would be a problem. A more difficult issue involves those parents whose businesses require them to be "in touch" 7 days a week, and they are at a campout on a cell phone making deals. I think it is somewhat disruptive, on the other hand it does not happen very often, and if the other alternative would be that the parent (and their son) would not be able to attend the camping trip at all, the cell phone is a small price to pay. Most of the adults (including me) do have cell phones on camping trips to stay in touch with their spouse and other children, which I think is reasonable.

OGE: Here is a cut-and-paste of the current results: Results -- 39 total votes: YES 16 / 41.0% NO 19 / 48.7% Not Sure 4 / 10.3% In other words, 41 percent the Eagle should be revoked, 48.7 percent it shouldn't. I have found that when I cannot see the poll results, it is either because I have not yet voted, or I have voted on a different computer. I believe the voting software puts a "cookie" on the computer when you vote, and after that, you see the results rather than the voting menu. (I hope that doesn't give anybody any ideas, but I am not a computer professional, so if I could figure it out, I'm sure most other people could also.) By the way, OGE, I just looked up your Biblical passage. Excellent. Slontwovvy: I'm not sure what you mean by "all these votes." As of when I just looked, 195 people had read this thread (which I guess includes multiple reads) and there were 1,088 people using this forum. So I'm not sure why 39 would be considered a high number. If you mean that there are not 39 different people actively posting on this subject, well, I think there always are more people "just reading" than posting, and some of the people who don't post might be more willing to cast an anonymous vote in a poll. LeVoyageur: Armed robberies, my goodness. He had his own special interpretation of "A Scout is Thrifty," I guess. (Not to mention, "A Scout does not get drunk and publicly urinate on other peoples' property.) On the issue itself, I agree with the posts of BobWhite, OGE and LV, and I voted no. (In fact, I was the first "no" vote, out of three votes at the time.)