NJCubScouter

As I have mentioned, I have no time to deal with the many comments in this thread (or the other thread that started out with the Pledge of Allegiance and has now branched off into about 5 separate topics.) But I have to deal with this statement by Rooster:

In fact, Jews who come to realize that Christ is the Messiah do not call themselves Christians. They call themselves Messianic Jews.

I'm not sure if this is based on any statistics or anything Rooster, and I don't have any either, but experience tells me that the majority of Jews who develop a belief in the divinity of Christ, in fact do call themselves "Christians", just like you do. (I will leave aside your phrase "come to realize", which I don't use for the same reason that you do use it.) Well, those who become Catholic probably call themselves that as well, but you know what I mean.

Most Jews also call such former Jews "Christians," and regard such terms as "Messianic Jews" and "Jews for Jesus" to be misleading (and in some cases intentionally deceptive, particularly in case of "Jews for Jesus," based not only on their name but on their specific literature, which was often handed to me when I attended a state university that was probably 20 percent Jewish.) Many also suspect that some of these groups are basically fronts for evangelical Christian groups, and I believe there is some evidence for that, though I haven't studied it personally.

I'm not trying to get into an argument about this, nor am I defending it based on my own beliefs, which admittedly are rather, um, casual. I'm mainly giving a perspective that most people might not be aware of. The Jewish position is that if you are a Christian, regardless of the fact that you may be "culturally Jewish" or "ethnically Jewish" (and may correctly call yourself either of these things), you are not "Jewish." You have expressly renounced the faith.

Good golly Rooster, can't you (and admittedly I am not just talking about "you," I am talking about what seems like an entire industry including talk radio and half the Internet) let it go? The guy in the picture on the left isn't president anymore. That's what you were waiting for, right? Can't people stop talking about him, and posting pictures about him, etc.? It never ends. One of our grandchildren will be President and you'll still be complaining about Clinton.

And if we're going to make comparisons here, I find the ability to complete a sentence in the English language to be a bit more important than skill in using binoculars. If you want to keep this thread going, perhaps you'd enjoy a compendium of our current President's rhetorical gaffes. I'm sure I can find one on the Internet. I forget the one from last week, but it was a doozy.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

"So your alien had a room at the Holiday Inn in Paramus, New Jersey?"

"I am not going to go down in history as the man who let New York be sucked down into the tenth level of Hell!"

Yes, yes, I know, those are from Ghostbusters II -- one of the few sequels to be as good as the original.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

CubsRgr8 says:

"Effective January 2003, both the local tour permit and the national tour permit application will include a requirement that at least one adult present during the event or activity must have completed the BSA Youth Protection Training."

The LOCAL tour permit? Is this for real? Or do they mean the overview of YP that's included in Basic Leader Essentials?

This has been a requirement (for local tour permits) in my council for, well, I am not sure how long. I first heard about it probably a little over a year ago, but I did not get the impression that it was a new thing. At that time, I was told that we should NOT use the national form for the "local tour permit" when submitting it to our council, because it will be kicked back. We have to use our council's special form. I once compared the national and council versions (both of the LOCAL tour permit) and the only difference I could find was that the council version asked the date that the tour leader completed YP training. (And now I am looking at what appears to be a brand new version of the council's local tour permit form, and it asks both for the dates of YP training AND Risk Zone training for BOTH the leader and assistant leader of the "tour." (I'm thinking that they will NOT kick back the form because we only have one leader who has Risk Zone training, but we'll find out.) By the way, for Cub Scout Family Camping, the form also asks for the name of the BALOO trained leader and the date of training. We have been specifically told that this applies to all Cub camping events, including council-wide and district-wide camping events. Fortunately our new Assistant Cubmaster has BALOO training and his son just became a "Wolf" so we are set for awhile.)

And the YP training they are talking about is the separate YP training session, not the "teaser" they include in basic training. I believe YP is offered twice a month in my council, though the locations are not very convenient so we have a tough time getting people to go.

Rooster posts a link to an article about gay men using a public park as a "meeting place," driving family and Scouting activities out of the park. I don't think anyone in this forum would argue that this is a good thing. Sexual activity should be kept behind closed doors, regardless of the gender identities of the participants.

But then Rooster asks:

Is anyone that surprised?

Rooster, what does that comment mean? Are you suggesting some generalization about gay people as a group, based upon the bad behavior of these particular gay people?

If so, let me ask you this: There are quite often newspaper stories about men raping women, or adult males being arrested for molesting under-age girls, or statistics about "heterosexual" rape generally. These unfortunate stories are much more plentiful than stories about gays taking over some park. What would be your reaction if someone posted one of these stories, or all of these stories, and then said:

"Is anyone that surprised?"

In other words, do you as a heterosexual wish to be judged by the behavior of the worst-behaving members of our "orientation?" Because I sure don't. I want to be judged, if at all, by my own conduct, and I think the same thing should apply to gay people.

If I have leaped to the wrong conclusion about what your comment means, I am sure you will point that out. But please don't be shy about telling us what it really does mean.

There are a few dozen issues discussed in this thread that I have not had a chance to comment on, but let me pick out just one for right now:

ScoutParent, I had the impression that you were one of the people in this forum who believe in the literal truth of the entire Bible. If that is not correct, I apologize for the error. If it is correct, however, I wonder what's up with all this stuff about race, are you my brother, etc. I'm fairly certain that if the Bible is literally true, we are all descended from Adam and Eve, and therefore we are all cousins. And therefore all of the same race. Right?

Oh, one more thing we get for our $10. Because it is combined with University of Scouting for Boy Scout leaders, and they use a "university" theme for the whole thing, we get to see all the middle-aged course directors dressed up in collegiate "cap and gown" on stage at the beginning and end of the day. Entertainment, for no extra charge.

Our Pow Wow is $10, plus $5 if you sign up less than 3 weeks ahead. Lunch is not included, they serve lunch for $4.50 or you can brown bag it. They also throw in coffee and donuts in the morning, and chips and juice with lunch, even if you bring your own lunch.

I went for the first time last year, it is a lot of great info packed into one day.

It's funny, some months back people were comparing fees for Cub day camp, our council was among the highest and almost twice what some others pay, and yet for Pow Wow we are among the lowest. Go figure.

"Who'd have thought we'd go out like this... killed by a hundred foot marshmallow man?"

Thanks Quixote, when I saw the title of your thread my immediate reaction was "No good can come of this," but then when I saw your post I had to smile.

Here's a thought, why can't the government just stay out of religion entirely? Not promote it, not interfere with it, just leave it alone. And I mean religion in the broadest possible sense, meaning all "belief systems" -- including promotion of the belief in God generally, and including both non-belief and belief in all of their various forms. I just don't think there is any justification for the government to be involved in any of it, and such involvement inevitably leads to the use of public resources (whether it be public funds, the courthouse lawn or more intangible resources) to promote one belief or type of belief over another.

The fact that the majority may wish to use "their" publicly owned town square to display a religious symbol does not somehow bring it into compliance with the Establishment Clause, in fact the Bill of Rights as a whole was adopted for the very purpose of preventing the majority, acting through "their" government (including state and local government, as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment) from taking action on certain limited subjects. Religion is one of those subjects. If you want to promote religion (generally or specifically), please do it on your own property, with your own money, on your own time, and to the extent I wish to do so, I will do the same. That strikes me as being very reasonable (well, I guess it would, since I said it.)

I also think that some of the issues that are often brought up in this type of debate are just unnecessary and irrelevant diversions. I really don't care if it says "In God We Trust" on money, or if Congress opens its session with a prayer, or if some judge wants to post the Ten Commandments in his courtroom (but not in a public school classroom). In my opinion, such perfunctory displays have become part of our culture and have no religious significance -- they are, in the words of the late, great Justice William Brennan (a matter of opinion of course, but one of the greatest in history, and a New Jersey guy besides), "ceremonial deism." If they really did have religious significance, they would clearly be unconstitutional, so it is their very meaninglessness that puts them into the grey area, and probably makes them ok constitutionally. "Under God" is much more difficult, as there clearly was a religious purpose behind its adoption and the issue of public school prayer comes into play, but I think that eventually this will be classified as "ceremonial deism" as well, which I don't have a big problem with either.

None of this justifies organized prayer in public school, even if it is optional and "generic." None of it justifies teaching the Bible as science. A law or rule sanctioning such a thing is a "law respecting establishment of religion." The Supreme Court isn't always right, but they are right on this. And to bring this post full circle, there is no need for it. Please pray your prayers and teach your chosen beliefs in your own places and on your own time, and leave my children and "my" taxpayer-funded property out of it. I will show you the same respect.

(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Zorn, it sounds to me like you don't really believe in our system of government at all. We all have criticisms of the government, sometimes serious criticisms, but I think the vast majority do believe in the basic legitimacy of our government. You don't seem to. That's your right, and one of the reasons this is a great country is that you can disbelieve in our system of government without having government agents knocking down your door and dragging you off. (Well, not usually, anyway.)

However, since this is a Scouting board and all, I have to wonder, is that what you teach your Scouts when you are discussing citizenship and Duty to Country? That the whole system is corrupt and the pronouncements of the Supreme Court do not represent valid law because the justices are corrupt and the elected president is just the "appointer of the moment"?

That would make an interesting Scoutmaster's Minute, I'll tell you that. It would be even more interesting when the boys get home and tell their parents what they learned at Scouts tonight...

Look at the bright side, if things have gone that far astray, anything you do will be an improvement, right? No need to growl at the failings of your predecessors, you will fix things one at a time and the boys will benefit.

ScoutParent asks packsaddle:

Why not start another youth organization that more closely fits your ideals? I think that would be more constructive than demeaning this one.

Do my eyes deceive me? Can it be that this thread has finally wound its way back to an issue that actually has something to do with the Boy Scouts of America? That being the case, and after having resisted (so far) the temptation to get involved in a debate on the complexities of the First Amendment, I will jump into this one.

Most of the people in this forum who oppose the BSA's gay-exclusion policy (including me) like the BSA's "ideals" just fine, and what we are asking is that the BSA live up to those ideals when it comes to this subject. Those ideals include respect, diversity and being "absolutely nonsectarian" on matters of religion. The latter phrase does not mean adopting a "rule" that is based solely on the beliefs of one group of religions, but contrary to the beliefs of another group. That is being "sectarian," not "nonsectarian." And it doesn't make it any better that the policy is favored by a majority within the BSA, or within its governing establishment, or both. In fact, that just emphasizes the sectarianism of the "rule."

And I guess while I'm here, just a note on the constitutional issue. Without writing an essay of my own, I can say that Merlyn has it essentially correct. This doesn't mean I agree with everything he says or the way he says it, and just for the record, I am not an atheist. I don't know whether Merlyn is a "constitutional scholar," I am not sure what the criteria are for that title. (In law school I got "A"s in all 3 semesters of constitutional law, does that count?) But Merlyn does understand, and accurately reports, what the Supreme Court has stated in the area of the Establishment Clause. And whether you like it or not, that's the law.

By the way, I almost never point out spelling or typing errors, but there is a common misconception about how the key word in this thread is spelled. The heading says "Webelo," and although the original poster's text does not, at least one of the responses does. It's "Webelos," whether it's one, two or twenty, like deer or fish. (On the other hand, I am not one of those zealots who capitalizes all the letters, i.e. WEBELOS. )

Well, at first I was going to say that all the facts should be placed before the Scout and his parents, and he should make the decision as to whether he wants to do the double-speed work necessary to earn the Arrow of Light by February. But, I was going to continue, it should be made clear to him that he does not necessarily have to earn either of the Webelos advancements in order to become a Boy Scout along with the rest of his den, if that is what he wants to do. He will be just as much a Boy Scout as the rest of them. Any "catching up" he would have to do would be in the more intangible qualities of working together in a group, etc., not in badges on his uniform. And he will earn some advancements, at the very least he has time to earn a few activity badges, maybe a belt loop here and there, and almost certainly has time to earn the Webelos badge.

However, I then realized that if he is going to become a Boy Scout in February, the Arrow of Light is really not an option anyway. Requirement 1 for the Arrow of Light is: "Be active in your Webelos den for at least six months since completing the fourth grade (or for at least six months since becoming 10 years old), and earn the Webelos badge." If this boy joined in September, he will not reach the 6-month mark until sometime in March. Close, but no banana.

So it sounds to me like he should participate as much as possible, earn his Webelos badge and whatever activity badges he can earn, learn the Boy Scout joining requirements along with the boys who have to learn them for the Arrow of Light, and get the less tangible benefits of the program before moving on to Boy Scouts. When he gets to the other side of the bridge, he will be the same "rank" as everybody else.

sctmom says:

It's nice when people post messages about things they have soon work correctly in scouts. The positive things.

Sctmom, I do not normally point out typos or apparent typos in online forums, as it is usually used as a way to attack the substance of another member's post. Also, typos do not usually interfere with understanding what has been said. But I read the first sentence of your post and said, "huh?" Then I realized that "soon" should be "seen." Right? I agree with what you meant to type.

The moderator of this forum has explained in the past that at times when there appear to be an unusually large number of "active users," it may be because the indexing function of a search engine is churning through the forum, which artificially inflates the count during that time.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Well, Ed, I just looked at the G2SS and you're right... but in this case maybe you're not right. The section I was talking about mentions "canoeing and rafting," so a paddleboat probably would be ok under the right conditions...

...but the "right conditions" include that the adult leaders have completed BSA Safety Afloat Training and Safe Swim Defense Training and that at least one be trained in CPR. I know that none of the adults in my pack has Safety Afloat and Safe Swim Defense Training. A couple are trained in CPR (one of whom is an M.D.) but I do not think either of them are in that den, so they were not on that trip.

When I read through the Safety Afloat section, it's amazing the number of ways you can "go wrong" and not even know it unless you've studied the thing. I think sctmom was basically saying the same thing.

Follow up, last night I was at a leaders meeting and was talking afterwards with the Cubmaster and one of the leaders of that den (not the one who planned the trip.) After the Cubmaster and I explained what the G2SS says about Cubs and boating, the den leader says "gee, maybe we shouldn't have gone paddleboating last year," and the Cubmaster says "no, I guess not." Now if it had ended there, it would be one thing, because "paddleboating" does not automatically evoke the same safety concerns as "white water rafting," and so you live and learn.

But then the two of them got into a discussion of whether we really need to follow the rules all the time or not. These are guys with businesses or responsible jobs, and one of them is saying, "What are the chances of something going wrong in paddleboating, the boys have life jackets." And I'm thinking, gee, I don't know, what are the chances of you losing this nice house that we're sitting in because you lost a 1-in-a-million bet and got sued by some dead boy's parents, and the maker of the defective life jacket was out of business, and the BSA's insurance wouldn't cover you because you didn't follow the rules, and it was excluded from your homeowner's policy? Who's sorry now? But I didn't say that, because it didn't seem like it was going to make a difference. All I know is that neither my son or I are going on any trip that does not follow the rules, and that no den in my pack is going "white water rafting" while my name is still on the roster.

Good point dan, another is tjhammer, who has not posted in a little over 2 months. I miss him, though perhaps some others may not.

And just to be fair, where has cjmiam been lately? I miss his singing, however off-topic it may have been.

Howard

Maybe this is stating the obvious, maybe it isn't. I want to personally recommend that every leader read and occasionally re-read the Guide to Safe Scouting, and to tell you how doing so just saved me a significant amount of time and effort, not to mention preventing a Webelos den from going on a disapproved and potentially unsafe trip.

Last week my son's Webelos den leader handed out the schedule of den activities she had prepared for the year. The schedule says that on June 22 (at which point my son will have crossed over, but anyway)there will be a "white water raft trip." Now, to some people that would set off the "common sense" alarm and to some people it wouldn't. I am going to find out whether any of the parents questioned it, my suspicion is that nobody has (actually my suspicion is that none of the parents have even glanced at the schedule beyond the next month or so, but that is another issue.) I can see how someone relying solely on common sense might not raise an eyebrow, after all, these boys will at that point be less than a year from crossover and some of them will be nearly 11, I am sure most of them are good swimmers and might even have done some boating on rivers with their families.

Fortunately I did not have to go through any of that, because I have read the Guide to Safe Scouting. I don't have it memorized and wouldn't expect anyone to do so, but I think just reading it once gives you enough of a sense of what will be an issue, so that when the "alarm" goes off in your head, you can look up the specifics. (It is online at http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/)

When I saw "white water" I immediately remembered that there are specific restrictions on boating activities for Cub Scouts, though I was not positive whether the same restrictions applied to Webelos or exactly what the restrictions are. I looked it up and sure enough, boating activities by Cub Scouts (including Webelos) must not only be held at a council/district event but they must be on "flat water." So "white water rafting" is definitely out. It's not even a matter of interpretation. I e-mailed the quotation to the Cubmaster (whose son is also in this den), and he is going to break the news to the den leader.

Now, it is quite possible that the trip would be quashed anyway. When the den leader sent the tour permit to council, hopefully they would reject it, but you can never count on a person sitting in an office to read and notice everything they should. (Plus the Cubmaster told me that the den leader "doesn't believe in tour permits," which I have to admit provoked an unprintable remark from me, and we agreed that the den leader's "belief" is hereby changed, whether she likes it or not. (My son just joined this den after his old one collapsed, so I had not been aware of this situation.)

But the point of all this is that now I do not have to go through any argument or discussion about why such a trip might be a good or bad idea, safe or unsafe, or whatever. I just have to quote the book. It's right there in black and white, and in bold print no less. And it made it much easier that I did not have to hunt around for the right publication, because I already knew where it was. And you don't even have to get a physical copy of the guide or pay the 2 or 3 dollars it probably costs in the Scout shop, because it is online. It's well worth the time spent reading it before an issue ever comes up.

Oops. Of course I meant that for Jewish people it is the New Testament that doesn't count. A Freudian slip if there ever was one.

Venturer2002 says:

For all those questioning history, how about the issue of William Fakespeare? Many still insist that it really wasn't Shakespeare, but really Christopher Marlowe, who wrote the body of his work.

Or Francis Bacon, or Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford), or even (in one of the less popular theories) Queen Elizabeth I.

And speaking of historical mysteries, what about Paul? Is he really dead, or what? (No, no, not the one in the New Testament...)

The only 100% historically accurate account of historical events is the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as they are the revealed word of God.

Well, unless of course you are Jewish, in which case the Old Testament doesn't count at all; or Muslim, in which case parts of the Old and New Testaments are historical and parts aren't; or Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Zoroastrian or any of a number of others, which have their own sacred books; or Protestant, in which case you do not recognize some of the books in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox versions of the Bible (to say nothing of the differing translations present in different versions of the Bible, sometimes differing on matters of significance); or a member of any of the various schools of thought (or just plain individual folks) within the Christian and Jewish religions that believe that portions of the Bible are allegorical, or that the Bible was "inspired by God" rather than being the "word of God." So except for them, yes, the Bible is 100 percent historically accurate.

Oh no, homework?? Um, my dog ate it... er, my computer crashed... ah, I was attacked by 4 big guys on my way to school and they took it... um...

I decided that yesterday was not a day for debate, and apparently most others agreed as well. But today is today.

eisely says:

I saw a quote from Napoleon recently to the effect that, "History is an agreed fable." Another quote from some source I saw a long time ago is that, "History is the propaganda of the victors."

As indicated by my quotation earlier, I have heard these sentiments in more pedestrian form as "The winners write the history books." But Napolean's quote does add something to it.

There is some truth to these, but we must rise above cynicism.

There is indeed some truth to these statements, meaning that not all history is embellished or bent or twisted or sugar-coated, but it's tough to know which is which. That means that history must be approached with a critical eye. I don't consider that cynicism, I consider it realism -- and realism is not something we should "rise above."

We can teach the facts without denigrating ourselves. There are unpleasant facts, such as slavery. One should also point out that the injustice of slavery was redeemed quite literally in white mens' blood.

Well, we should strive to teach (and learn) the truth. If the facts lead some to conclusions that may be "denigrating," so be it. But I believe, and I think you agreeing, that there should be an effort at "balance." In U.S. history, there is almost always an "other hand" to be considered -- and in a way you could say that this sets us apart from some other countries. In many nations, there are large portions of history that have to be completely ignored, massively rewritten or at least significantly "airbrushed" in order for their people to retain any national pride or self-respect at all. (One example being the apparent belief of many German people today that Hitler and his immediate followers were solely responsible for Germany's wartime conduct and that the population as a whole really had nothing to do with it. Talk about an "agreed fable.") I think there is much less of a need to do that here, though of course a descendant of Native Americans or slaves might see it differently. In the case of the treatment of Native Americans, there are some specific instances that can never be justified, but you can always debate whether the overall takeover of the continent is justified by the settlers' dreams of building a new nation based on liberty and democratic principles, and you can debate whether it really matters now that the deed is done. But you can't properly discuss any of that until you know what the actual facts are.

As for "the injustice of slavery was redeemed quite literally in white mens' blood," that's an opinion, or if you prefer, a conclusion you draw from the facts, but it is not a fact. It is a fact that white men (and black men) did die in a war effort that had the result of ending slavery. Historians have always debated (and always will) whether ending slavery was actually one of the original aims of the Union war effort or not. But even accepting that it was one of the aims, or became one of the aims, there is plenty of room for debate over whether the "injustice" was "redeemed." Again, I don't want to get into it, but I would point out that there is an increasing movement today that believes the "redemption" was so incomplete and inadequate that it needs to be supplemented by cash payments to the descendants of slaves. And while I don't agree with them, I personally don't agree with your statement, either. But this is all a great example of how careful we have to be about what is taught in the schools. We should be providing all the facts, and if we provide opinion as well, it should be clearly labeled as opinion and the existence of other opinions should be mentioned as well -- and the opinions probably should not be provided at all until kids are old enough to understand the distinction.

Referring to a book by Thomas Sowell, eisely writes:

One of his main points was that the United State was held up to ideal standards while other countries were held up to lesser standards. Too many people in the US today dismiss the achievements of their own country because it does not meet all their ideals.

I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second. I think most Americans tend to ignore the "bad parts" and have a high opinion of their country. That may be partly a consequence of many years of teaching the "agreed fable" version of U.S. history in school, and it may partly be just national pride. What we are really talking about here is a discussion among historians and the relatively small portion of the population that actually pays any attention to history. As I have said, what I advocate is teaching all the facts as a precursor to drawing conclusions from them. I personally believe, having read some of the writings of William Bennett and Thomas Sowell (though not as much as some others here), that they do not really want to present a complete version of the facts, because some people might draw conclusions they do not favor. That does not mean that all of what kids are taught today is appropriate -- some textbook writers probably do go too far in the other direction and themselves draw conclusions without providing all the facts. But I think the correct balance is somewhere between these writers and their critics such as Bennett and Sowell, who come to the table with their own ideological agenda.