NJCubScouter

So Yaworski, what you are saying is that BobWhite is a liberal? He sure hasn't struck me that way. I really am a liberal, on most things anyway, and I've never seen Bob at any of the secret meetings. And since Rooster sort of two-thirds agrees with me on this issue, I guess that must make him a moderate -- and not a rapid ultraconservative as I had previously thought.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

Speaking of which, in discussions of that other subject that we used to discuss frequently in this part of the forum, it seems to me that "liberals" were often being accused of not caring enough how other people behave. Now "liberals" care too much? Get your stories straight. We need to convene the Ideological Labeling Committee to straighten out what we all are, so our beliefs can be properly pigeonholed.

I did not comment on this previously, partly because I was just shocked by the whole thing. I was even shocked by how shocked I was, since I have become so jaded by life in general, that very few things have that effect on me anymore. It is really the words spoken by the older boy, more than the "humping" that creeps me out, but the combination is just, well, shocking.

Can you imagine being this younger boy? I think he acted quite bravely and obviously has a great deal of self-confidence. I think many younger boys would not deal with this situation quite so well. I know one particular boy, scheduled to cross over from Webelos in March who, if this ever happened to him, would almost definitely insist on going home himself immediately, and probably would quit Scouting on the spot. And it would be difficult to blame him. There is just no place for this. Goodness gracious, where did this older boy even get the idea to say these things?

(By the way, it is my guess that the older boy is not "gay", nor is he a "pedophile," as some have mentioned. Not to make light of the situation, I suspect that if the younger boy had responded positively to this "advance," or pretented to do so, the older boy would have set a land-speed record in the opposite direction.)

As for the "remedy," clearly something significant must be done. If this boy has been warned, and I mean really warned, about misbehavior in the past, removal from the troop is probably appropriate. If not, meaning this is a "first offense," I as a committee member would have a difficult time deciding between removal and some lesser sanction. Certainly a suspension until a meeting could be held with the boy and his parents. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the boy's parents in that setting, when the actual words he spoke were reported. If the parents decided that the younger boy was being accurate, they might themselves provide the remedy BobWhite suggests without the committee having to take official action. Maybe the older boy himself could offer some mitigating facts. But I do agree that the safety of the other boys is paramount, and if that cannot be safeguarded short of a removal, that is the right move.

Ed Mori says:

scoutmom,

"any act that includes "humping" has a sexual meaning." Guess you don't condone dancing, either?

Ed, do the boys in your troop do "dirty dancing" with each other at summer camp? Dancing that includes "humping" does have a sexual meaning. Most people don't do that kind of dancing with each other unless they "mean it," or as a joke, but even if it is a joke it is still a sexual joke. That is not approved behavior among Scouts, is it?

Now, "in my day" dirty jokes among Scouts were usually condoned by the leaders, but it is not my day anymore. But even if this was a joke, it is not just a dirty joke, it is a joke about having sex with another boy. (By the way, if Scouting were coed and the younger person was a girl, it would be equally bad, so don't anybody even start with me on that.) The reported behavior crosses a line, and not just a thin fuzzy dotted line, it crosses a big black line with alarms and railroad-crossing signs on it.

As for those who say this was not "sexual harrassment," let's listen again to the words allegedly spoken: "I know you want to get it on with me. Come here and do it with me." At the same time he is withholding the younger boy's property. That's not sexual harrassment? It's close enough for me. I do partially agree with Rooster in the sense that what should be evaluated and addressed is the conduct rather than the label, but the fact is that labels (when they are accurate) do sometimes assist in describing the nature and seriousness of conduct, and this is one of those times. I am reminded of the words of the Thomas Jefferson character in "1776" -- "The King is a tyrant, whether we say so or not. We might as well say so." This sounds like sexual harrassment, whether we say so or not.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

I may be wrong about this, but it is my understanding that the BSA follows a "Made in the USA" policy for their uniforms. I think you would be hard-pressed to find one of those reasonably-priced garments at Walmart or Target that is made in this country. That has a major impact on price, though I think there are other contributing factors.

I am not saying the BSA should change that policy. Perhaps they should survey their "customers" as to what is more important, lower price or "Made in the USA." I personally would vote for "Made in the USA," though I think there are other issues that could reduce the prices at least a bit. I can't pin it down, but I have a strong suspicion that someone somewhere along the supply chain is pocketing a bit too much of the $44 price of a pair of BSA pants.

d_seibold, that sounds like a very creative solution. It does raise some questions.

You mention "badges," I assume that means there is a uniform. What is the uniform? Did you design your own, or do the girls wear Boy Scout uniforms with badges of your own design? Do the girls use the Boy Scout Handbook? What about the structure, you mention patrols, but do you have the whole patrol method, including a girl-run "troop," a PLC, a girl as SPL, etc.? You follow all the "rules," YP, G2SS, etc.? What training do the leaders get?

The implications are, well, interesting.

I wonder if, if Oscar de la Renta designed the official BSA uniform, did Oscar de la Hoya design the official BSA boxing glove?

(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Hmmm, when I go to that page I get a picture of a Boy Scout hat (baseball cap), not a yellow female Cub Scouter's blouse. Has my browser lost its sense of direction?

As for BobWhite's statement about discontinuation of the yellow blouse... uhoh, I just told our 2 new female den leaders that they could choose either the tan shirt or the yellow blouse, I hope they run to the store while they still have a choice. Actually, I think they both said they would get the tan anyway. (Actually, both of them were reluctant to get a uniform at all, but I reminded them that our pack expects all leaders to be in uniform, and that they should be happy they at least get a choice of shirts.)

jbrogranjr says:

It would also be nice if "Program Helps" went back to webelos hints!

As far as I know, all of the hints for the Webelos requirements that once appeared in Program Helps as well as other publications, have now all been consolidated into the Webelos Leader Book. I first became aware of it last summer, it could not have been out very long (at least not with its current cover) because the cover shows the new oval badge for the Webelos rank.

Well Venturer, the field cap (aka overseas hat aka flat hat) was NOT before MY time, it was the hat I wore when I became a Boy Scout. There was never a question of, do we like the hat, or what other kind of hat can we wear, because there was no other hat. If you were a Boy Scout, that was the hat. It was when I was 14 or 15 (1972-73) that the BSA introduced the red beret and re-introduced what we called the Smokey the Bear hat (aka the campaign hat, the Baden-Powell hat). I think it was shortly thereafter that the first baseball-type cap came out. My troop's initial vote was for the Smokey hat and everyone wore one, although my father's photo collection suggests that there was a phasing-in of the baseball cap while I was still in the troop, which means we were non-uniform. Oh well, that's what the BSA gets for selling 4 different hats at the same time. (My Cub pack this year is going to feature about 6 different hats: The old Webelos hat that my son has, the new Webelos hat that the new 4th graders will get, the new Bear hat, the old "Cub Scout" hat that the Bears got last year, and will undoubtedly be worn by some of them, the new Wolf hat, and the Tiger hat. Wow, that is exactly 6. Actually, if any of the new Tigers get hand-me-downs of the old orange and white Tiger hat, that would be permitted also, for a total of 7.)

Anyway, as for the field cap, I doubt very many troops stayed with it for very long after the other options arrived. I cannot imagine anyone wearing it now, though it is always possible that in some small pocket of America, the boys still look like they did on the cover of the 1960's-era handbook. I still have my flat hat -- long after the Smokey hat lost its shape.

Rooster, I have a little question about your mentoring session. Let's say the boy has his parents' permission to get his ear pierced. Do you still ask the same questions? Despite the fact that your questions are neutrally worded, it is obvious to the boy what you are trying to get him to do, and the fact that you call it "mentoring" clinches it. So you are trying to influence the boy's behavior. Does it matter what his parents think?

The beret, really? I don't know how well that would go over these days, I think the baseball-type cap is more in keeping with current headwear trends.

On the other hand, a few months ago my father told me that my old troop (in which he is still semi-active) had voted to adopt the red beret as their hat, and that a lot of them had found official BSA red berets on e-bay or elsewhere. (It probably goes without saying that the troop in question is in a fairly affluent area, I am sure those berets were not cheap.)

Go figure.

The key to the whole thing is your son who is still in the troop. You might get the COR to tell the SM that you and your son are still in the troop, but is your son going to want to face an SM every week who wants him out? Who denies him advancement opportunities? My first priority would be to find another troop for my son and leave the petty politics of this troubled unit behind.

DDHII, based on what you have said, I wonder whether unit commissioner is the position you really want right now. As BobWhite says, the UC works with adults, not the boys. If you work well with the boys and you have something to teach them, and you are having difficulty getting respect from the older adults, it seems to me that the best position for you right now may be the one you already have: ASM. The Scoutmaster also works with the boys, of course, but also has to deal extensively with other adults.

Consider yourself fortunate: As someone who has made the wise decision to continue as a Scout leader despite starting college (a decision I did not make), you have the opportunity of serving Scouting for many, many years to come, and in a variety of positions. Being ASM for a few more years, doing a good job, and earning the recognitions that come with that, will only earn you greater respect from the other adult leaders, regardless of what hairstyles you may go through along the way.

Since this is, after all, a Scouting forum, I will just say that one of the great things about Scouting is that there is room in its membership for the opinions expressed above, as well as the full range of other opinions about the origin of mankind and other subjects. Scouting welcomes all who profess a belief in God (capitalization not necessarily required), regardless of whether they believe every word of the Bible, or none of it, or in some other book, or no book. And that's how it should be.

Right?(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

ScoutParent, I will not doubt your religious beliefs, but I do have to wonder whether it was really a religious belief that caused you to refuse to expose yourself to a health hazard. What we have not discussed so far in this thread is "duty to self," which overlaps with "duty to family" but is not exactly the same. It seems to me that when you refused to sign the waiver, you were mainly thinking of your own physical well-being, including your ability to have healthy children (so duty to self and duty to family both came into play.) I, for one, do not fault you for doing so. I have never been in a position like that, but I am not sure I would have reacted any differently than you did. But what "duty" would I be putting ahead of my "duty to country" if I did what you did? I think it would be my duty to myself and my family -- not my duty to God.

Ed asked me:

Since you believe in God as a concept perhaps you could explain how we as humans came to be.

Actually, I didn't say I believe that, and I didn't say I don't. Unlike some people, I rarely find it appropriate to announce and discuss the details of my personal religious beliefs. Nor do I find it necessary to justify my beliefs to others.

Ed says:

Duty to God should always come before duty to country.

I think you are missing my point. Let me try it this way: Can you give me an example from YOUR life, that actually happened, in which you believe you violated your duty to your country because you could not satisfy your duty to God and your duty to your country at the same time?

God is in control of everything.

That is your belief. It is not the belief of everyone who believes in God (and I am including those who believe in God as a concept independent of the Bible or any other book.) That fact is part of what causes different people to define their "duty to God" differently, as I have discussed previously.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Ed, I think the example you gave is so unrealistic that it actually supports my point. We do not live in a country that forces its citizens to make that kind of decision. If we did, I suspect that the government would also make other kinds of decisions that were so irrational and repressive that we would not be having this discussion.

Think about China, or Iran. What do people there think of when "duty to country" is discussed? I suspect that what they think about is what will happen to them if they do not act sufficiently patriotic. They are also told what their "duty to God" (if any) is, and how they are to exercise it. THAT is the kind of country where people are forced to do things, which if not exactly what you mentioned, are sometimes equally distateful and offensive to any reasonable conception of God, or secular morality.

In those types of places, a reasonable view of "duty to country" would be to overthrow the government and institute one that more closely resembles ours. And that is exactly why those governments act so repressively, to prevent such movements from succeeding.

Just looking around after my computer-less vacation, and I see this thread is still perking along.

It is interesting that after a week and a half, NOBODY has been able to present a real-life example in THIS country of a conflict between "duty to God" and "duty to country." I guess it is a sign of the religious freedom that we have in this country that the two "duties" rarely if ever come into conflict. Or to put it another way, what Rooster said in his point number 4. If your country is good enough, and free enough, doing your duty to your country will never (or very rarely) interfere with doing your duty to God.

By the way, the writers of the Scout Oath seem to have thought the same thing. The Oath does not say I promise to do my duty to God and my duty to my country when I am able to do both; or even my duty to God and my duty to my country; it says MY DUTY TO GOD AND MY COUNTRY. It is stated as a single duty, not two different ones. I realize that this is partly a matter of semantics and that the writer was probably thinking more of how many syllables fit onto a line, but it does seem at least a little significant in this discussion.

"Duty to family" has also been injected into this discussion. Again, there are no concrete examples that require you to put family ahead of country. Once again, Rooster's point number 4 wraps them all together -- we have the freedom to protect and provide for our families, which for some of us serves a religious duty as well. I can, however, think of some examples where, arguably, we put "country" ahead of "family." Wouldn't brothers killing brothers in the Civil War fall into that category? And if duty to country includes obeying the law, I think we generally put duty to country first when we protect and provide for our family within the confines of the law. If my family were hungry and penniless, it would still be wrong for me to steal money or food from someone else to feed them. It would be my responsibility to do what I had to do, within the law, to provide for them.

This type of information (in written form, not as a class) is generally available to parents, outside the Scouting context. I am not sure where it comes from, but I know there are pamphlets floating around that tell you how to tell if your kid is on drugs. As parents, we should be aware of this information. Of course, not all Scout leaders are parents, and some parents may not have educated themselves on this subject. I don't think a course is necessary, but I do think the information in written form should be available to leaders (and parents) who desire it. Perhaps this is already the case, I don't know.

Sctmom, that picture does seem to be of what YakHerder is describing. I've never seen that statue. It is rather odd, isn't it? I don't see that the man is necessarily wearing any clothes at all, though it is difficult to tell what is going on with his, er, private area. There's almost like a G-string thing across his hip. And what's with the man's right arm? It is at a strange angle and looks almost like it's melting or something. And what's he holding in his other arm? A torch? A big bouquet of flowers? Part of a transmission?

This is the national Boy Scout statue?

(As they used to say, everybody's a critic.)

It could be "bias." It could just as easily, if not more so, be incompetence on the part of the editors in gettings things staffed properly. Or it could be a lack of staff, caused by financial problems. It used to be that there would be 2 daily papers covering almost every place with people in it, and in major areas (like the LA area), even more than that. These days, if 2 papers are covering the same area, it often means that one of them is about to tank. Or merge with the other one.

Just for laughs though, have you or someone at the council level actually spoken to the top editor of the paper about what you see as the deficiencies in coverage and how things could be improved? It couldn't hurt to try. And I would suggest an actual in-person appointment, not a phone call where you are one of 100 phone calls in a day.

jmcquillan, I think that the impetus for the change in the Pledge in 1954 was not thanksgiving for our victories in 1945, but as a response to the Cold War. The proponents wanted the U.S. to distinguish itself from the "Godless Commies." At least that is what I have gleaned from the articles I have seen about the recent court decision and the history of the change to the Pledge. I was not around at the time so I cannot personally attest one way or the other.

As for your second paragraph, I basically agree, that's why I was asking for examples of where duty to country and duty to God might be in conflict. The way I define each "duty" for myself, there is very little conflict between the two, but I know others probably define one or both of them differently.

As for your third paragraph, you express "wonder" that there is any controversy over the words "under God" because those words are so generic, but you seem to be forgetting about the atheists, and I am not just talking about those who don't have any belief one way or the other (which starts to blend into agnosticism), but about those who affirmatively believe in the non-existence of any God, gods, deity or higher power of any kind. "Under God" does not work for them, and the issue in the current case is whether these words therefore violate the constitution when they are included in a daily government-sponsored recitation in a public school classroom.

(But I think we have strayed from OGE's topic; there is another folder, actually at least 2, for the Pledge stuff.)

I think we tend to rationalize around any conflicts between Duty to God and Duty to Country, so that there's no reason to choose which one is "higher." Your sad story from WWI or II, whether fact or fable, may be an example of that. Both groups of men were acknowledging the same God (ok, they were singing to a tree, but they were in the Christmas spirit), the God that commanded "Thou shalt not kill." And yet, as soon as the truce was over, they were ready to kill each other. Were they placing duty to country over duty to God? In all likelihood, they saw no conflict between the two; each side in a war tends to believe God is on their side, and therefore by defending their country they are performing their duty to God at the same time.

It would be interesting, OGE or anyone else, if you could come up with an actual example of where duty to country conflicts with duty to God, that cannot be so easily rationalized by saying "God is on our side." Only if such a conflict exists would it be necessary to say which duty is "higher" under those circumstances.

Actually I can think of a possible example, for some people. It involves an action that has been declared legal, but that many believe is contrary to the laws of God. (It has nothing to do with gays.) I'm not even going to mention the subject because it creates trouble wherever it goes.

So I might just rephrase my question in this way; is there any subject that not only creates a conflict, but that you believe actually justifies breaking the laws of your country, because you think God commands you to?

OGE, I hope I have not sent your topic off into the wild blue yonder.

Acco says:

Now, why does the double bar script Bill keep appearing at random spots on this web page? (Patrol Leader Bill?)

You don't know about Green Bar Bill? That logo is supposed to be in the bar that runs down the right side of every "page" on this site, on the bottom under the heading "Site Dedication." There you can find a link that will lead you to a biography of the late William Hillcourt, "Green Bar Bill."

But I know what you are talking about, because the other day, the Green Bar Bill logo suddenly appeared in the middle of someone's post. It has not happened again, though.

Jcfraz says:

The reason I don't say the pledge is because;

a.It was written by a socialist: Francis Bellamy

I think most people who have learned this fact recently (as I did when the "Pledge decision" came out last month, accompanied by historical articles on the Pledge) were surprised to learn that the Pledge was written by a "socialist." But what does that really mean? I just went looking around the Internet and found this site

http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm

It discusses Bellamy somewhat and has links to other articles that go into greater depth. After skimming this material, I have to conclude that author of the original version of the Pledge believed the U.S. should have a different economic system, but that he was not "anti-American." Remember that there was no Soviet Union at the time, no "socialist" or "communist" country threatening invasion of our allies or nuclear annhiliation of ourselves. In fact there were no socialist or communist countries anywhere at the time. Socialism was seen by some as an answer to some of the inequities that always plague our economic system. A socialist did not necessarily hate America, and in the 1890's and probably on through the 1940's, the vast majority did not. (I do have somewhat of a personal interest in this subject; whenever a relative on my mother's side of the family passes away, we go to the multiple grave-site originally acquired by my grandfather, and I note that the section of the cemetary is designated for the "People's Benevolent Workingmen's Society," or something like that. My mother knows nothing about this, but I have my guess. If my grandfather was a "socialist," I am sure it was purely a matter of economic justice. He had fled Russia as a young man, and I don't think he had any admiration for the place at any time, though unfortunately he was not around for me to ask him.)

Back to Francis Bellamy and his "socialism": Today we associate socialism with atheism, but it is clear from the above-cited article that this was not Bellamy's belief. In fact, he believed that socialism as an economic system was based on the Bible. (And he was a Baptist minister until they threw him out; he ended his working life as an advertising salesman and copy-writer. Some socialist.)

But maybe the best answer is, the Pledge stands by itself, regardless of who wrote it. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration and he also owned slaves. I know there is a lot of controversy over this these days, but in my opinion Jefferson was still a great man, and the Declaration is no less valid because he engaged in a terrible practice that was considered acceptable where and when he lived.

b.Our nation isn't,"indivisible"

As others have said, this part of the Pledge is (in my words) "aspirational," meaning it is what we as a nation want to be. We are not claiming "God-like" omnipotence; to the contrary, we know that our nation could be divided, because it once was, and we do not want it to happen again. In fact, there was some quotation from Bellamy on that web site that suggested that he was specifically thinking of the Civil War (which had ended only 27 years prior to the writing of the Pledge) when he wrote "indivisible" into the Pledge. He and all Americans did not want that to happen again, and we still don't, so we say so in the Pledge of Allegiance.

c. it can not be enforced because people that don't want to say it, that have to, can't be forced to mean it. And if they don't, what's the point???

This was in 2 pieces, I put them together. About those who "have to say it," I hope you realize that in a public school (where I have a suspicion you do not go based on your father's essay, but anyway), you do not have to say the Pledge. The Supreme Court decided that more than 50 years ago. (The issue in the current case is whether teachers in a public school may lead the Pledge for those who do wish to say it.) The government cannot require you to say it anywhere. The Boy Scouts probably are a different story, which is where you have gotten into a conflict with your Scoutmaster. If he has decided that refusing to say the Pledge without a real religious objection shows a lack of "Scout Spirit," he may be able to deny you advancement, though you do have a right to appeal to higher levels.

Now, as for those who "don't mean it," I guess the question is, mean what? The Pledge is not(in my opinion) to a piece of cloth, but to a country and its people, "for which it stands." Maybe you can pledge allegiance to that. Do you like being an American? Do you want to be an American? If not, that's fine with me, but as I said in one of my previous posts in this thread, I am not sure how fine it is with the BSA if you say so out loud.

d.A citzen doesn't need a pledge to there country's flag to prove there patriotism

I don't really have an argument with that. I think we would all survive if there were no Pledge of Allegiance. It is really how we treat each other (in both the individual and collective sense) as well as our natural resources, that proves our citizenship, in my opinion. (I just came up with that, by the way, so it is open to future editing if someone were to point out something missing.) The flag is the symbol, not the substance.

And again, that may be a fine reason for not saying the pledge in government-sponsored settings if you do not want to. When it comes to the Scouts, once again, it is a different issue.

Now, having said all that, I see in another post that you have acknowledged that your father wrote the essay, which I will now stop calling the "manifesto." Assuming that my brilliant logic does not persuade you and your family that you can/should say the Pledge at Scout meetings, can't Dad sit down with the Scoutmaster and talk things out? Perhaps if he does so, the Scoutmaster will accept your position as a religious belief and not make you say the Pledge.