NJCubScouter

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

Ed, what you are saying about the judge's oath might have some validity if the decision of the Ninth Circuit were an attack on God or religion. It is not. The decision is about whether a public school may require the daily recitation of a statement that expresses a belief in God, particularly when the statement about God was inserted into the Pledge for the express purpose of encouraging Americans to believe in God. It is a school prayer issue, and the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to prohibit organized school prayers. By the way, I have finally read the decision an

Acco says: The phrase "one nation, under God" IS NOT in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance uses the phrase "one nation under God"; there is no comma between nation and under! Please don't verbalize the pledge in that manner. Acco, I have seen this claim made before in various places on the Internet, that the Pledge of Allegiance should be recited with no pause between the words "nation" and "under." I understand that there is no comma between the words. I also understand that I have recited the pledge as part of a group probably thousands of times, and in all those

Short, by the book answer: Your Cubmaster does not have the right to remove a leader unilaterally. The person with the power to do that is the Chartered Organization Rep (or Institution Head, who appoints the COR.) (I know it's really CR but I hate those 2-letter BSA acronyms for things that have 3 letters, or that reverse the title (i.e. CA=Assistant Cubmaster.) It is of course possible that in your case, the Cubmaster checked with the COR/IH before removing den leaders. It is also possible that the Chartered Organization as a whole simply doesn't care and effectively delegates its f

I was waiting to give a more substantive response to Jcfraz's question until he was better able to explain what his religious beliefs are that he feels prohibits him from saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Jcfraz, as others have said, your lengthy "manifesto" (as I call it) does not seem to be your own work. I wonder whether, as a Second Class Scout, a boy of probably 11 to 13 years of age, you actually understand much of what you posted in that particular message. That is not an insult, as parts of it are rather bewildering to me, and I am 44 years old and have a law degree. But I'm goi

Those of you who have been following or participating in the thread titled "pledge", containing the poll posted by the person who claims to be a Second Class Scout, please look at the post directly above this one. Look familiar? It was posted on Saturday, the day BEFORE the same person started the "pledge"/poll thread. Then, after the same person was asked in the "pledge" thread to explain how his religious beliefs conflict with saying the pledge, he posted the same essay for the second time. (I did not actually compare them word for word, but the beginning, end and random points in the mi

I thought I had posted this before, but I don't see it. Maybe it was another thread? I was a member of 1 pack and 2 troops as a boy, and am an adult leader of a pack today, and in all these units, uniform hats are/were worn indoors. During strenuous games they are taken off. Maybe the fact that all of these units met/meet in either a public school or public community center, and not a place of worship, have something to do with it. I don't recall anybody ever saying anything about it. I think the assumption is, if you are wearing a uniform, you wear the full uniform, indoors and out,

So, Acco, what you are saying is that after spending half the summer away from your wife, she would like you to spend a week camping with her and your children. My personal advice based on almost 21 years of marriage, is that you start making those camping arrangements right now.

OK, scoutmaster424 and FScouter, good point based on Star Trek "Mirror, Mirror" but I think a bit of further explanation is appropriate for those who have never seen the episode, or don't remember it, or never watched Star Trek, or think there's something wrong with the 3 of us that we do remember it. I think your point does relate to the topic at hand. Remember this is science fiction, and I am putting the really fictional stuff in quotes. Basically you have the captain and three other members of the Starship Enterprise crew who are "beaming" (i.e. using the "transporter") to retur

As I said in my post, it depends what religious beliefs you have that prohibit you from saying the Pledge. If it is because you do not believe in God, you have a problem. If it is because you are a Quaker or some other faith that does not believe in taking a pledge or oath, then you probably want to have your parents or religious leader speak with your Scoutmaster and explain the issue. There may be "higher level" channels available as well. I believe Quakers have a religious award that can be worn on the Scout uniform, so there should be someone in the church who can help you. If indeed

jmcquillan, I think yours is a reasonable approach as well. You use the prayers of different faiths as a learning experience, and everyone gets their "turn." In that context a specific prayer would certainly be appropriate, and just by default, the "generic prayer" will probably be in there as well. (What I really mean is that if spoken in English, most Jewish prayers will sound, to most Christians, like an acceptable, generic prayer: Blessed art thou, Lord our God, King of the Universe...)

Quixote, I agree with you. The key phrase is "If asked to lead a prayer." If the person in charge of arranging a prayer at a Scout function asks you to lead a prayer, I have no problem with you doing so in accordance with your faith. But as I said: "if asked to lead a prayer." If I were the person doing the asking, my first step in deciding who to ask would be to determine the needs of the group, then determine the intentions of those who I might ask, and then ask someone who would lead a prayer in accordance with the needs of the group. To get specific here, Quixote, if my Cubmaster

Sctmom, I am a bit baffled by that issue as well. I would have thought the answer to that question was generally No, but there this guy is, bringing the lawsuit. On the other hand, in this case it would be an issue under California law, which has its own peculiarities like every other state (only more so), and I don't know enough about California law to answer it. It also may be an issue of divorce law, which I do not really WANT to know much about.

Ed, although you were asking about a comment that someone else made, I will give my own answer. I think that for the ACLU to pursue a case, they have to believe it is a "fight worth fighting" AND that there is some chance of winning -- not a guarantee but at least some chance. I suspect that is true for just about every legal advocacy organization in the country, whether it be on the right, left, or center.

Yes Ed, there's a whole other thread about that. This poll and thread really are not about that at all, as I explained. But since you brought it up here, I partially agree with you. I do have problems with this particular guy bring the lawsuit on behalf of his daughter if his daughter did not want to do so. From the limited amount I have read, it sounds to me like the man and his ex-wife went through a particularly nasty divorce and maybe he started this lawsuit on behalf of the daughter partly as an attack on his ex-wife. This is one of the reasons I don't do divorce law. I can't im

The ACLU is involved in many cases, but rarely are they actually a plaintiff. They usually finance representation of a plaintiff and/or file an "amicus curiae" ("friend of the court") brief. Usually the actual plaintiff is the child whose classroom schedule includes a "moment of silent meditation," a person who was thrown out of a mall for leafletting, a person who was denied a "permit" to speak on a street corner, and like that. On occasion, the ACLU does have standing and becomes a plaintiff in their own right. I know that this was true in the challenges to the Internet censorship statu

Yeah, Ed, I think we get that you don't like the ACLU. They only say the nicest things about you, though. And they go to court to protect your right to say nasty things about them.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

OK, I voted twice again, but this time I voted two different ways. By the time I looked at it from my work computer I had changed my mind. My initial answer was "yes," and I was so happy that I was going to get to agree with some of the people I usually disagree with with. Then this morning, I realized that the answer from both my perspective and a Scouting perspective had to be "No if against religious beliefs." (I would say it, Yes, unless against religious beliefs, but it works out the same.) To begin with, it's a somewhat odd question (even aside from the fact that it does not ide

Speaking of Aaarrgghh, in order to read this story I had to register for the LA Times web site and tell them my address, phone number and annual income. I hate that. But I had not heard about this previously. It is unfortunate that people on both sides of the issue are using this little girl to make their point. I am not even sure how she necessarily came into it at all. When the decision first came out, it appeared to me that the girl was the plaintiff in the case, with her father acting as "guardian." This is the routine way in which lawsuits are brought on behalf of children. (Ju

What a sad commentary on our day and age that we feel a need to restrict access to even the names of our children. But it's absolutely true. Just yesterday I was preparing a short biography of myself for consideration by my local school board, which was appointing a new member. When I first typed it, I put in the names and ages of my children and what schools they had attended. The document also had my name, address and telephone number. Then I thought, oops, I know the people who I intend to see this paper and have no concerns about them, and some of them know my childrens' names a

If we are talking about prayers at a Scouting function (camp, awards dinner, whatever), where a person is giving a spoken prayer in front of a group or leading the group in prayer, I think common sense and courtesy dictate the content. There is no rule that I know of against the leader giving a prayer specific to his religion, and I am not worried so much about a boy being evangelized by a single prayer. However, I think the general understanding within Scouting is that a group prayer should be inclusive rather than exclusive. If you are asked to perform such a function, you are not being a

SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States. It is one of those annoyingly "hip" abbreviations that I think is used more by journalists than by lawyers. (I've been both, something I probably shouldn't admit to around here.) "SCOTUS" is not sufficiently "respectful" for use in formal legal writing. I always write out "Supreme Court," and in a brief to a state court, I precede that with "U.S." to distinguish it from the state supreme court. SCOTUS, by the way, rhymes with POTUS, a somewhat rarer but still annoying abbreviation for President of the United States. As opposed to The P

By the way, Bubba, with this whole "knot thing," I think you are confusing "having the gavel" (or "passing the gavel") with "having the floor." The guy with the gavel around here is SCOUTER-Terry (and his staff of moderators, though I have only ever seen one other, SCOUTER-Luke.) The rest of us just have the floor, when we behave properly, and only until the next post.

Rooster, I don't want to spend much time on your liberal vs. conservative post because I can't find anything in it that relates to Scouting... unless you are suggesting that only conservatives have a place in Scouting, in which case I will have some comments! I will say that I find your definitions to be overly simplistic and in some cases laughably so. People do not fall neatly into two camps, rather they define a broad spectrum, including moderates who pick and choose from the "menus" offered by both sides (a category in which I include myself, though I do partake of more of the "liber

Rooster says: I don't WANT to spend hours debating this issue over and over again. It is tiresome. It is especially so when those on the other side chose to ignore logic and force the argument into a never-ending circle. Or maybe "those on the other side" just don't believe in the Bible you believe, or choose to interpret it differently. As for who forces the argument into a never-ending circle, well, apparently that depends on which side of the circle you are on. (I have seen the same never-ending argument, though mostly in other forums, about "who started" the "gay issue," "gay a