NJCubScouter

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 and it never mentions the phrase "separation of church and state." It examines the various "tests" that the Supreme Court and various individual justices have proposed to determine whether a particular practice creates an "establishment of religion" (not just establishment of a religion, but "establishment of religion") in the context of a public school. Two of the three judges on the panel found that it "failed" all three of the tests. The link to the opinion has been posted in this thread, and I would recommend that everybody read it before commenting further; the legalese is relatively light.

As I have said, I think the Supreme Court or the full Ninth Circuit will overturn this decision, but if and when they do, it is quite likely that they will do so on the basis that the words "under God" in the Pledge have no real religious meaning or significance, or in other words, it is just a meaningless ceremonial phrase. I wonder whether those of you who dislike this decision would like that result any better.

But either way, there is no inconsistency between this decision and the fact that the money still says "in God We Trust" or the fact that Congress opens its sessions with a prayer. As the Ninth Circuit says several times in its decision (in different ways), the constitutional problem arises when government sends a message to some school children that they are "outsiders" by having the rest of the class recite a pledge that they cannot fully subscribe to.

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 times, EVERYBODY has put a pause there. That's the way I was taught to say it, and that's the way I say it.

If the "pause" creates a difference in meaning, I don't know what it is.

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 function to the Pack Committee. From your post, a third possibility seems more likely, which is that your Cubmaster essentially functions as a dictator. (I get that from the fact that he is appointing committee members, which is NOT his role.)

A dictatorship is what results when the other parents and the Chartered Organization don't care. Sometimes it means that the Cubmaster is doing such a phenomenal job that nobody wants to challenge him -- however, that is usually not accompanied by removals of den leaders without cause. If what you are saying is the whole story, he removed den leaders on the basis of chronic physical ailments and disabilities, which is something that might in fact arouse the interest of your council/district if the right person is contacted. Certainly Scouting actively seeks to accomodate boys with disabilities, and a pattern of removing disabled leaders for no good reason does not send a good message.

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 going to assume that the "manifesto" actually does represent your views. I am not going to comment on it specifically, though it will not surprise regular members of the forum to read that I disagree with the bulk of the opinions expressed therein. (I just have to say though, that my eyes were knocked out by the definition of patriotism as "the worship of the God of the Bible set in action within a country..." So much for the separation of church and state, I guess. (Calm down Ed and Rooster, I know what you're thinking.) Also, whenever I am reading a political essay with a sentence that begins with the words "I'm not advocating secession, but...", well as my son would say, Red Alert, Shields Up!

No, my main point is that what your manifesto expresses is not, at its basis, a religious belief, but really a political one. While religion and politics certainly are not mutually exclusive, this strikes me more as a matter of political philosophy. Some of what you write, I have read elsewhere on the Internet, in essays by those who call themselves anarchists or anarchocapitalists. (The latter are often atheists, though.) These are people who do not believe in government at all, and while you do not come out and say you do not believe in government, there is a strong flavor of that. Or maybe it is more against secular government. Whatever it is, it is a "fringe" belief, and if its result is that you will not recite the basic statement of adherence to the country you live in, I am not sure that the BSA accomodates that. It does raise an interesting question, at least indirectly; while the BSA does accomodate people and families of almost every political and ideological belief, is there a place in the BSA for someone who does not "sign on" to the very existence of the U.S.A. as a country? It's actually a question that never even occurred to me before, and I won't try to answer it now. But I do think that a Scoutmaster, in assessing Scout Spirit, may have a right to answer it in the negative.

The answer doesn't get much better when the "manifesto" is viewed as a religious belief. The BSA is set up pretty well to accomodate the beliefs of organized, recognized religions. If your beliefs, as taught by your faith, prohibit you from traveling on Friday night, prohibit you from eating certain foods, require you to be back home for services early Sunday morning, require you to take a brief "prayer break" from Scouting activities, all of these will be accomodated by the appropriate level of Scouting in a particular activity, if it is feasible to do so. (Somebody stop me if I'm wrong here, but I am pretty sure the preceding sentence is generally correct.) The most relevant example in this discussion is the religious refusal to take oaths or pledges in general -- including the Pledge of Allegiance, and requiring that the Scout Oath or Promise be taken specifically as a promise and not an oath. As I have said, the evidence strongly suggests that the BSA will accomodate this as well -- meaning that if this issue came up and you were a Quaker, and your local religious leader called your Scoutmaster and said, "I am the (whatever) of the local Society of Friends, Scout Johnny Jones is one of my flock, and I'd like to explain to you about our beliefs that prohibit the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance, I have a pamphlet I could send you..." and like that, I am fairly sure that the Scoutmaster would eventually back down, and if didn't, your parents could get council to step in.

Where you have a problem is when your religious belief is one held by you alone, or just your family or an exceptionally small group. I know that every religion starts somewhere, but that's where politics and religion begin to intersect. A cynic might say that a "cult" is just a new religion, and that a "mythology" is just a religion that has become extinct. (I can just envision some of the regular forum-ites having a stroke right about now, calm down guys. ) But the point is, you gotta understand, the BSA does have a limited capacity for accomodating individual religious beliefs when they come into conflict with things that Scouts are expected to do, one of which is saying the Pledge of Allegiance (at least to join.) Where is the limit of that capacity? Quite possibly, somewhere before the point where your Scoutmaster has to accept that your personal religious beliefs (unrelated to any more recognized belief regarding oaths) require you to renounce the Pledge of Allegiance and prohibit you from reciting it in a troop meeting.

(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

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 middle are exactly the same, and they look to be the same length, so I am assuming it is all exactly the same.)

I am not trying to cast aspersions, or maybe I am, but I am not stating them out loud. It certainly is suspicious. It does mean that this "manifesto," as I call it, was not written in response to the questions posted to this person in the other thread. It was a pre-existing message that was just dropped in there as well.

Of course, as was pointed out in the other thread, it is difficult to believe that this manifesto was written by the same person who has posted messages under the same name. Not only is the style different, and the content arguably different, but I know of few if any Second Class Scouts who could have written this. (Not that I give high marks to whoever did write it, but that would be casting aspersions again.)

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, and the hat is part of the uniform. If you are doing something where part of the uniform can get in the way or lost (i.e. the hat and the neckerchief and slide) you take them off. But during the opening ceremony, the boys wear the hat. Anyway, that is how I was taught, and it's apparently also how both our current Cubmaster and his predecessor were taught as well. (Current Cubmaster was a Scout, I don't know about the old one.)

I was also taught that a Scout salutes the flag by placing the fingers against the edge (or brim, if it has one) of the hat. Indoors or out. That implies that the hat is being worn. If there is a distinction between a military uniform and a Scout uniform that requires different conduct in saluting the flag, I've never heard about it. I've never read it. I don't see any reason for it. I do understand that the Boy Scouts tries not to make itself seem militaristic, though I think this is much more the case today than when I was a Boy Scout (1969-76.) However, I don't know of a rule that says that just because the military does something, we don't do it. The military marches in formation in parades, and Lord knows we try to do that with our Cubs, though keeping some of the Tigers even on the same street with the rest of us is a challenge.

Scomman, I don't see anything in the statute you quoted that says the "uniform" has to be a military uniform in order for the wearer to do a hand salute with hat on. I understand that a baseball uniform or a McDonald's uniform don't make it. I am trying to think of whether the American Legion and VFW guys do a hand salute with hats on, or take them off and place hand over heart.

It could be that everything I have been taught is wrong, but if so I would be interested in seeing a BSA publication that actually says so.

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 return from a planet to the ship, when an "ion storm" occurs. (Visually it is like lightning hitting the ship, which does not actually happen in space.) It turns out that in a "parallel universe," the same 4 people were beaming back to the ship at the same time, and the ship was hit by an ion storm. This caused the two sets of people to be exchanged from one universe into the other.

The point is, in "our" universe, the Enterprise crew are peace-loving explorers who only fight when attacked (though Captain Kirk is sometimes a bit trigger-happy), and are part of a "Federation" established for purposes of scientific exploration, sharing of knowledge, peaceful trade, defense against the "bad guys," truth, liberty and justice for all, etc. However, in the parallel universe the "Federation" has become the "Empire," which subjugates weaker planets, expands through use use of force, and acquires resources through intimidation and violence. Crew members move up in rank by assassinating their superiors, the ship is like a police state and the senior officers have squads of henchmen to advance their personal ambitions. "Vulcans", known and respected in "our" universe for their scientific achievement and pacifism, are known and feared in the parallel universe for their exceptional brutality (though they are "logical" in both.)

The real point is, once this "exchange" has occurred, the "good" guys manage to pass for their "evil" counterparts for almost the entire episode, though the "evil" Vulcan Mr. Spock (you know he's evil because he has a beard, and a pointy one that that, to go along with his pointy ears) eventually learns of the switch and is convinced by Kirk to "do the right thing" and help put everybody back where they belong. However, the "evil" versions of Kirk etc. are like fish out of water on the "good" ship, and when they are first seen, they have already been slapped in the brig by the "good" Spock. It is implied that upon reaching the "good" ship, the "evil" versions immediately started acting like ruthless barbarians and Spock knew right away that these weren't his ship-mates. (The "bad guys" apparently never figure out or accept that they are in the wrong place. The last you see of the evil Kirk, he is loudly and arrogantly offering the good Spock a bribe to restore him to "his" command, figuring that Spock has just taken an opportunity to seize control, as he would have back in the other universe.)

I guess another point (which also relates to etiquette) is that in the evil universe, the crew's uniforms look more like 23rd-century pirate uniforms and shall we say, put greater emphasis on the wearer's physical attributes (meaning among other things that the producers took the opportunity to display even more of Lt. Uhura's skin than usual). The more sedate uniforms of "our" universe do look a little odd on the "evil" ship, though I think the "good guys" do change clothes when they get the chance. The pirate outfits, however, are clearly part of what drew immediate attention on the "good ship," causing the "good" Spock to take command and imprison the misplaced rogues.

All of this leads to Spock's pointe, quoted by FScouter: basically, the civilized folks could act like barbarians and "blend in," but the barbarians could only act like barbarians. In the present thread, I think the best point to make from this is that in order to act civilized, you first need the knowledge of what you are supposed to do. You can then either apply it, or you can choose to imitate the rude behavior of others. But if you don't have the knowledge in the first place, it is tough to do what is right.

And yes, I do have "Mirror Mirror" on tape (a bought one, not off the tv like some of the other episodes), my family gave it to me for my birthday once because it is one of my favorites from the original show. It is worth noting that the "parallel universe" idea was followed up in the later Star Trek series "Deep Space Nine," which had about 4 or 5 episodes in which people were going back and/or forth, and dealt in part with how the events shown in the old series impacted the development of the parallel universe. But that's way beyond our syllabus for today, class.

Oh, was there a question about an Etiquette Merit Badge somewhere in this thread? I don't think it's such a good idea. I agree with Quixote (which doesn't happen very often, so take notes), that courtesy and etiquette should be covered under parts of the program that already exist. Perhaps "courtesy" in the Scout Law needs to be given a little bit more content, maybe a couple more pages in the Handbook about how people are supposed to act in polite society, though I think which fork to use and where to put the napkin are going a bit far. Just like you don't learn to perform surgery in the First Aid Merit Badge, and you don't build an actual reactor in the Nuclear Power badge (or whatever it's called), some of the finer points of how to act in a formal dinner may be beyond the scope of Scouting. You also get into the problem that social customs do change over time, some of the customs between men and women are not what they once were (and I do NOT mean to start a debate over whether they should be), and there is not universal agreement even among etiquette authorities about some of the finer points. I don't know that there is a formal place in Scouting for that.

On the other hand, what bodily noises are acceptable, and where a man's or boy's hands should be and not be when in the presence of others, though something Scouting should not have to teach, is something that perhaps could be dealt with in a subtle (and possibly humorous) way in the handbook. How about something like this, "sometimes we all experience physical discomfort, itching, pain or "fullness" in our digestive systems etc. but we need to take care of these things in a private place and not where our actions might offend or disturb others." Maybe that's too subtle (and I know it wasn't humorous). I just don't think the idea of a merit badge on this sounds very good.

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 that is your religion.

Oh, and forgive my snide remarks about the wording of your question, I thought you were an adult.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

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 asked me to find someone to lead a prayer at the Blue and Gold dinner, and you were one of the parents in my pack, what I would do is this: I would notice that my pack has a diversity of religious beliefs, probably more than half Catholic, most of the rest other types of Christians, with a couple of Jews, an Indian kid who could be Hindu, two Chinese kids who could be Buddhist, and maybe a few more exotic beliefs that I don't know about. Also, I suspect, a few who are not being raised in any religion at all but whose parents don't make an issue about it. My determination of the needs of the group would be that a generic prayer would be appropriate; I know of nobody in the group who would object to a generic prayer, and at the same time a few boys or their parents might be made uncomfortable by a more specific prayer.

Now we get to, who do I ask? Knowing of your belief that your faith requires you to mention Jesus Christ, in all likelihood I would not ask you to lead the prayer. In so doing, I have not begrudged you anything. In fact, I have not asked you to choose between your own beliefs and the needs of the group. I think I have served everyone's interests.

I also do not begrudge anyone from using a different thought process in deciding who to ask, though I think my way is pretty logical. I also do not begrudge anyone using the same thought process from asking you, or someone like you, if that is what he/she thinks is required/permitted to serve the needs of the group. In plain English, if everyone in the troop is a Christian of the same variety as you, and prays the same way you do, the leader could logically ask you to lead the prayer, knowing that you will pray to Jesus Christ as everyone else in the troop does.

Now, if there are just one or two kids who might be of a different faith or pray a different way, that's a decision the leader has to make. In all likelihood, the parents of those kids know the situation and have decided that's where they want to be for other reasons, regardless of the fact that the prayers may not always conform to their beliefs. Members of minority religions sometimes have to make that choice -- as I did, for example, when I decided I wanted to marry a member of the Catholic faith who insisted on getting married in the Church. As you might imagine, that involved some compromises on my part, one of which involved the religious content of my marriage ceremony. The priest actually bent over backwards to make the ceremony somewhat generic, but obviously Jesus was still in the building, so to speak. But my point is, that was something I chose.

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 imagine that he will have much of a relationship with his daughter after this.

Nevertheless, the constitutionality of a statute is not determined by whether I like the plaintiff who challenges it. The guy (and more importantly, two judges of the Ninth Circuit) do have a point about the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. I personally think the Pledge is "harmless" in a school setting, and that if you don't want to recite it, it isn't going to harm you to listen to it. (Which is the current state of the law, not counting this recent decision.) But if you believe that prayer has no place in public schools (and I'm not assuming that you do, Ed, but I do), then as a technical constitutional matter, it is difficult to to justify recitation of the current pledge in public schools.

Not to worry, however. As I have said before, the current Supreme Court is not likely to uphold this decision, and it may not even get past the full Ninth Circuit. And none of this affects the place of the Pledge in Scouting. I guess potentially we could end up with two pledges of allegiance, one with "under God" and one without. I love the law.

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 statutes -- almost anyone with a Web site would have had standing in that case.

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 identify what "pledge" is involved, the pledge of sobriety, Lemon Pledge, or what, but we can assume from the context that it is the Pledge of Allegiance.) Unless they have changed the rank requirements more than I thought, I am not aware of any blanket nationwide requirement to say the Pledge to advance in rank. I also am not aware that every unit is required to do the pledge at every meeting. On the other hand, I doubt I have ever been to any Boy Scout or Cub Scout meeting at which the pledge was not said, so it's probably a moot point. If a unit says the pledge at every meeting and a Scout refuses to participate, I assume the Scout is going to have a problem passing the "Scout spirit" requirement for his next rank, if nothing else. (All of this is subject to the exception discussed below.)

Because this question is being asked in the context of the recent Ninth Circuit decision, there may be an assumption by some (possibly including Ed with his emphatic response) that the reason why a boy would not say the Pledge is the phrase "under God." I don't think that's the real issue. If the boy won't say "under God" in the Pledge then he probably also will not promise to "do my duty to God" in the Scout Oath. My understanding of current BSA practice is that if a boy refuses to say the Oath and Law, and the reason is that he does not believe in God, he does not advance, and may be removed. I am not opposed to that, because belief in a higher power is one of the tenets of Scouting.

OK, so if the BSA does not recognize the religious objections of atheists to saying the Pledge, whose religious objections does it recognize? Quakers, for one. Quakers do not believe in taking pledges or oaths except those directly to God. They will not "swear" in an oath of office. Whether the words "under God" or "God" are included is irrelevant. They do not say the Pledge of Allegiance and never have, regardless of the version. They do not swear to tell the truth on the witness stand. (They "affirm" instead.) They do not swear to fulfill the terms of an elective office. They are the primary reason why the U.S. Constitution allows a new president to "swear or affirm" in the oath of office, and at a much more pedestrian level, when I was "sworn in" as a local school board member last week, I had the option under state law of "affirming" and leaving off the words "I swear to God." (I chose to swear, and to swear to God.)

And, although I don't know this as absolute fact, I strongly suspect that the reason the Scout Oath (or Promise) is called the Scout Oath (or Promise) is so that Quakers, and anyone else whose religion prohibits the saying of oaths, may say it as a promise instead of an oath. It's the same as "swear (or affirm)" in an oath.

Therefore, it seems very likely to me that a boy whose religious beliefs prohibit the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance (for example, a Quaker) is not going to be penalized by Scouting for not saying the Pledge.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

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. (Just to get technical, the title of the case is usually "Father, as Guardian ad Litem for Daughter, vs. Whoever" or "Daughter, by Father, her Guardian ad Litem, vs. Whoever." The exact form depends on the state and the lawyer representing the plaintiff.)

But this story states that the girl was not named in the lawsuit. Since the father is not the one being made to be in a school classroom while others are saying the pledge, I don't see how he could bring the lawsuit only in his own name. (This is the concept of "standing": You cannot just sue when you see something wrong, you have to be personally affected by it. I have still only read the beginning of the "Pledge" decision, but I did get to the part where the Court approved the dismissal of the case against one school district that the girl may attend in the future; the only district "she" could sue was the one she actually attended.)

So now I'm just confused. As I think I said before, media reporting about legal events almost always leaves something to be desired from a lawyers' perspective, because the writers rarely know what they are writing about.

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 anyway, but what if the media gets ahold of my bio? Or some citizen who I don't know? Or the custodian at the board meeting room? Or a board member throws the bio in the trash somewhere after the meeting, and Lord knows who could end up seeing it. Paranoid though it might be, I don't want such specific information about my children floating out in public any more than it already is, especially when I am embarking on a public position that has a tendency to generate some controversy. I decided to leave in the number of my children and where they are in school, but delete their names. Of course, the hypothetical evil-doer would still know the address of my house and the fact that some kids live there, but anyone who drove by my house would also know that when they see one or more children outside, and even if they are inside, the basketball hoop is a pretty good clue. I guess it is the combination of the full name and exact location that makes it too uncomfortable.

(I did get appointed, by the way.)

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 asked to do it for your own benefit or as part of your own individual relationship with God, but for the benefit of the group. The needs of the group should therefore be taken into consideration. In such a situation, I would want everyone to feel included and comfortable. I think God would be happy with that.

Rooster, if you feel that leading an inclusive prayer would offend God, then the place for you is probably in the "congregation," and not up at the podium. When the leader is finished, you can add whatever you want to yourself, as I am sure you do anyway.

And yes, this thread sort of became a hodgepodge of stuff. The title was obviously intended to be a humorous, sarcastic comment anyway, so the thread never really had much of a sense of direction to begin with.

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 Presidents of the United States of America, which, my children tell me, is a current rock group. (Though my kids would probably snicker at the dated term "rock group," like I used to snicker when my parents called the Beatles a "singing group.")

Let's hope that SCOTUS and POTUS don't have any cousins that I don't know about. It's all too cute for me.

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 "liberal" items than the conservative.) I have also observed that those who are on the "far ends" on either side tend to lump almost everybody else on the side opposite themselves. I have to laugh, for example, at far-right conservatives who call John McCain a liberal. He isn't one, believe me.

The funniest part of your post is about about how "conservatives" do not believe in big government. Give me a break, please. Take a look at every round of Congressional budgeting and appropriations and you will see all of the most conservative Republican names lining up at the trough along with everybody else. "Big government" is a favorite whipping boy of these folks, until they get a chance to have a courthouse, military base, or big highway in their district, or big "research grants" to one of the big businesses in their state. Then big government ain't so bad, I guess.

Some of your other comments are like a cartoon version of reality. I don't know many self-proclaimed liberals who favor "third and fourth chances for violent criminals" these days. As for "celebrating sexual perversity," well, just give me a break.

I also don't see liberals as believing in the essential goodness of man while conservatives believe man is essentially bad. Maybe you were just kidding about that. I think if you had taken a poll 30 years ago, you would have found most liberals saying man was essentially bad while conservatives would say that man was essentially good. How, or why, or even whether this has changed might make an interesting book, and probably has. But it hardly one of the "timeless verities" as you seem to suggest.

As you say, there are conservative atheists. There are also conservatives who are pro-choice on abortion. I know liberals who favor the death penalty. And it goes on.

It does not surprise me, of course, that you think the side you are on has God on its side. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

As for songs, I sort of go back and forth. Let's see what works for today. I am sitting at work at the end of a long day. I spent the morning on the phone fighting with the council office, because when my son showed up for the first day of Cub Scout Day Camp, they decided he was not registered for camp. (On about the fourth phone call, I finally got, "Oh yes, we did get your check, sorry about that." Meanwhile my son spent almost half the day sitting with the camp director instead of doing archery and nature-walk, mainly because his health form was sitting in the council office (about a half-mile away) in a temporarily lost folder, and they didn't think to fax me a new one that I could fax back until he had been there almost 2 hours.) After that gets straightened out, my wife's car battery turns up dead, and she just barely makes it it to pick my son up from his (as it turns out) half-day of day camp. So let's see, how about one by the Allman Brothers:

"Sometimes I feel like I been tied to the whippin' post."

Or in other words, sometimes a broad philosophy of life gives way to just getting through the day.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

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 activists" or the gay-banners. I am sure that was debated here before I got here. Not that I want to start it again. "Who started it" is an argument best left to children, and generally takes on the same childish quality in relation to this subject.)

So, why do we debate this topic? Personally, I do so out of conviction.

Really, did you list that conviction on your application to be a Scout leader?

That was a joke. I do crack myself up sometimes.

I'm not going to sit on the sidelines as certain individuals attempt to brain wash folks into believing that BSA is doing something wrong or immoral.

Ooooooh, brainwashing. Brainwashing? I did not know I had that power. Believe me, if I did, I would use it for more constructive pursuits than an Internet forum. And why is it that you think you are stating facts, while the other side is doing brainwashing? Could it be that we are all just stating our opinion? (No, I guess, to you that's not possible. But that's why I think you do more harm than good to your cause among the non-posting readers. I do miss DedicatedDad, because I think he was even "better" at that than you are.)

I have not started the threads on the homosexual debate.

Well, I looked down the list and you did start one, "Disturbing News from NY," which started out as a repost of a news article, but in your first post you included some anti-gay comments. I will let you go on the second one, "What Really Matters?" because that one is really about how you weren't going to post about this issue anymore. (That was in February, and I am not picking on you about it, because I have almost posted about 10 times how I am not going to discuss this issue anymore, but held back because I figured I wouldn't be any more successful than you have been at "resigning.")

BubbaBear, with all due respect, I think we do know what the "general consensus" of readers of this forum is as to whether "this debate" should continue. And your poll has confirmed that result.

Let's look at the votes: As of a few minutes ago, 4 people had voted, yes, stop the debate, and 14 had voted, no, don't stop it. (In the interest of full disclosure, I think I just accidentally voted for a second time, while trying to see the results on a computer other than the one I first voted from. "Cookies" only know from computers, not account names. So it may actually be 4 to 13.) Much more interesting, however, is the fact that 86 people had read this thread. (I realize that this may include multiple readings by some of the same people, but I choose to assume that most of these 86 are different people.) So even if you assume that the voters are also people who post regularly, I think the answer is clear. Those who do not post also do not care enough to vote. They will read whatever is here. They don't seek to control the content of what they read. Maybe we who do post should charge them an entertainment fee or something. But the

point is, they are not "tired" of the debate to the point where they will actually click a form to indicate that they are tired. That is known as an "abstention," or in other words, "whatever the majority of everybody else says is ok with me."

In other words, those who wish to post, post, and those who wish to read, read, and those who wish to do neither, do neither. Is this a great country, or what?(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)