Prairie_Scouter

Zippie, Great idea. The leader book does have a survey as well, but I think that I like yours as well. We've had pretty good luck approaching people and asking them to fill particular positions. If they have some reason not to, then you can bring out your list and ask them to pick something. Most people will say that they are too busy. We have a mom in our pack that has 7 kids (4 are adopted and 3 of those are special needs kids), works, has advanced cancer, and STILL finds a way to help out the pack. NOBODY is that busy. Make sure you have some written descriptions of what people are expected to do in various positions. The leader book has some, but I've had better luck writing my own. I can tell you from personal experience that putting up a list of open spots at pack night and asking people to sign up will not be very successful.

So, the "book" that you're referring to would be the Bible, or maybe the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or ....?

This may become more of a philosophical argument, but some of these posts are starting to sound an awful lot like "I was just following orders". It may not be within the authority of the unit leaders to develop policy, but I think it is certainly the responsibility of the unit leaders to sound off when the executives start to do things that are outside what Scouting is supposed to be about. Now, the way BSA works, there is the possibility that rocking the boat may get you tossed out, but sometimes you have to do what you think is right. Now, those that agree with BSA policy will say that you should just walk away if you don't agree, but unfortunately, I was brought up to believe that when you see something that you think is wrong, you have to try and fix it. BSA is in a unique place. They portray themselves as a private club when it suits their purposes, but also portray themselves as a sort of "all-American" institution when it suits their purposes. I try to do what I think is right for the all-American institution. Others may not agree, and that is of course their right. Maybe I'll get tossed out at some point, but I'll be able to walk away knowing I was at least trying to do the right thing. And, I would say, BSA has two identities. One is the persona taken on by what we sometimes refer to as "BSA, Inc". This is the persona that is poorly portrayed in the media, wraps itself in what it thinks are "traditional values", and has a habit of getting itself drawn into legal battles. Then there is the persona that is embodied in the local units. They do the REAL work of Scouting, and this is the persona that really describes BSA regardless of what the folks in Irving do. Back on point, tho, it's one thing for Creationism to come up as a point of discussion in Scouting activities. It's as good a theory as any. But I don't think that BSA should "promote" Creationism as a favored view. That is not their role, nor should it be.

Why start a thread like this? Well, because the hope is that it begins an interesting discussion. The alternative is to title every thread "the BSA is nice" and have everyone agree. Yawn. But, in answer to the topic question, I'd say no, for the same reason I'd say that Scouting shouldn't promote free market economies as a part of "a Scout is thrifty". It really doesn't have a place. That's a part of religious education, I think. I don't think that BSA should be promoting particular religious views.

I've only seen a tiny bit of ScoutNet. It seems to be a fine example of 1970's software engineering. The Council-types I've talked to about ScoutNet just kind of roll their eyes when I've asked about it. They seem not happy with it. Apparently, the history of it is pretty typical of software projects not managed so well. The story goes that at the time of imminent release, there were a large number of unfixed errors in the software. BSA had the choice of delaying the rollout or go ahead with the errors included, hoping that they'd get fixed at some point. You can guess the result as well as I. I have to wonder about any system that can tell you how many months your troop has existed, but can't divide by 12 to tell you how many years that is. There are some pretty silly things in there. I've approached a couple of folks at our Council about the idea of starting a skunkworks to build a new ScoutNet based entirely on open source concepts. I figured there has to be a lot of geeks in BSA, and you could put together a development team that could probably do a bangup job, at relatively no cost to BSA. The responses I've gotten so far have been "hmmmm, interesting idea" quickly followed by some chuckling at the idea of BSA willingly going along with something like that. But, stranger things have happened. Well, ok, maybe not.

Ed, There's a place in EVERY thread for the Lumberjack Song.. Well, ok, the verse about wearing women's clothes might not fit in everywhere....

Ed, I don't think that Christians have a monopoly on being beat up by the media. These days, the media will attack anything that will garner readers or ratings points. Islam is a popular target these days, and they get the same sort of "viewing in a negative light" that some others do. I'd also say that I don't think it's Christians in general that are the target of the media. The "attacks", if you want to call them that, have pretty much been specifically targeted on the more conservative groups that have become more visible by their actions in the context of the present Administration. These aren't folks that are quietly going along their way living their beliefs; these are folks who have made targets of themselves, and the media is happy to oblige. Well, fgoodwin, here's what you said..... "Hunt, what galls me is the post-modern arrogance that says the commonly accepted interpretation of the Bible for the last 2,000-3,000 years is all wrong and only we "moderns" really know what it means." Sounds to me like you're saying it's arrogant to question long held interpretations of the Bible, which is what I commented on. Maybe you can explain how I misread this. Kahuna, I generally agree with a lot of what you have to say here; common sense kind of stuff, I think. But, I can't see how you think the ACLU is out to get rid of all standards of decency. I don't see that in them. They do some things I'd consider wacky, to be sure, but I don't think that they're out to get rid of decency standards. I'd say that they definitely do try to make sure that all forms of "art" (whether you consider some things art or not) or media expression have a place in society as guaranteed by the Constitution. There are limits on this, of course, and I suppose the question is, where do you draw that line? Anyway, back OT... I don't begrudge anyone their ability to believe whatever they want, or view the Bible, or any text providing religious foundations, in the way that they want. My point has nothing to do with arrogance, only in questioning. People will say, "well, the Bible says this, and that's what I believe". And that's fine. I think, tho, that there is enough evidence out there on the subject of these texts that reasonable questions can be asked about them. Who wrote the Bible? Why were some books left out of it? Can we be absolutely sure that the translations are correct, and correctly interpreted in the context of the time that they were written? Are these interpretations open to review in the context of our times. For me, the answer is "I don't know".

Actually, there was a post here just yesterday that portrayed as arrogant those who would dare to question Biblical belief that has been "commonly accepted" for 2,000 years. My experience is closer to Kahuna's, I'd have to say. Christian groups that I have run across seem to think that they have the only path to heaven. No one else does. I would think that there is a certain amount of arrogance there. As far as Biblical interpretation, it seems to go both ways, doesn't it? There are those who try to point out that there might be different interpretations of the Bible that might be correct, but those who use the Bible to condemn gays won't admit the possibility that the Bible might not be interpreted by them. I don't know which interpretation is correct, but at least I'm willing to believe that there might be more than one way to read things. I've said repeatedly that this is a matter of belief for them and facts may not enter into the discussion. This doesn't make "believers" ignorant or arrogant or anything else other than possibly closed minded; that is their right, of course. "Believers" may not want anyone barred from God's heaven, but they seem to think that they have a monopoly on the path to getting there. That's the part that I can't agree with.

An interesting editorial, and well written, at least until he went off the deep end with his assertions at the end of the piece. For one, making heroes of movie and sports stars is nothing new. Babe Ruth, Clark Gable, etc, come to mind from times past. The federal judge said absolutely nothing about BSA "beliefs" being unacceptable. She said that government has to be neutral. They're not even close to be the same thing. And, the author seems to be placing himself as a higher Constitutional authority than a judge. That seems, well, wacky. If the judge did not intepret the law correctly, than the Dept of Justice should appeal to a higher court. Personally, I think there ought to be a way for the government to support organizations like the Scouts. And I think that until recently, there really wasn't a problem. Scouting used to have a lot of components, "religion" being one aspect of that. Now, tho, it seems like the powers that be have decided that "religion" needs to be "RELIGION", and I think that that is what's causing the problem. I don't think B-P meant for Scouting to be RELIGIOUS, just that this was another component, as important as many others. Interesting editorial, tho. Thanks, fgoodwin, for posting it.

Well said, Eamonn. One of the 1st things our retiring Scoutmaster told me last year when I was taking on the reins was, "you've just gotten yourself 20 more sons". And that's pretty much how it is, I think.

I think it's high time that the BSA stopped its hidden discrimination against accordians. I can't remain silent on this any longer. When was the last time you saw an accordian at a troop meeting, COH, or other event? It's just unfair, when instruments like guitars are openly welcomed. And yes, we all know about the "don't ask, don't play" policy they've put into place, but it's just not right. And I just can't go along with the assertion that because Jesus didn't condone the use of accordians anywhere in the Bible, they can't be used. You are welcome to your beliefs, but I find it hard to believe that the city of Sodom was destroyed because they refused to cast down their accordians. And, I've read studies that the Bible originally contained a "Book of Polkas" that was deleted somewhere around 1200 AD. And yes, the BSA was successful in several court cases in defining itself as an "orchestra" and therefore able to select the instruments most appropriate to their mission. Once again, that doesn't make it right. Accordians not only have their own sound, they can mimic the sounds of many instruments in the orchestra. We should welcome that, not condemn it. If BSA discriminates against accordians, we have to ask, "who's next?". Piccolos, perhaps, or triangles?

I'd go with OGE's plan. You've got a chance to get this Scout turned around. But it does seem like he's been punished enough.

The fact that women will go to Planned Parenthood clinics for abortions doesn't mean that they are advocating them, it just means that make them available. Do many women go there with the intent of getting an abortion? I'm sure they do. But, PP staff do, in fact, do a counseling session with each woman to make sure that they understand their options. They're not there to convince them one way or the other, just to educate. Now, if PP employees went to OB-GYN offices and solicited business there (Yoe, Get Your Abortion TODAY; We've got a Special going....), that would be another story. You mean that after all we did educating Bin Laden on how to use the capitalist system to make his money to fund his activities, he isn't our friend? Darn.

Hi Trev, We've been saving a place for you

Well, Ed, he does have a point, based on your post. Maybe you should have stopped after your 2nd paragraph

I'm not trying to make light of anyone's belief system, just making the point that it is just that, a belief system, and not necessarily something based on fact. And while some may see arrogance in an attitude that admits to the possibility that some interpretations of the Bible might be off the mark, I think it's laughable to believe that it is totally beyond the realm of possibility. The longevity of a belief has nothing to do with it's accuracy. If that's all it took, then all we'd have to do is find the longest standing religion to find out which one is "right". People believed the earth was flat for a long time. People believed the Earth was the center of the universe for a long time. People thought it was ok to burn people they thought were witches. Public stonings were okeedokee. That doesn't mean that they were right, just because people believed that for a long time. You may not like what legitimate scholars and historians have to say about the Bible, both good and bad, but they're not wrong just because what they say doesn't happen to match your belief system. As I've said many times, debates about the Bible in the context here are debates about belief, not facts.

Ed, >>Homosexuality isn't a talent. It is a choice. This is sort of a basic question, but...."says who?"

OGE, Planned Parenthood doesn't "advocate" abortion. Abortion is one of several options that people are counseled on when they visit a Planned Parenthood location. Abortion is available, yes, because it is legal in the U.S. But they don't try to talk people into getting abortions.

I think it's pretty clear that BSA has been trying to play both sides of the fence for awhile now. And, actually, I give them some credit for at least trying in some little way to keep their members, at least some of which, I think, are either opposed to some policies or at least neutral towards them. So, on the one hand, you'll hear them appeasing the religious conservatives with their anti-gay policy, while at the same time implementing a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And, this has worked for quite awhile, and I think many people can live with that. It's not ideal, but it's something. Of course, it does lead to a double standard, as indicated by this article. So, I think there's the "ideal" world of Scouting, and there's the "real" world of Scouting, where they need to keep existing members and get new ones, keep a good public profile, get funding, etc. So, they will appease the religious conservatives to keep them, but they really can't afford to irritate the general public who make up a good deal of the membership. That, from a political standpoint, is one of the beauties of the "local option" that we've discussed before. Such a policy would say, in effect, BSA is open to everyone, but we let the local chartering organizations limit membership in ways that reflect their particular views, as long as those views don't violate the law, etc. With such a policy in place, if, say, the Mormons (and they are JUST an example) were to leave in disgust, who is it that looks bad then? The BSA, for encouraging openness, or the Mormons, who would look like they're unhappy because they're particular religious views aren't being forced on everyone else? It'd be an interesting situation, and one where BSA would come out smelling like a rose.

There's a need for some common sense all around. Given the weather leading up to the event, and the forecast for the event, this should have given people pause to reconsider bringing small children or the elderly to such an event. Those are truly dangersous conditions to be outside for many people, and while the knowledgeable can manage, it is still a hostile environment. That should have sunk into the event leaders as well. I look at the 2 most mentioned tragic events and think the following. The deaths were avoidable, but in an event that size, it's really hard to watch what every person is doing. Some responsibility has to go the leaders that were closest by. Didn't anyone think putting a 20 foot metal pole near some power lines was a bad idea? The 300 hundred Scouts who had heat problems waiting for the President is a bit more problematic. You'd think the event leaders would have shown some judgement and just decided that they couldn't leave the Scouts out in the heat for hours waiting for a few minutes with the President. A thrill for them? Sure, but not worth the risk. It's all 20/20 hindsight at this point. I'm sure they did the best they could under the conditions, and agree with Bob that I hope they've learned something for the next Jambo. I'm sure, tho, that there are thousands of Scouts who had an entirely great time.(This message has been edited by Prairie_Scouter)

Kristi, As we've seen from these discussion, anything is possible. Aliens? Sure, why not? Not likely, but possible, I suppose. Using the tactic many use here, I guess you could say "prove it WASN'T written by aliens." The basic problem that I see here, as I've said in other posts before, is that this all relies on interpretation of the Bible. There really is no "the Bible says this, end of story", because the Bible we read is an interpretation of translations from several ancient languages. From what I understand, the Bible wasn't "assembled" until several hundred years after the books were written, and then, not all the books were included. Nobody's really sure who wrote the books. Posters can say that the Bible directly condemns homosexuality, but from what I understand, the languages used to write those passages didn't have a word for homosexual at that time. So, you can say "well, it obviously means this", but you can't really know. You can BELIEVE it says that, but that's as far as it goes. So, getting into a tit-for-tat contest of dueling Bible quotes isn't going to get very far because they all rely on someone's interpretation. As far as mis-interpretation is concerned, it's a plain fact that the Bible is being misinterpreted. With so many opposing views based on the Bible, they can't ALL be interpreting it correctly. So, who's to say who's right? The religions who base their teachings on the Bible all say that they have the correct interpretation. There are 3,000 translations of the Bible available, if I remember correctly. As we've gone from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to German to French to Spanish, etc., I find it really hard to believe that every passage has been translated exactly the same way to exactly reflect the original wording of the text taken in the context of the times in which they were written. So, it's all a matter of belief. Personally, I think that there's enough questions about those verses in the Bible that I'd be reluctant to use them to condemn an entire population of people.

Sheesh, I thought we were done with this topic, but, ok. Jeez, Rooster, where are you getting these ideas that sexuality is such an awful thing? It's no better or worse than anything else out there. Humans are sexual beings; it's not something to be repelled by, it's something we should embrace. It's how we reproduce; it's how we gain immense pleasure; it's an ultimate expression of love. Do some people abuse sexuality? Sure, but I doubt that any more men have been brought to ruin by sexuality than by the violent expression of their religious beliefs. Is religion bad in and of itself? Of course not, but the damage and pain done in the name of God probably ranks right up there with any evil you care to mention. Sexuality is a GOOD thing, pal. If not for sexuality, there'd be no Rooster to type here about how evil sexuality is.

It looks like the intent is to bury the amendment in the Defense Authorization Bill for now. The amendment, along with a bunch of others, passed and were added, but the bill is nowhere near complete at this point, it appears. So, everyone can vote for the amendment right now and get political cover, but who knows what will happen once the bill gets into committee? I suspect it'll survive because no one in Congress wants to vote against the Boy Scouts, and they'll let the courts hash it out later. Of course, the other side of the private/public debate would be for BSA to continue accepting federal and local support, and declare that they are a public organization, which would make even more funding available to them. Let's remember that this amounts to making just a couple of policy changes, and these could be done by making use of the "local option" which has been discussed on the forum several times. BSA itself "un-mandates" the anti-gay policy and the anti-atheist policy, and lets the local chartering organizations make that decision. The vast majority of the Scout program, the part that actually affects the Scouts on an everyday basis, requires very little change to support this. BSA extinguishes a long burning political fire, while allowing those chartering organizations that wish to continue with those policies, to do so. Seems like the best of both worlds to me.

While agreeing with Vicki, I'll take a more simplistic stance. It's just moronic. What you're teaching the Scout is that if you're going to be late, it's better not to come at all.

Stalking???? Boy, the meaning of THAT one has changed a lot, hasn't it? Like BSA doesn't have enough bad press already.....let's reintroduce the STALKING merit badge