Prairie_Scouter

Ah, Jill St. John............... What was the topic again? Ok, so from the perspective of BSA membership, why does it matter whether gays are gay because of "hard wiring" or "learned behavior"? What should matter is whether gays, as a group, represent a poor role model, as BSA maintains, or whether they represent a wide range of "quality" as role models, just like everyone else.

I don't think kids have changed all that much; the environment around them has changed dramatically, tho, and they are responding to that as best they can. Do kids have to know some of the more traditional "outdoorcraft" skills that we teach them along the way? Nah, not really. But it's fun to see how things used to be done and have those skills, if only for awhile, so they can see, for example, that you really don't need a GPS to get around. And, I agree with Eamonn in his comments about how Scouts can be earning Merit Badges without even knowing it. I think a lot of Scout knowledge can be gathered that way. I usually start a little discussion about the night sky by pointing to a satellite passing overhead, which is kind of "cool", rather than "ok, now we're going to learn constellations". I don't know if kids have really changed all that much as it pertains to Scouting, tho. Are kids less likely to want to wear the uniform these days? Probably, but I tend to think that the reasons have more to do with today's kids and the way they think than a problem with the uniform itself. 50 years ago, if an adult told a kid to wear the uniform, they'd probably do it, no questions asked. Today, it might be more likely that they'll ask "why?", and explaining the "company line" on why the uniforming method is important may not get much "buy in". Not trying to get into a debate over uniforming here; just an example of my thought that kids today are more likely question things than, say, kids from before the Vietnam War. Does that "questioning" make them less "Scouty"? I don't know, but it probably, in the long run, makes them better citizens, and better people.

Merlyn, My guess would be that among the "suits" that run BSA, you aren't going to find folks who have opposing views. The response from Bill Nelson to your comments is about what I'd expect; they are, I think, and unfortunately, only open to views to support what they already want to do.

Kristi, You'd think that National would do better. Just further confirms for me that, at the National office level, Scouting isn't necessarily "about the boys". And, telling the boys that they can build another car for the museum is just moronic. Now, THAT's a letter that shouldn't be sent out. I can't imagine why they couldn't just do the simple task of at least contacting the councils. What would it be, 10 minutes of work to put together a simple form letter and generate some mailing labels? You can be sure that an article will pop up some time in the Scouting magazines about the national Pinewood Derby. I wonder if they'll conclude the article by telling everyone how they lost the cars and then refused to do anything about it? I'm getting ticked off just thinking about it!

Matt and TJ, There are always going to be those who are going to take the easy route by hiding behind the shield of "that's what the rules are". There are no end of historical references that can be made about people who were just "following the rules". And, to some extent, in history and in BSA, they are doing the "correct" thing; the question is whether they are doing the "right" thing. Matt and TJ, remember that those who oppose you in these forums are mostly well-intended people who's beliefs on gays is based in their religious views. They believe their "Good Book" directs them certain ways, and that is not easily changed. I don't believe that there's any argument that you can make that will change their minds because their opinions in this matter are based on their belief system, and not something where you can point to "evidence" that can be refuted. So, the issue here isn't changing the minds of the many members of BSA, and this forum, who believe that gays aren't appropriate in Scouting. The issue is, what do you/we do about it? As I've said before, gays aren't disallowed from BSA because of some well-defined ruleset; it's a policy seemingly based on interpretation of some phrases in the Scout Oath and Law. As such, it's open to re-interpretation at some point. But, the deck is stacked against us at this point. Working within BSA is the route I've chosen. But, you have to be discrete about how you approach this when working from within, because as soon as you become more public in your views, BSA can toss you out, and has, in some cases. This is not a very open-minded organization when it comes to issues like this. And that, to my way of thinking, is BSA's loss. They are marginalizing themselves at a time when they could be doing tremendous good by being more open. My own view of B-P's writings is that he would have applauded an open BSA, but that's just my view. My sons really enjoy Scouting. We try hard to keep religious ideology out of our time spent there. But, as a leader, I struggle with this all the time, and wonder how long I can quietly work from within in the face of what appears to be overwhelming odds. There are days when I'd like to take the advice of people who, opposing my views on Scouting, say that I, and those who think like me, should just go away. But, I think Scouting is too important to do that. I'm sorry to say that at this point, I don't see much to stop BSA from continuing it's trip to irrelevency in the worldwide Scouting movement. There are those who think that that's just fine, but I find it very sad. We can do better.

Rooster, Well, there are those who say that GWB didn't actually "win" 2 elections Regards why he was elected to a second term, your guess is as good as mine. The country is pretty evenly split between conservatives and liberals at this point, and most elections are about a relatively small number of votes. I'd suspect 2 reasons for the election results... One, the religious conservatives did a very good job of getting their vote out. I think you're right that there was a certain amount of complacency among liberals. It doesn't take much to tip an election. Two, the "don't change presidents during a war" fear. There seemed to be a good deal of evidence of this, according to exit polls during the voting. I can't imagine why people would think this president was doing a good job leading the war in Iraq, but there you have it. Regards gays, my point wasn't that they "appear" normal, it's that they "are" normal. But, that's a debate that's defined in terms of belief systems, which really aren't subject to "evidence" or "proof", so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ah, OGE, a man after a my own heart. Kraut and Chili? You bet, although I prefer not to have both at the same time. I think that could get "explosive", if you know what I mean. Portillo's has grown to be "quite the big deal", especially in the burbs west and northwest of the city. More like restaurants now, rather than the little hut they started with. There's one near my place that has so big a lunch time crowd that they have police to manage the traffic. And, of course, there's still SuperDog, on Milwaukee and Devon, which I have been proudly attending for 50 years now, believe it or not. My dad and uncle started taking me when I was 4. 4 bucks apiece, now, tho. I can't see how anyone could ban the traditional "tube steak". I dunno, that would be, like, un-American.

So, I guess it becomes a matter of who gets to decide what's immoral, and for some activities, at what level they become immoral. Sounds like a tough job. Anyway, back to the original topic, it would seem like these parents should be welcomed the same as any other unless they violate some BSA policy. So, same sex couples, unless the *say* they are gay, should be fine, no?

So, if BSA decided to drop the pants requirement from the uniform, would we all go to our next troop meeting and say something like... "Troop, drop your pants"?

BSA Tattoos? Boy, that would give new meaning to "once a Scout, always a Scout", wouldn't it? Gettin' rid of those things would be a major "ouch"

Rooster, thanks for your thoughts and reply to my post. Let me try to clarify some things and respond to your comments..... As I said, I do believe that the "religious right" and by that I mean what I can best describe as the "conservative religious movement", has on its agenda a general attack on the rights of gays by portraying them as something "wrong" (the word "abomination" is a description used by a conservative Christian friend of mine). So, I wasn't talking about "most people of faith", as you commented, but the very distinct element within that group that I described above. I don't believe that there is a general conspiracy against those that are non-religious in this country. I think the wording of my post may have led you to think that I was saying something about "religious rights" where what I meant was *the* religious right, ie, the more conservative wing of the Christian religious movement. I don't believe that there was ever a conspiracy against all things that reflect a belief in God, either. In both cases, I think what we've seen is a visible minority making it's views known. There's a lot of propoganda on both sides. I figured that someone would be unhappy with my portrayal of gays as "normal". I don't know if it was your intent to imply some association among gays, pedophiles, NAMBLA, and general immorality, but I can't see where that assertion would be supported by any knowledgebase I'm aware of. I just don't buy the assertion that gays are somehow inately "immoral". That's a strictly religious view that I don't subscribe to. I just don't see the basis for it. And, yes, you are correct in recent times, BSA has specifically outlined a policy against gays, but there's nothing explicit in Scouting's founding principals that mandated that, to my knowledge. The basis for this seems to usually be some assertion that "gays aren't good role models" or that it somehow violates that idea that "A Scout is Clean". The first would seem to be an opinion based on specific religious views, and the second is nebulous enough to be sort of a "catchall" for anything the current leadership sees as undesirable. Finally, in regards to your statement that I was trying to "portray people of faith in a very negative way", I would say "no way, no how". However, I DO think that the extreme conservative elements of those who consider themselves people of faith are a vocal, minor subset that do not reflect the views of the majority, and their views should be taken with that in mind.

Ketchup on a hot dog? Where did you guys grow up? As a child of the grand City of Chicago, the home of Vienna hot dogs, and the Oscar Meyer WeinerMobile, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that ketchup has no place on a well-dressed dog. Ah, there's nothing like the taste of a dog at Wrigley Field, the Friendly Confines, home of the Cubs, which has been simmering in a pot of tasty Lake Michigan water since the beginning of April. The well-dressed Chicago Dog has, at a minimum, mustard, relish, and celery salt. Add others to suit your taste, but look at ketchup with disdain when it comes to your dog.

I have a feeling that what the original poster is looking for isn't a new way to list the the Scout Oath and Law, but more what CA_Scouter described as a "Consequences Policy". It'd be nice if we could discuss a Scout's behavior by just ticking off what elements of Scouting he had violated, and that's all well and good, but unless you have some consequences that go along with that, there's no real responsibility, even if most of the time, the consequence is simply a meeting with the SM.

As one poster said, and as I've said a couple of times, the uniform method, like most everything in Scouting, is based on opinion, either B-P's original opinions, or those that followed him. They are not etched into stone tablets and delivered from mountaintops. They could be changed. That doesn't necessarily mean that they should or will, just that they could. One point that posters have made that has relevence is that the uniform identifies Scouts as Scouts. Now, to me, that raises the question of what parts of the uniform identifies someone as a Scout? Is it the whole uniform? Some significant part? As one poster said, when his son is out in uniform, he is asked about Scouting, but not if he's in his civvies. So, say, if he left off his Scout socks, would that make him less recognizable? Probably not. My point? As usual, not sure , but possibly that it's good to have *something* that identifies Scouts as Scouts, but maybe there's no need for the level of detail that the current uniform goes to. Maybe the shirt should be considered the "main element" with the rest optional, as long as the Scout is otherwise "neatly dressed" when wearing the shirt. The shirt probably identifies someone as a Scout more than any other part of the uniform.

Hi Matt, And thanks for providing your thoughts. I think you should continue your efforts; you show how "normal" gays are, regardless of the religious rights efforts to condemn gays as some sort of "religious abomination". As gays continue to become visible in the mainstream, my hope is that BSA will see the err of its ways and make some changes. Remember that there's nothing in Scouting or BSA underlying "law" that disallows gays. It's merely an interpretation. Saying that gays are a "bad role model" is just an opinion of those in power. Leadership can change, and so can opinions.

Bob, >>All I'm saying is that you are not going to convince me that those who have never used the program are the ones who are going to know how to improve it. . Well, that I can agree with 100% (the part about those who have never used the programs not being the ones that are going to know how to improve it...)

I'd guess the answer for me is "it depends who you talk to". Personally, I try to not take it too seriously, but the trick is to take it "seriously enough". Scouting shouldn't be seen as the primary way for a boy to gain character or "grow into a man". We can help, but family should be the primary source of that. Some boys are definitely helped by Scouting, but all in all, it's really just another extracurricular activity. I think that a lot of the character building activities, and ideas of "fair play", honesty, teamwork, etc, can be learned equally well in some sports activities. Scouting is a way to learn those things in an outdoors theme. Most of the Scouting Professionals I know aren't as "died in the wool" as some of the people here when it comes to the level of program detail you need to adhere to. I mean, does it really matter that much if you don't play the exact game listed in the program features? (This message has been edited by Prairie_Scouter)

Bob, I'm sorry, but I just can't agree that the Scouting program is so perfect that it's beyond question, that anything that doesn't work in a unit must be the fault of something other than the program. The program is very good, there's no doubt about that, but to imply that the program is never wrong in any way whatsoever and fits every possible situation that could arise in a Scouting unit anytime and anywhere seems a bit "out there". Or am I reading too much into your comments?

Here's the posting from the ACLU website that names the parties involved and their religious affiliation (not agreeing or disagreeing, just providing the info).... CHICAGO -- Two well-known Chicago religious leaders today hailed an injunction by U.S. District Court Judge Blanche Manning that bars the Pentagon from spending millions of dollars to support future Boy Scout Jamborees (the only youth organization event so funded by the Pentagon). The judges decision is the most recent action in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois on behalf of religious and community leaders from Chicago who were alarmed at the favored treatment afforded by several governmental entities to the Boy Scouts of America, despite the BSAs religious requirements for participation. The injunction does not cover the Jamboree already scheduled for this summer. Two lead plaintiffs in the case filed in 1999, Reverend Eugene Winkler and Rabbi Gary Gerson, stated today that the judges order helps maintain the critical constitutional principle of government neutrality towards religion. "Government has an obligation to be neutral in religious activities," said Rev. Winkler, a former pastor at the First United Methodist Church in Chicago. "Government must be neutral because we are a nation of many religious views -- as well as those who do not practice a religion. The expenditure of $8 million by the Pentagon for an organization that requires young people to affirm a belief in God -- and the simultaneous exclusion of secular organizations from this benefit -- undermines that principle of neutrality. Judge Manning recognized this fact and took appropriate action." The Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, require youth who participate in their activities to affirm a belief in God and expels youth who decline to do so. Yet Congress and the Pentagon have chosen to provide the Boy Scouts -- and no other youth organization - with a unique and lucrative benefit which, for this summers Jamboree, amounts to $8 million in federal spending to assist the Boy Scouts in providing a summer camp experience for its youth. No other youth organization is allowed to compete for this generous federal benefit, the ACLU noted. The injunction follows a March 16, 2005 decision by Judge Manning ruling that the Department of Defenses special treatment of the Boy Scouts violates the Constitutions requirement of governmental neutrality towards religious activity. The religious leaders who brought the case applauded the decision. Pentagon support for the quadrennial Jamboree extends far beyond simply providing a venue for the event. Indeed, evidence in the case demonstrated that the Pentagons $8 million expenditure included a half-million dollars for temporary workers to erect and break down tents and $65,000 for commemorative mementos to mark the Jamboree. The direct funding provided to the Jamboree -- at levels offered to no other youth group -- is particularly alarming not only because of the BSAs exclusions of non-believers but also because of the explicitly religious aspects of the Jamboree, the ACLU said. Troop leaders are issued a guidebook by the Boy Scouts of America indicating that a prayer book is "required personal camping equipment" for all youth attendees. The BSA also issues a "Duty to God" booklet for each participant that recommends prayers for each day of the Jamboree. Most important, however, is the exclusion of non-believers from this government-funded event. Because of this, Judge Manning found, the statute that provides special treatment and special funding for the Boy Scouts Jamboree is not neutral with regards to religion. The Judges decision reasoned that the government aid was "not offered to a broad range of groups; rather, it is specifically targeted toward the Boy Scouts, whichis a religious organization from which agnostics and atheists are excluded." "This is not an attack on the Boy Scouts," said Rabbi Gerson of Oak Park Temple. "Rather, it is a challenge to the federal governments preferential treatment of a religious organization. Government simply cannot give special treatment to a private group that excludes young men who do not profess a particular religious faith." The decision resolves one more element of a lawsuit first filed in 1999. The ACLU of Illinois, acting on behalf of Reverend Winkler, Rabbi Gerson and others, challenged the use of public funds by the Chicago Public Schools, the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to support Boy Scout troops. The Chicago Public Schools and the Pentagon previously entered into settlements agreeing to stop their direct sponsorship of Boy Scout troops. Boy Scouts can still meet on military bases, and military personnel can still participate in Scout activities on their own time. The Pentagon settlement came after lawyers from the ACLU of Illinois argued that the Pentagons direct sponsorship of BSA troops meant that government personnel -- acting in their official capacity -- were requiring young people to affirm a belief in God in order to participate in a government-sponsored activity. Charles Peters, Laura Friedel and David Scott of the Schiff Hardin law firm are co-counsel along with ACLU of Illinois attorney Adam Schwartz in representing Reverend Winkler and Rabbi Gerson.

Seems like a no-brainer to me as well. It's one thing to have taken the training, understand the material, and then make a conscious decision to vary from the program a bit in order to best meet the needs of your Scouts. Like jd, I'd be interested in talking with them and possible learning from what might be an innovative approach. It's quite another thing to not take the training and then not use the program without understanding why things are structured the way they are. That's a recipe for failure.

Backpacker, Good Ones! A bit of hyperbole never hurt any discussion, except maybe among those where they might hit home a bit too much evmori, banning hot dogs? Isn't that one of the major food groups? Along with Slim Jims? Ok, here's my thought on something that could improve Scouting... Make Scouting open to all, regardless of their belief system. Add Troop Program Features that recognize 21st century interests, as well as historical ones. Something like "Internet Survival" BTW, Fuzzy, good list. I especially like the PWD entries, something that I participated in with my son, and organized for my pack, for a number of years. Always was hard to keep every one on the "just have fun" track.

Personally, I'd like to think that the DOD looks at all the good work that Scouting does, and is supporting it on that basis, kind of looking beyond the current issues with BSA as conservative religious elements try, with success right now, to impress their belief system on the organization. As some of us believe in regard to Mr Bush's war, "if you can't support the war, you should still always support the troops". In a similar way, you might say, "if you can't support BSA, you should still support the Scouts". I'd like to think that that's how DOD is thinking.

Hi, drockstur, and welcome to the group I don't know of any troops in my area that have decided to forego uniforms entirely. There are some/many that have decided, for a variety of reasons, to go with a uniform consisting of the Scout Class A shirt, neckerchief, and slide, basically not using the pants. You'll hear from many here that are of the belief that you have to "cross every 't' and dot every 'i'" to be a real Scout program, but personally, I think that if your unit is successful without uniforms, than in your case, that's a program that works. It might be interesting to find out a bit more about why they decided to forego uniforms, and see if anyone might be interested in going in the "uniform direction".

Hi Kudu, And thanks for the info. I thought part of the issue with BSA in some quarters was that sometimes it says it's a non-secular non-profit, sometimes it says it's a religious non-profit. So, as far as you know, are they now saying, more or less, unequivically, that they are a religious organization? I suppose, you could be a religious organization that is non-secular as well, but BSA does seem to be leaning towards conservative religious views, so that would seem to lean away from being non-secular.

Why is it that it's ok to blame the leaders, it's ok to blame the parents, it's ok to blame the kids, but the program itself is untouchable? I'm not saying the program is to blame, but if we're going to discuss reasons why BSA tends to "leak" Scouts at various points, shouldn't we be able to hold the program up to the light of day just like everything else? My guess would be that there are many possible reasons why BSA loses Scouts at various points along the way, and among those contributing reasons will be the program itself. **IF** there were a problem with the program, that in itself wouldn't be a big deal, because it's fixable. What would be a big problem would be an unwillingness to admit to any potential for problems in the program. The program is very good. It's the result of decades of work and experience, but that doesn't mean it was carved into stone tablets and brought down from Mount Scout. Instead of being so reticent to even admit the possibility, if someone thinks there might be a problem in the program, maybe it'd be interesting to just ask where they think that weakness might be.