Rick_in_CA

We built a variation of this, and it is quite safe. The tripod lashing was more to the top and we didn't stand on top of it as that was where the steel rope for the bosun's chair was connected. Also the ladder rungs were integrated onto the tripod and not somewhat detached. We would build a 25'-30' tower on one end, connect steel rope to it and another 20'-25' about 10-25 yards away, and anchor them with guy lines and 2 cars. Hook on your bosun's chair, and you got a 20-30 minute wait for a 30 second ride.

 

Unfortunately BSA now bans any pioneering projects that people will climb on that are over 5 feet. Page 77 of the current G2SS states that.

OK, I see they changed it from 5 to 6 feet. However, it doesn't say to the bottom of the bridge, it says "Note: Pioneering projects, such as monkey bridges, have a maximum height of 6 feet. Close supervision should be followed when Scouts are building or using pioneering projects.". Which tells me that all pioneering projects have a maximum height of 6 feet. Not a maximum height to the bottom of the bridge of 6 feet.

 

That is why at our local Scout-O-Rama the one pioneering project on display (a monkey bridge) was only six inches off the ground in the middle. They weren't allowed to make it any taller.

Who is RichardB? And why shouldn't he see those photos?

RichardB is a health and safety person at national that occasionally posts here. And the reason he shouldn't see those photos are that they are all violate BSA rules (no pioneering project can be higher than five feet, not to mention scouts being more than four feet above the ground without suspension harnesses - see the GTSS).

We built a variation of this, and it is quite safe. The tripod lashing was more to the top and we didn't stand on top of it as that was where the steel rope for the bosun's chair was connected. Also the ladder rungs were integrated onto the tripod and not somewhat detached. We would build a 25'-30' tower on one end, connect steel rope to it and another 20'-25' about 10-25 yards away, and anchor them with guy lines and 2 cars. Hook on your bosun's chair, and you got a 20-30 minute wait for a 30 second ride.

 

Unfortunately BSA now bans any pioneering projects that people will climb on that are over 5 feet. Page 77 of the current G2SS states that.

Incorrect. The note says: Note: Pioneering projects, such as monkey bridges, have a maximum height of 5 feet. Close supervision should be followed when Scouts are building or using pioneering projects.

 

So it referrers to any pioneering project, not just monkey bridges.

I remember watching one parade in a AnySmallTown USA' date=' my host told me to make sure my son knew to take of his hat as the vets came down leading the parade with the flag; otherwise, a member who walks down the sidewalk beside the color-guard will chastise him for being disrespectful.[/quote']

 

Really? They would do that? What a jerk. That would make me want too put my hat back on if I saw that.

 

I never understand the self righteous attitude that says: I see something as disrespectful, so my response is to be disrespectful back. How about assuming that no disrespect is intended? Maybe they have a good reason for not taking their hat off (or whatever it is they are doing)?

 

Go look at the history of official representations of boy scouts (and cub scouts) from the last 100 years in the Boy Scout Handbook, Boys Life and others. You will see scouts presented as usually wearing hats indoors, and sometimes not wearing hats. What you will almost never see, are scouts HOLDING hats. The message is clear - hats are optional, but if you have one, wear it.

 

Whoever wrote the current hat rules at national is ignoring boy scout tradition. In my opinion it is not rude for a scout to wear his hat indoors, but it IS rude to ask him to remove it.

 

Just go to google images and type in "Norman Rockwell Boy Scouts" and see what you get. In fact, forget about the hats - do this anyway enjoy some great art!

But since the hats cannot be worn indoors I think they are a bit overkill.

 

Why not? For over a century scout hats have been worn indoors. I really don't know where this nonsense is coming from.

 

Just the other day, I watched an adult leader ask her scouts to remove their hats during the national anthem. The hat is (an optional) part of the uniform, you don't remove it during the national anthem or a flag ceremony (whether indoor or outdoor).

What idiot at national wrote that? So lets ignore a century of scout tradition. Sigh... Another stupid rule from national to ignore.

But since the hats cannot be worn indoors I think they are a bit overkill.

 

Why not? For over a century scout hats have been worn indoors. I really don't know where this nonsense is coming from.

 

Just the other day, I watched an adult leader ask her scouts to remove their hats during the national anthem. The hat is (an optional) part of the uniform, you don't remove it during the national anthem or a flag ceremony (whether indoor or outdoor).

I really don't like the announcement song. Why? Because it's rude, and teaches the cubs that it's OK to interrupt someone when they are speaking. We banned it in our pack for that reason.

Earlier I asked about how an atheist can have religious beliefs since religion implies the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power.

 

Really? That would be news to a whole bunch of Buddhist (and a bunch of people of quite a few other faiths). Though I guess you could be one of those people that don't believe Buddhism is a real religion.

 

The Declaration of Religious Principle is: "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership."

 

So, without getting into rights and wrongs, it's very clear that if you can't support "an obligation to God" you can't be a member. Without doubt, people have expelled over silly BS, but those are the rules.

Incorrect, that is not the DRP, but an excerpt from it. The complete DRP can be found in the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America, and have been reprinted on various websites (I got this from http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa-drp.html). The DRP reads:

 

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizenship without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law." The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of the members should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

 

ACTIVITIES. The activities of the members of the Boy Scouts of America shall be carried on under conditions which show respect to the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion, as required by the twelfth point of the Scout Law, reading, "Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others."

 

FREEDOM. In no case where a unit is connected with a church or other distinctively religious organization shall members of other denomination or faith be required, because of their membership in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly unique to that organization or church.

 

LEADERS. Only persons willing to subscribe to these declarations of principles shall be entitle to certificates of leadership in carrying out the Scouting program.

Not unethical Scouting is recognized as an educational activity; camping is part and parcel of the education. If ISA are used for camp fees, field trips & uniforms, then everything OK. If one Scout uses his ISA to buy a Big Agnes, then not OK as that is individual, personal gain. and must be declared as income. However, Scout probably comes under the minimum earnings level to file. Didn't we discuss this last year?

I posted the link to the discussion above. Yes, we did hash this out. What you are describing here looks iffy (though not automatically illegal). Take it too an extreme: a scout joins a troop right before popcorn. Sells a bunch of popcorn and ends up with $1,000 in his ISA. He spends it all an new camping equipment, and quits scouts the next day, walking away with his $1,000 of new equipment. This is clearly private benefit.

 

Go re-read the old thread. All this was hashed over. And the conclusion I thought was pretty clear - ISAs are a bad idea both ethically and legally. But many units will insist an having them anyway.

My apologies, the complete quote is:

 

Private Benefit Considerations

 

Councils should make sure that any sales materials, instructions, and support information do not make reference to individual scouts earning money for their own participation in Scouting activities.

 

When the council is remitting proceeds, from any sale, back to units, provide guidance on distribution of funds. Encourage units to develop fund distribution plans that include other criteria than sale of items.

 

These might include:

1. Participation in the camp card sale

2. Participation in the program

3. Leadership

4. Scout Spirit

5. Advancement

 

A portion of the proceeds from any sale or activity should be set aside for general unit expenses and could include funds used for assistance to members with financial need.

Well, this is just a power point presentation, so I would expect things to be simplified. However, I think it does show that National is aware of the legal problems with ISAs.

My apologies, the complete quote is:

 

Private Benefit Considerations

 

Councils should make sure that any sales materials, instructions, and support information do not make reference to individual scouts earning money for their own participation in Scouting activities.

 

When the council is remitting proceeds, from any sale, back to units, provide guidance on distribution of funds. Encourage units to develop fund distribution plans that include other criteria than sale of items.

 

These might include:

1. Participation in the camp card sale

2. Participation in the program

3. Leadership

4. Scout Spirit

5. Advancement

 

A portion of the proceeds from any sale or activity should be set aside for general unit expenses and could include funds used for assistance to members with financial need.

Many people are celebrating the Stonewall Riots right now as the beginning of the gay rights movement, but the fact of the matter is that there have been modern concerted attempts going back to the Victorian age.

The book "Toward Stonewall" has large free segments on Google books that cover the Victorian movements, which mostly centered on boy love ("boy" in the Victorian sense means "teenager" in the modern), including Germany's first Scouting movement, the Wandervoegel ("migrating birds"). These Victorian movements focused on the beauty of the young male, and the power of homosexual sex in personal development. The feminist Germaine Greer has also written about this in her book The Beautiful Boy.

Gay Swedish publisher/writer Karl Andersson writes about the whitewashing tactic of the contemporary gay rights movement in his book "Gay Man's Worst Friend." Written from his personal perspective of going from gay publishing hero to zero for daring to break the image we're all being sold, Andersson explains how the contemporary gay rights movement has basically whittled down gay culture for a straight, voting audience to mean nothing more than "just like you, except with another man." Except, he tells us, that's not right at all.

Both are very interesting reads that can be bought cheap.

 

The critical mass we're at isn't really surprising. It's the product of 40 years of carefully managed whitewashing, image control, lobbying, and opposition demonizing (that last point not without plenty of help from oppositional loudmouths) toward a political ends of gay rights. Young people's concept of homosexuality has been shaped by a political machine, and that aptly. The issue is no longer engaging to me, it is (as your lunch crowd agreed) pretty much over.

What will be interesting now is seeing how long it takes for age of consent laws to be weakened and repealed, because at the same time we (as a society) have been learning not to judge people who pick up boys for sex in locker rooms and write Top 40 hits about it, we've ironically become much more conservative about teen sex (or maybe I should have said "wisely" rather than "ironically"--it depends on how much credit you give the average guy.)

OK, so you are implying that all gay men are secretly hebephilialiacs or ephebophiliaiacs? I don't care what "defined homosexuality" a century ago. Heck, it wasn't that long ago in a historical sense when girls as young as 14 were married off and mothers (Juliet in Romeo and Juliet was 13, and her mother complained that she was already a mother at Juliet's age - OK, it's a play - but it speaks to societal attitudes). So does that mean that heterosexual society was all about abusing teenage girls?

 

I'm still not sure what your point is?

Many people are celebrating the Stonewall Riots right now as the beginning of the gay rights movement, but the fact of the matter is that there have been modern concerted attempts going back to the Victorian age.

The book "Toward Stonewall" has large free segments on Google books that cover the Victorian movements, which mostly centered on boy love ("boy" in the Victorian sense means "teenager" in the modern), including Germany's first Scouting movement, the Wandervoegel ("migrating birds"). These Victorian movements focused on the beauty of the young male, and the power of homosexual sex in personal development. The feminist Germaine Greer has also written about this in her book The Beautiful Boy.

Gay Swedish publisher/writer Karl Andersson writes about the whitewashing tactic of the contemporary gay rights movement in his book "Gay Man's Worst Friend." Written from his personal perspective of going from gay publishing hero to zero for daring to break the image we're all being sold, Andersson explains how the contemporary gay rights movement has basically whittled down gay culture for a straight, voting audience to mean nothing more than "just like you, except with another man." Except, he tells us, that's not right at all.

Both are very interesting reads that can be bought cheap.

 

The critical mass we're at isn't really surprising. It's the product of 40 years of carefully managed whitewashing, image control, lobbying, and opposition demonizing (that last point not without plenty of help from oppositional loudmouths) toward a political ends of gay rights. Young people's concept of homosexuality has been shaped by a political machine, and that aptly. The issue is no longer engaging to me, it is (as your lunch crowd agreed) pretty much over.

What will be interesting now is seeing how long it takes for age of consent laws to be weakened and repealed, because at the same time we (as a society) have been learning not to judge people who pick up boys for sex in locker rooms and write Top 40 hits about it, we've ironically become much more conservative about teen sex (or maybe I should have said "wisely" rather than "ironically"--it depends on how much credit you give the average guy.)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that gay men are all pedophiles and it's all a white wash that we don't know this?

How is an individual scout account any different than the Camp Card program the BSA has been rolling out ? 1/2 of the money goes directly to each scout to pay for camp. http://www.stlbsa.org/programs/campcards/Documents/2013%20leader%20guide%20GSLAC%20StL.pdf

 

Go read the national presentation on the camp card program: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/financeimpact/pdf/Camp_Card_Presentation-National_Meeting.pdf where it makes it very clear that funds are intended for the Units to support their activities.

 

It includes the following under the section "Private Benefit Considerations"

 

Councils should make sure that any sales materials, instructions, and support information do not make reference to individual scouts earning money for their own participation in Scouting activities. When the council is remitting proceeds, from any sale, back to units, provide guidance on distribution of funds. Encourage units to develop fund distribution plans that include other criteria than sale of items.

 

Which says to me that national is very aware that while many units use ISAs, they are often legally questionable.

 

Camp Cards are another fund raiser like popcorn sales. And should be treated the same. They are not another form of ISA.

Sorry I don't buy the "I am persecuted, because I can't interfere and force my religious beliefs into the lives of others that I don't even personally know, and I am not free to persecute whom I deem worthy of my persecution". That argument just doesn't fly..

Sentinel947, my understanding of the issue with the Catholic Adoption agencies in Illinois, was that the Catholic agencies were providing contracted services to the state, and being paid with state funds. Which gives the state the ability to set the conditions of service in those contracts. This has nothing to do with religious discrimination, it has to do with the state not allowing it's contractors to discriminate in providing the contracted services. So the Catholic Adoption agencies decided to end the contracts and stop providing the contracted services (adoption).

The legalities and ethics of Individual Scout Accounts have been discussed before. Everyone should go and read the old thread: http://www.scouter.com/forum/cub-scouts/18621-seperate-scout-accounts.

 

I think it is pretty clear, ISAs are not legal or ethical unless you jump through a bunch of hoops, and are very careful.

 

 

Almost never. When I read most of these threads I consider three possibilities: that my troop exists in a Leave-it-to-Beaver parallel plane' date=' that your troops exist in a Twilight Zone, or that there are a lot of lies or exaggerations going around here.[/quote']

 

Really? Since you haven't experienced anything like this, everyone that is reporting that they have must be lying? Is that what you intended to say? Way to show respect for your fellow scouters.

Then I apologize (I'm breathing, I'm breathing...). Sometimes irony doesn't translate well on the internet (as I myself have discovered).

Almost never. When I read most of these threads I consider three possibilities: that my troop exists in a Leave-it-to-Beaver parallel plane' date=' that your troops exist in a Twilight Zone, or that there are a lot of lies or exaggerations going around here.[/quote']

 

Really? Since you haven't experienced anything like this, everyone that is reporting that they have must be lying? Is that what you intended to say? Way to show respect for your fellow scouters.

 

Khaliela, my guess is that you didn't run into an official policy from National (though I have heard stories that there are people there who are actively hostile to neo-pagens), but into a group of bigoted volunteers. You should appeal it up the chain, even if it's only to get it on record.

 

Also, which council was this, and how long ago?

ScoutNut has it right. The UUA religious awards are valid, as it isn't the BSA's call, it's the UUA's call. Yes the BSA threw a tantrum and said "you can't wear the medal on your uniform", but you can wear the knot. The UUSO is an independent group (it isn't affiliated or recognized by the UUA the last time I checked) that has a set of UU religious awards that the BSA approves of.

 

I would ignore the BSA on this one, earn the awards and wear the knot (and medal) with pride.

 

This is a problem caused by a small group of idiots at national that unfortunately have a little power. They are wrong, they know it, and they don't care. They deserve to be ignored.

Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.

 

I had a discussion with someone from regional a few months ago, and he said that according to national, the only thing that matters is the label. If someone self identifies as an Atheist, they are not eligible. If someone with identical beliefs calls themselves something else, they are good. He says it's because so many people get hung up on the word "Atheist". So yes, it is stupid.

 

And people do get hung up on the word. To many people, it is a very negative word and they have a strong emotional reaction to it. When they here the word "Atheist", they think of "those Atheists" that don't believe in anything, think anyone with religion is a fool or idiot, that will take any opportunity to be obnoxious about it, etc. (While I have met in passing a couple of Atheists that can be obnoxious about it, I don't think I have ever met one that fits the "doesn't believe anything" description). So they assume that anyone that self identifies as an "Atheist" is claiming all the listeners baggage too. That's why you get all the: "I don't consider those people atheists..." kind of discussions when Duty to God is discussed (see the above WOSM link).

You need to get over it' date=' or go to the local council and view the bylaws, or hire a lawyer and call the LA Times. Unlike the ban on homosexuals, the BSA's religious stance is right there on both the youth and adult application, it's in the oath, it's in the handbook, it's part of the program.[/quote']

 

Is it? This is what the BSA actually says about it (the current Guide to Advancement, page 33):

 

5.0.5.0 Religious Principles

From time to time, issues related to advancement call for an understanding of the position of the Boy Scouts of America on religious principles. In the appendix (section 11), see the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America (article IX), and clause 1, Declaration of Religious Principle, from article IX in the Charter and Bylaws of the BSA. The following interpretative statement may help to clarify this position:

 

The Boy Scouts of America does not define what constitutes belief in God or practice of religion. Neither does the BSA require membership in a religious organization or association for membership in the movement. If a Scout does not belong to a religious organization or association, then his parent(s) or guardian(s) will be considered responsible for his religious training. All that is required is the acknowledgment of belief in God as stated in the Scout Oath, and the ability to be reverent as stated in the Scout Law.

 

See the lovely circular logic? All that is required is a belief in God - the BSA refuses to define what constitutes belief in God. That is for the scout and his family to decide. As for A Scout is Reverent, I believe this is the current wording:

A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

 

This doesn't define what God is either. So if someone belongs to a religious faith that doesn't have a god (like many forms of Buddhism) or require a belief in a god (like Unitarianism), who believe they can do their "Duty to God" as their faith defines it, the BSA appears to say they can be members. Which is the situation the OP was in.

 

So to tell the OP: "stop whining, it's all their in black and white" is incorrect.

Oh, Greenbar Bill. I didn't get the reference as I never heard him referred to just as Greenbar. It has always been Bill Hillcourt, or Greenbar Bill. When I was a young boy scout I actually got to meet him. A very nice man.

You need to get over it' date=' or go to the local council and view the bylaws, or hire a lawyer and call the LA Times. Unlike the ban on homosexuals, the BSA's religious stance is right there on both the youth and adult application, it's in the oath, it's in the handbook, it's part of the program.[/quote']

 

Is it? This is what the BSA actually says about it (the current Guide to Advancement, page 33):

 

5.0.5.0 Religious Principles

From time to time, issues related to advancement call for an understanding of the position of the Boy Scouts of America on religious principles. In the appendix (section 11), see the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America (article IX), and clause 1, Declaration of Religious Principle, from article IX in the Charter and Bylaws of the BSA. The following interpretative statement may help to clarify this position:

 

The Boy Scouts of America does not define what constitutes belief in God or practice of religion. Neither does the BSA require membership in a religious organization or association for membership in the movement. If a Scout does not belong to a religious organization or association, then his parent(s) or guardian(s) will be considered responsible for his religious training. All that is required is the acknowledgment of belief in God as stated in the Scout Oath, and the ability to be reverent as stated in the Scout Law.

 

See the lovely circular logic? All that is required is a belief in God - the BSA refuses to define what constitutes belief in God. That is for the scout and his family to decide. As for A Scout is Reverent, I believe this is the current wording:

A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

 

This doesn't define what God is either. So if someone belongs to a religious faith that doesn't have a god (like many forms of Buddhism) or require a belief in a god (like Unitarianism), who believe they can do their "Duty to God" as their faith defines it, the BSA appears to say they can be members. Which is the situation the OP was in.

 

So to tell the OP: "stop whining, it's all their in black and white" is incorrect.

OK, call me ignorant. What or who is Greenbar?