Rooster7

I tend to agree with John D. I think it's a sad statement that activities such as paintball are not permitted. They have an element of risk, but so does most activities, including many that are BSA approved. As for the "gun" aspect of this prohibition (if in fact that was part of the consideration), it's another example of political correctness. However, as I already noted, if it's in the G2SS, I follow it. Personally, I think BSA does overreact to the prospect of litigation. I don't know if I shared this story before. So, if it's redundant, forgive me. The city I live in, once considered banning sledding on all public properties. That was at the advice of the city manager and per the counsel of the city's lawyer. I don't know about your town, but in mine, the only worthwhile places to sled are public properties. Fortunately, our councilmen decided that they couldn't accept a town that didn't allow kids to go sledding. They opted to post a few signs in some areas that they felt were too dangerous. At some point, whether it be the government, businesses, BSA or some other private organization, people have to stand up and say, "We rather fight these clowns then change our way of life." Alas, too many people cave and write a new ruleusually one that takes our rights away to take some risk and have a little fun. Eventually, it appears that we will all be living in plastic bubbles or paying outlandish insurance premiums in order to leave them.

A good camp staff person is able to put himself in the shoes of the Scout. He's has empathy for every boy. Whether it's a boy with low self-esteem, a kid who can't sit still, or a boy still learning to control his temper, his goal for each and every kid is the same. He wants each boy to enjoy the adventure and to bring home happy memories.

If that was the intent, I gotta disagree - but I should wait for clarification before going off half-funded! It's a good question. Unfortunately, I'm not confident about my answer. At this point, I could go both ways. Here's an analogy. In the public schools, the Supreme Court allows public prayer if it's initiated and approved by the students. I think that's a fair interpretation. I believe the Supreme Court should show the same respect for the rights of the citizens in a township. That is to say, if the citizens bought and paid for such a memorial, and it complied with my previously posted criteria, then I think it would be appropriate. Or if the memorial was initiated by referendum, I think it would even be appropriate for the township to make the purchase. It would not be an attempt by the government to endorse or establish a religion. Such a purchase (if initiated by referendum) would merely reflect the will of the people.

On campouts I treat him as I do all other scouts, but I always set aside about 20 minutes where we are just father and son. My sons are, well - my sons. It would be impossible for me to ignore that fact. That being said, I like Bob's idea. I never planned in advance to set aside a specific amount of time each trip, but I do try to get with my sons for a few moments each trip. Additionally, if circumstances warrant my attention, I will pull my son aside and speak to him as his father. Fortunately, with three sons in the program, combining for about 14 years of experience, I've only had to do this a few times - maybe a half dozen total between the three.

- I didn't think it would be impossible...Although, I am somewhat opinionated.

Per the Boy Scout handbook, if after obtaining the rank of Life a boy has served six months in a POR, then he's satisfied the POR requirement for Eagle. Did your troop say something differently? I'm not sure I understood your original post.

To a point, I agree with Merlyn_LeRoy. A township shouldn't force a particular faith down people's throats. I also agree that the display of one religious sign or symbol opens the door to others. However, I think a township has a duty to utilize its resources to promote public harmony and to restrict their utilization from those purposes that would be offensive to the community. In other words, the government serves the people. For example, if a manger scene is erected on the grounds of a public park for Christmas in a predominately Christian township, this serves the people in the community. And if Jews in the same community want to erect a similar memorial on public property for one of their holidays, the township should allow it to happen. However, when religious or anti-religious memorials are being displayed simply to make political statements, which are offensive to the community, I believe the township has a duty to disallow such displays. In other words, such displays would not promote harmony in the community, but discord. Every community has different standards but I agree that all faiths need to be considered when a township allows such displays. Nevertheless, I don't agree all faiths should have equal access if the intent is to create disharmony. Many so-called "faiths" are striving for this equal access just so they can offend people in the community. A responsible township has to ask themselves, is the community being served by a satanic display? Is a sign promoting atheism serving the community? Now, I know there is a tiny minority out there who thinks these faiths or non-faiths are worthy causes. There's probably a slightly larger minority that believe - regardless of their worth, these faiths or non-faiths deserve the same protections as any other belief. In regard to the use of public resources, I disagree. Yes, they can write books, produce movies, and explore all the mediums of the world to promote their cause. This, I would not deny them. The problem is, when a display is put on public property, the local government is subjecting the entire community to that belief, whether they like it or not. Of course, the counter-argument would be - no display of faith (or non-faith in the case of the atheist) should be permitted on public grounds. Again, I disagree. So long as the local government is considering the community at large, if they believe such a display would promote harmony in the community and/or it is non-offensive, then they should permit the use of public property. Lastly, local governments should be given credit for having a brain. Is atheism a religious belief? No, how can anyone view it as such? It's a philosophy, which denies the existence of God. Likewise, is Satanism a religious faith or is it an anti-faith? Let's get real. If we are talking about religious freedoms, let's make sure we're talking about religions that recognize God, and not belief systems created as alternatives to or for the purpose of rebelling against, those very same religions. I know Merlyn sees no difference, but I hope and pray that the majority of us do. In a decade or two, what kind of society our children will be living in, will be defined to a large extent by how many of us recognize this difference. Do you think being open-minded and religiously tolerant means accepting Satanism and atheism as religious faiths? If so, then perhaps I am in a minority and Merlyn will see the America that he envisions one day. I'm praying that it doesn't happen.

I'm with the "ask the boys" contingent. Perhaps this statement implies more then what is actually stated. If so, then we may be in agreement. Regardless, I think it's inappropriate for the troop to accept a decision by the boys without regard to their parents. It has great potential to create disharmony within each boy's family. If the troop doesn't want to consider the parents, then they should at least tell the boys to do so. I would not accept either boy's decision until they discussed it with their respective parents. Otherwise, "duty to family" rings hollow.

Defamation of Character is worth suing over. I agree. What exactly was said, by whom, and to whom, that constitutes defamation of character? There may well be a case, but I haven't seen anything specific noted in these posts. It's obvious that these two leaders (the SM and at least one ASM) dislike ASM1's family, but what have they actually said that was defamatory?

On this subject, I have several personal observations - Multiple Eagle Courts of Honor are usually painfully long (over two hours). My oldest son was part of an Eagle Court of Honor for three boys. It approached three hours. Here are some of the reasons: special speakers for each boy, a review of each boy's scout history, letters of recognition presented to each boy, pins and tie tacks for all of the parents, etc. An Eagle Court of Honor for a single scout allows the troop and others to make the occasion special. It focuses the spotlight on the one boy, as it should be. While it is for the Scout's benefit, a good Eagle Court of Honor will afford parents the opportunity to express their feelings about their son. By that, I don't necessarily mean that most parents want or should be speakers. I mean - it is a special occasion that's honoring their son and parents should have some input. Parents and/or others are free to pay, plan, and organize their own Eagle Court of Honor. Troops are not legally obligated to pay for an Eagle Court of Honor. Troops are not legally obligated to even plan and coordinate an Eagle Court of Honor. Ethically obligated? That's a different story. Theoretically, there could be more than one Eagle Court of Honor for each boy (one presented by the troop and another by the parents or someone else). The above are merely observations, not recommendations. Here is my recommendation: Ask each family (scout and parents) to come to a decision about their own preference. Let each boy work this out with his parents without interference from the troop. In other words, don't put the troop committee in the middle of a family argument. If both faimilies are in agreement, then do the joint Eagle Court of Honor as planned. If one or both families want separate courts of honor, then advise each family what the troop is willing to contribute in terms of resources (money, people, etc.) and work with them to achieve their desires. In short, work with each family and don't make this occasion a reason for hard feelings. Obviously you have a strong opinion because your family is one of the two involved. However, I think if the other family insists on a separate court of honor, the troop has to respect that and work with them.

ASM1, After re-reading this thread, I still have numerous questions: You've stated that the COR is your friend. Also, apparently you had a letter in hand from the camp director, which incriminated the SM. Why don't you go back to the camp director and get another copy of that letter? The COR already said, "you tell me what you want, and it is done". Why not take him up on that offer? At one point, the COR was willing to do as you saw fit. You chose to go to another troop. Why would your lawyer or you consider suing the CO? The COR was on your side and cooperative. Given the aforementioned, suing the CO doesn't seem reasonable. The SM of the old troop requested council to revoke the charter of the newly proposed troop. Your DE went on to say that he doubts very seriously that that can happen and not to worry about it. So, why are you upset with council or the DE? Did I miss something? Has the new charter been revoked? The SM and the said ASM (husband of the CC) apparently vehemently dislike you for whatever reason. Regardless, what is the accusation that they are presenting to others to justify their actions (i.e., pushing you out of the old troop, denying you access to a leaders meeting, encouraging council to deny a charter for your new troop, etc.)? They must be telling folks something. Yet, in five pages of postings, I have not seen any accusation presented. Can you enlighten us? Based on what I know so far, here is my advice - One - Go back to the camp director. Get another copy of the said letter. Present it to the COR of your old troop and have you way. Two - If the COR no longer backs you (which would be strange), then continue your pursuit to charter a new troop. Three - Don't sue anyone. In all of these posts, I do not see anything that the CO has done to warrant a suit. The COR was on your side and you chose to go a different way. The DE merely advised you of the charter's status (pending). The council has not revoke any charter yet. Four - If the council rejects the charter, make them give you a reason in writing. If it's libelous, then sue. Five - While doing all or none of the above, put your boy in another troop now. If he's one project away from Eagle, don't let him deny himself that honor because of the turmoil created by these adults. Tell him, denying himself this honor, will probably make these guys happy (by your description of them, it sounds if they're that sick). It sounds if your son is blaming all of BSA. Ten years from now, he'll regret his decision.

I follow the BSA G2SS for Scouting events. It's their rules and I follow them as such. However, outside of Scouting, I can see myself not following some of their rules or suggestions.

You have no respect for the religious rights of others. That's a big assumption based on a false premise. There is a big difference between - the government allowing the people of a local community to express their faith collectively and publicly - and the Government declaring a religion to be favored by the State and giving it special rights that extend beyond the will of the people in those communities. It seems to me, Zorn is simply stating that the Government ought not interfer with local communities and their desire to recognize God. Something that I think Jefferson and the framers of our Constitution would agree.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

ASM1, That's pretty impressive. I agree with yaworski. You should look this guy up and let me know how you feel.

Venturer2002, I generally agree with your posts, but I cannot agree with your portrayal of Jefferson. As for him being an adulterer, this may or may not be true. I am skeptical because it seems every President of noteworthiness is accused of this sin. Give it enough time, and they (historians and/or the media) will be saying the same things about Jimmy Carter, George Bush, and others. I would not causally label him as such. Perhaps he deserves the label, but I don't think we know enough to give it to him. Some say Martin Luther King was an adulterer. Even if true, if I had to label him, it would be "civil rights leader", not adulterer. We should thank God that our neighbors don't know all of our sins. Otherwise we'd all be walking around with some sort of ugly label attached to us. As for Jefferson being a slave owner, I don't think it's appropriate that we judge him on this either. One, we did not live in that era. We really don't know how we and/or anyone else from our time would have behaved during the same time period. Two, we don't know his motives or his heart. He may have been an extremely compassionate person. For all we know, he treated those slaves like family. Obviously slavery is wrong. Nevertheless, I think it's unfair to slap that label on Jefferson without viewing it in historical context, and without noting the man's character. How do you think he treated those slaves? My wife recently watched a special on the supposed slave descendents of Thomas Jefferson. When asked how they felt about Jefferson being a slave owner, every one of them recognized Jefferson's character as a man and noted the historical circumstances. Finally, as for Jefferson's agenda, his view on "separation of church and state" was actually very similar to yours. The left, to further their cause, has twisted the meaning of his writings. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

ScoutParent, I have similar memories of the Vietnam War. Like you, I had two brothers involved. One was in South Vietnam (Army) and the other was in Thailand (Air Force). I remember saying my prayers every night as well. A friend of one of my brothers, who lived with us for six months, died when he stepped on a mine. In 72, I was 13 and my closest brother in age turned 15. While I was a good five years away from the draft, the prospect of going to war started to weigh on me. I feared for all three of my brothers safety, as well as my own. I was not old enough to make a judgment as to our justification for being there. I was just concerned for my family's well being. Fortunately, God blessed my family and both of my older brothers did return home in "one piece". During the war, the media coverage was sort of mixed. Many prime time programs such as Dragnet, Adam-12, etc. portrayed the war as being just. Others presented conflicting messages. The news coverage seemed way "too neutral" and devoid of sensitivity. The movies of the day (i.e., Easy Rider, Doctor Strange Love, etc.) made our military look as if they were out of control. Magazines such as Newsweek and Time also presented a very ugly picture of the U.S. military and of our ally (i.e., the police execution of a collaborator on the cover of Newsweek). In all my memories, I cannot recall one media story that showed the heroism of American solders in a positive light. If heroism was shown, it always seemed to be presented under the inauspicious circumstance of a losing battle. As I grew up, the Vietnam War was a dark cloud on the horizon. All in all, the media did their best to confuse the hell out of my generation. Had the war continued into the mid-70's, I think there would have been many more draft dodgers. Not because these folks clearly understood anything, but because they were completely confused as to what they should believe. In my mind, the media was as much to blame for the debacle as the politicians. The military simply did their job. As for eisely and others (including my brothers), whatever they do for the rest of their lives, they should take pride in the fact that they answered the call when their country asked them to make the ultimate sacrifice.

This woman is a great example as to why we have such crazy problems in this country. She is supposed to be an educator, yet she doesn't understand the basic workings of our judicial system...or just as bad, she doesn't take the time to follow up on the major issues of the day. Without a clear understanding of what has happened, she makes a decision that affects the entire school - just to prove her ignorance to the world. A principal like this should be removed from her post. Ignorance is no excuse, especially if you're a high school principal.

Hay, I rezent that implikation.

So except for them, yes, the Bible is 100 percent historically accurate. I understand that there are numerous faiths in the world and a multitude of interpretations of the same. I don't think anyone would deny this. However, a faith is not a faith if one must qualify it. Someone who feels he must recognize, acknowledge, and give credence to other faiths before he can speak of his own, does not know what he believes. If a person knows the truth, and he is noble, he will not give credence to anyone or anything that contradicts that truth. So, when someone acknowledges other faiths as "possible truths", he is in affect saying he's not sure about his own faith. Or worse, he doesn't care if you know the truth or not. This is particularly true if one is a Christian. The New Testament clearly states that Jesus Christ is the one and only way. There is no leeway for universalism. Humanistic approaches to God are denounced in the harshest terms. As for "Christians" that believe the bible is "inspired by God" rather than being the "word of God", they are not reading their bible. Again, the New Testament clearly says otherwise (2 Timothy 3:16 & 17). Furthermore, I have to ask these so-called believers, if the bible is merely the word of inspired men then why believe any of it? Do inspired men have pure hearts and absolute knowledge? Of course, they do not. Why would anyone claim they know God and His will for us if their knowledge is based on the writings of imperfect beings? Christians that do not recognize the bible as being the "word of God" have a false faith. They are one well-reasoned argument away from having no faith at all. If this offends you, I apologize. Nevertheless, simple logic supports my claim. Furthermore, I am just as offended by self-proclaimed Christians that discredit "God's Word" as the flawed teachings of men. If you claim to be a believer in Christ, then follow Him and all of God's word. If you pick and chose scripture from the bible, don't stake claim to Him. Christ has clearly defined the road to salvation. We can chose to follow it or leave it, but we do not have the power, wisdom, or righteousness to create another (Matthew 7:13 - 23). As for the non-Christian, I do not have any malice in my heart for you. No doubt, someone here or elsewhere will claim differently. My response to this post is an expression of my faith. My statements lack disclaimers not because I seek to offend you, but because I do not want to offend God. Nor do I want to give the impression that my faith is something that I created. My faith is the result of God's Grace. NJ, from the perspective of the world, your point is valid.

It's not an eventunless you consider the 80's in America an event. Just for the record, I didn't write this to get anyone "fired up". It's what I believe: In 1980, Jimmy Carter was in office. Economically and spiritually, America was slipping fast. We were suffering double-digit inflation and severe shortages in affordable energy. Because of numerous foreign policy snafus (Iran Hostage situation, uncontrolled immigration from Cuba, boycotting of the Olympics, etc.), the morale of the American people was nearing an all time low. Due to the hostile policies of the Soviet Union, many in America feared that a nuclear war with the USSR was not only likely but could well occur in their lifetime. Movies such as "The Day After" reflected this fear. Prior to the Presidential election of 1980, liberals and many in the media portrayed Ronald Reagan as a heartless and dangerous man. They scared many folks into believing that Mr. Reagan would push us into an unnecessary war and use social security to fund it. The American people did not buy this argument and elected him in landslide. During Reagan's Presidency, the United States prospered. His foreign policy brought prestige back to America and resulted in the demise of the Soviet Union. In a very short time, America went from near depression (economically and quite literally as a collective mood) to record economic growth. For the first time in a long time, Americans felt good about themselves and their country. During his tenure, the stigmas of Watergate and the Iran Hostage debacle faded away. Ronald Reagan gave Americans reason to respect the office of the Presidency and hope for the future. Patriotism became popular again. This is my view of the 1980's in America. I am very thankful for President Ronald Reagan. Many ideologues have tried to discredit him and his accomplishments. I imagine as long as liberals exist, they will continue to do so. As for Jimmy Carter, while I respect him as a man (humble, earnest, and dedicated), his ineptitude as a President makes me respect Ronald Reagan all the more. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

KoreaScouter, I agree. In particular, I agree with the notion, "It's kinda dangerous to re-enact things like this on an Internet forum." My pet peeve with this forum is that many opinions or statements pertaining to a particular circumstance lack disclaimers and are presented with absolute certainty. I would agree with a lot more postings if they were presented with a little more humility. We are not the ones witnessing the event. There is bound to be a number of pertinent facts that are either omitted or glossed over. Furthermore, no second or third hand story will ever communicate body language, attitude, or the history of the people involved. In short, I believe all of our advice should be qualified and offered a little less confidently. By the way, I'm probably guilty of violating my own "pet peeve", so there's no need to throw it back at me. I'm already aware.

eisely, You summed up my feelings in a nutshell (I'm sure some of my ideological opponents feel that my word choice is very fitting) Regardless, thanks.

I think that history has not included all of Mr. Lincoln's views on different issues. Some of the speeches he made could raise some eye brows. Okay...I wasn't sure where you were going. As to Lincoln's writings and speeches, you may have a point. Nevertheless, I think the gist of Mr. Bennett's comments is right on the mark. Politicians and the media of the day have made a mockery of our country's history. To hear some of them tell it, it's amazing anyone defended our nation. If you believe today's version of history, no one should be proud to be an American. The pilgrims were a bunch of intolerant religious bigots who sat around judging others and went on witch-hunts. The Wild West wasn't tamed, but destroyed by greedy ranchers and prospectors. Racial bigots whose only interest was to make more money dominated the West and South of the 1800's. Industrialists, who cared more about money than society, exploited the workers in the Northeast and West during the 1900's. Furthermore, our government sheltered them and aided their efforts. Every war we ever fought was about money or protecting our narrow-minded interests. This is the history that some want to proclaim in our schools today. While parts are true, it's a disgrace how many public schools portray our forefathers and their desires for this country. Many "teachers" it seems would rather focus on the self-proclaimed victims of revision than the true heroes who fought and bled for the noble ideas of this country. In 30 years, the true victims of 9-11 may well be portrayed as foolish pawns of our "stubborn and intolerant" government. It's been less than a year and there are some who imply that today. Has our country been less than perfect? Yes, but why is this a shock...And more importantly, why is it that some feel a need to shout this from the rooftops while practically ignoring the sacrifice and efforts of so many great men and women. I'm proud to be an American. I wouldn't trade my citizenship or this country's history for any other on this planet. Those folks, who think some other nation has something on us, should review their history as well. I challenge you to find a nation that has a history with fewer blemishes. I'll put our nation up against it and make comparisons anytime! (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

ASM7, Your response seems to be implying some sort of dig toward Mr. Bennett, but it's pretty ambiguous. Exactly how has Mr. Bennett misrepresented Lincoln? That was your implication, was it not? Regardless, which of the above statements deserve criticism? I think Mr. Bennett's words are true.

sctmom, You obviously have a vested and an emotional interest in this issue. I view your sarcasm in that light, but I ask you to reread my post carefully. It's not nearly as unresponsive and callous as your response implies. I don't mind a volunteer saying "I don't know how to handle this about your child". But that should be followed by "What should we do about it?" Not "bye bye". I agree with this sentiment to a point. Certainly, in terms of time and energy, no one should volunteer to be a SM unless he is prepared to make some sacrifices. The job requires a level of effort that should not be taken lightly. Within reason, I believe a SM should try to include as many boys as possible. The key phrase here is "within reason". However, parents must recognize that sometimes the effort required by the SM and/or the troop is beyond the call of duty. If this is the case, it should be understood by all and especially the parents that this effort is being extended because the SM and/or the troop chose to do so. It should not be taken for granted or demanded. You cannot expect a Scoutmaster to "deal with it" if that means he is required to be a part-time nurse, psychologist, and special Ed. instructor. At some point in time, a SM and/or the troop may advise parents that the problem is beyond their capabilities and/or it requires tasks that they are unwilling to do. Take a look at other organizations. Do we expect boys and girls club coaches to handle every physical or mental problem that a child might encounter? Even when we pay for a service, it is not always reasonable to demand that the instructor "deal with it". For example, do you think the local music store will handle these types of problems while providing piano lessons? I seriously doubt it. It's not that I'm uncaring. I'm simply stating that we (as parents) need to take a humble approach towards these volunteers (and even paid instructors) if we are asking them to handle special situations. Our problems are not necessarily their problems. At the very least, it should be understood and appreciated that they are going beyond what it is required. Personally, I am only willing to go so far. Which is probably while I'll never step forward to be a SM. I know of a few others within my troop that will go the extra mile or two. I'd rather support them in that role than make some of the sacrifices that they're willing to make. I truly appreciate these people. However, I see their efforts as extraordinary and deserving of admiration, not as standard for the course. If they chose not to do some of things that they do, I would not find fault in them. If I encountered a Scout that constantly soiled his clothing, eventually (probably sooner than later) I would ask the parents to find a way to "deal with it" or ask them to find a troop that knows how. Am I the most self-sacrificing Scouter around? No. I admit that I have limitations. On the other hand, I don't think the typical SM should be expected to handle this situation on a regular basis? If you find one, you should thank God that he placed such a self-sacrificing leader in your troop. He's the exception not the rule.