SeattlePioneer

Where is our curly horned African Antelope? I'm awaiting his post on this subject....! Should be a classic.

> Somehow the Supreme Court and the atheist left seems to be struck dumb on the subject of diversity when it comes to religion in the public square. > Exactly! Public officials are almost always capable of making smarter decisions about what will work best in their jurisdictions than the Supreme Court in Washington DC. The idea of the Federal courts patrolling public meetings, ever on the lookout for someone praying so they can swoop in and save the day is ridiculous. Decades ago the Court got out of the business of viewing dirty movies to ban, because it made them look ridiculous. The same is true for their fetish about public prayer.

So what kinds of things did they do, Second Class?

> No, I'm not. My own pack is working together harmoniously and effectively, and so are the pack and troop for which I'm Commissioner. I'm interested in learning how such things work out.

I recommend "The Naked Public Square" which does a pretty sophisticate job of exploring the political and religious importance of these issues. It's really not a legal issue. It's a political and cultural issue, and one that should be dealt with differently in different communities. Of course the Supreme Court only has one size fits all solutions, which is why the courts shouldn't be dealing with this issues except around the gross margin, drawing the outer margin of what is acceptable. Unfortunately Supreme Court judges have wildly exaggerated ideas of their own wisdom.

I think a case can be made that the YPT guidelines are so broadly written that pretty much anything that could arguably fall within YPT guidelines should be reported. If it isn't, the volunteer who didn't report it will always be to blame if something bad happens down the line. Of course you will be blamed if you call the dogs over a trivial problem. And you will be blamed if you don't call in the dogs, too. It's a great system. For letting others off the hook, BSA and your council in particular.

I believe I've related a good many specific complaints. If you are interested in my complaints, my recent posts on this thread contain several. If you want a more or less academic treatment of the issue of religion and the first amendment by the courts, I recommend "The Naked Public Square.

Some Scout units experience a civil war and secession by some families to start a competing unit. I've never had occasion to observe this first hand --- Thank God! Does anyone care to relate stories about this kind of thing they may have experienced? I know first hand that building a unit from the ground up is a difficult and lengthy project --- I'm four years into rebuilding a Cub Pack. Building a unit in a hostile environment has got to be more difficult. Any stories about how districts, councils and professionals react to this kind of thing?

Anyone heard of any Scout Troops that mobilized to help with heat or storm emergencies?

> As I mentioned before, I recommend "The Naked Public Square" for a discussion of this issue.

> In 1999 militant left wingers trashed much of downtown Seattle in their efforts to disrupt the right of World Trade Organization representatives to peaceably assemble and discuss their business. Much the same thing happened again May 1, 2012 as anarchists celebrated Mayday by trashing downtown Seattle. There are extremist hot heads around many political, social and cultural movements. Nothing new about any of that. Seattle Pioneer

Hello BSA, > There is nothing simple about the policies the Supreme Court is enforcing on the people of the United States. They are making political decisions in the name of the constitution --- and those decisions have been vacuuming religion from the public square and censoring the speech of what people are permitted to say in certain public settings, such as commencement speeches. The previous line of decisions by the courts left it to elected public officials to make policies about what to do about religiously tinged issues. I suggest that elected officials did a far better job of that than rigid court decisions, since they could adapt to the infinite variety of local situations. "One size fits all" fits very few people. But it has tremendously advantaged the militant atheists who are are still looking for the opportunity to strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest. I would be amused if the courts would treat atheism the same way they treat other systems of religious beliefs. That would be amusing! > Nonsense! Public officials make decisions based on local political situations. Most communities have a variety of churches and public officials are constrained to find ways to accommodate diverse populations. Perhaps there is an argument for court supervision at the extremes, but the current political policies of the Supreme Court are biased, obnoxious and offensive, in my view. They provide a definite bias towards atheism and therefore create an atmosphere of hostility towards religion.

> Well, I can understand your doubts! Actually, the Supreme Court's War On Religion tends to bring disparate religious faiths together, to fight a common enemy! Personally, I find the efforts of the Federal Courts to vacuum religion out of public life and censor the speech of religious people to be outrageous. I recommend "The Naked Public Square" by John Neuhaus which goes over these issues in an interesting and capable way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Public_Square

Hello Basement, I was delighted to read about your great experience! So often your bad experiences have been heart breaking to read.

Hello Calico, > I think you nailed it!

Hello moosetracker, Well, the district was down by 12 Cub Scouts. Add the two who joined Saturday, we were down by ten. Our DE was just hired in September, and lack of experience hurt with spring recruiting. In particular, he did his unit recruiting schedule on his own, without working with me. I flatter myself that that hurt. We had two hours Saturday for me to talk his ear off about how we could improve recruiting results this fall, and my aim is to have membership growth for the year, which I think is practical. My district has had 1-3% membership growth each year for a good many years now, and we should be able to continue that this year. As an example, my August Cub Scout Roundtable will be our district Fall Recruiting Kickoff, and I'll also be using it as an area recruiting event to recruit some new Cub Scouts. It will be featuring my famous Stomp Bottle Rocket Launch Recruiting Night, the most powerful method of attracting new families I know about. district unit leaders will be invited to bring their Cub Scouts and experience that recruiting event as if they were new to Cub Scouts. My hope is that they will be using the methods they see at their own unit recruiting nights this fall. The aim will be to demonstrate the best methods available for unit leaders, and to encourage them to replicate that for their own Cub Packs. So I aint waving any stinkin' white flag! It's not necessary, in my opinion.

Just because it's the courts that are censoring > speech doesn't mean it isn't censorship, pure and simple. I agree with SP. Respecting the beliefs of others is advanced citizenship. It is a standard that we as Americans have yet to understand or embrace. Frankly, we aren't yet smart enough or emotionally mature as a nation to be able to act on this ideal, even though we say in the Scout Law. >> I think we ought to be able to recognize the censorship of speech by the courts over religion for what it is. My Cub Pack is chartered by a Catholic parish. I'm sure the non parish members who form the large majority in the pack have wondered what influence that would have on the program. As Cubmaster, I tried to answer these unspoken questions by defining "Duty to God" as: 1) Respecting the religious traditions of your family and 2) Respecting the religious traditions of other families. In a Boy Scout Troop I invited a Jewish parent who was a religious leader in his synagogue to demonstrate his use of the Shofar (rams horn) at a Troop Court of Honor and lead the Troop in an opening prayer. I'm not interested in excluding religion from the public square --- or from Scouting. What we should be doing is giving varying religious traditions represented in our units an opportunity to explain and show us their religious traditions. Militant atheists and Federal Courts want to exclude religion from the public square and public activities by censoring what people are allowed to say and do. I think that is wrong. We need to join together to understand and respect our varying religious traditions --- atheism included. They should all have a respected place in the public square and in Scouting in particular.

Hello moosetracker, I share your concern over phoney membership numbers. I think it's regrettable that staff members can be so pressured over membership numbers that phoneying up numbers or the unemployment line are the only apparent choices. And the membership numbers in my district are down --- by about a dozen boys. That no doubt did cause my DE (hired last September) to look for a way to improve the numbers on the last day of June. But the area recruiting event we held was entirely legitimate. The two boys we recruited are real, one of them for my Cub Pack. I am not aware that my council has had issues with phoney membership numbers in the eight years I've been a district membership chair. I'm not in the information loop reliably enough to know for sure, but usually I suspect those things would become common knowledge after the fact when the phoney numbers inevitably have to be adjusted to reflect reality. In the couple of hours the DE and I spent together Saturday, we discussed the problems we had with recruiting this spring and how we might improve them. I suspect we can improve those numbers and very likely recover from that deficit this fall. You can be overly suspicious of such things too, distrusting even honest efforts to deal with the realities of Scouting. > Well, that's the rule, just as you say --- although often waived to get a new troop started. But when I suggested that this number be achieved by obtaining Scout applications signed by real parents for real boys paid for with real dollars --- I continue to suggest that is a ***REAL*** membership. You maintain that some metaphysical extra is required, but it isn't. I think your sensitivity to the fake membership scandals is making you overly sensitive in this case. Heavens! It's a GIGANTIC NUISANCE jumping through BSA's hoops to register a boy, let alone an adult, already! This has to be yet MORE complex? But perhaps we will simply disagree on this issue. There might be reasons to discourage forming a competing Scout Troop as described in the opening post of this thread. But in general, I wouldn't regret explaining to those forming a new unit how they might get the additional applications needed to get a new troop started.

Hello Fred, This is all too common of a problem. I'd let people know they will be interrupted after their agreed amount of time is up, and I'd give them hand signals from the back letting them know how many minutes they have left. Increasingly vigorous waving indicates your time is up. And I'd be waving as I walked toward the front of the meeting room to go on with the meeting if the presenter was ignoring the message. The quickest way to poor meeting attendance is to have over long or boring meetings. My usual standard for meetings is NO MORE than an hour, and I aim to police that goal for the sake of future attendance. (This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

Maybe he gets something out of it, maybe he doesn't. You never really know the consequences of joining BSA when you fill out an application. Perhaps the boy will join the troop at camp. Perhaps he will earn his Eagle in the end. I simply see no reason why a local unit can't have an out of state youth join BSA and their troop if the parents complete the application and the membership fee is paid.

Just because it's the courts that are censoring speech doesn't mean it isn't censorship, pure and simple. It's pretty amusing that you can't recognize the concept.

Ouhhhhhhhh.... F Scouter! You are The Devil today!(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

Hello Moose, These would be applications signed by a parent and the unit leader. All the information on them would be accurate. But you want something more --- some metaphysical intention that isn't on the application. But the application is all there is. The boy is real, the parent is real and the unit leader signing the application is real. The money paid for BSA membership fees would be real. Beyond that, I think you are quibbling. And I don't sign up "phantom Scouts all over the country." You are exaggerating. Yesterday I spent two hours along with the District Executive at an event we spent time organizing to perhaps sign up some additional Scouts by the end of the month. We signed up two. That was for four hours of our time combined, plus additional time spent to organize an area recruiting sign up on short notice. I don't make any apologies for the work I've done as a district membership chair dating back to 2004. The other example you gave was an entirely different situation, and both councils decided the effort was wrong. That's a decision to which I have no objection, and if you find some actual rule that supports your unsubstantiated opinion and bias, I'd be glad to reconsider my opinion that there is nothing wrong with signing up a boy for a local unit who resides out of state. (This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

Hello Moose, Sorry, I don't see anything dishonorable about it. As a district membership chair, I'd have no reservations about signing up a boy as a Scout for a local troop if they lived out of state. If there were in fact a rule against that, I'd respect it. But there is no such rule as far as I'm aware, and I wouldn't refuse the application on the theory that there might be one. Common advice on this board when someone is told there is a BSA rule against something is to ask that you be SHOWN the rule. That is something you have been unable to do in this instance.

> It's CENSORSHIP of someone's speech. Pure and simple. It just happens to be censorship you like and approve of. This is just one example of where Scouting activities are more diverse than those of institutions that trumpet their diversity.