Trevorum

stlscouter, you are correct. In our culture we no longer find it acceptable to assign roles based on biology (at least for the most part). Women, who were once extremely limited in their life's ambitions, may now choose to be astronauts instead of only flight attendants; soldiers and politicians instead of wives and mothers. Similarly, African Americans are no longer forced to serve only in menial roles as cooks, laborers, or servants. We put a cultural priority on personal choice. While our culture increasingly rejects the notion of gender roles of any type, the very interesting thing about the traditional cultures I mentioned above is that the berdache and the hijras are actually thought of as a third gender, neither masculine nor feminine. This is extremely hard for many people within our shared Judeo-Christian-Islamic heritage to comprehend or accept.

Near the end of our troop meeting last night I noticed a new adult face at the back of the room. I had just finished passing out a bunch of merit badges, and before I had a chance to say hello, this 30-something fellow came on over and introduced himself. His name sounded vaguely familiar but he was not the parent of a prospective scout as I had first thought - I recognized his name from the troop's Eagle Roster. He had recieved his Eagle from our troop back in 1985! He was visiting his parents and, realizing that it was a Monday night, he dropped by the meeting hall to see if his old troop was still around. From his grin, I could tell he was pleased that we were not only still around but were thriving and carrying on the same traditions he fondly remembered. I asked him if he would say a few words to the guys and he succinctly challenged them to stay in Scouting and earn their Eagle. It was great! He was just passing through town and his visit was purely fortuitous. However, it got me to thinking that Eagles from the "early days" are a great source of guest speakers for any troop's CoH!

zippie, a parent talent/resource survey is a great idea. As FS suggests one is already available, but packs can cerainly develop their own. My recommendation would be to combine the talent survey with a committee sign-up. Make it clear from square one that EVERY family is EXPECTED to help in one way or another. List all of the committees (B&G, PWD, awards, outdoor activities, etc.) as well as the major registered leadership roles (DL, ADL, WDL, treasurer, etc.) and then ask point blank: In which role will you help our pack?

Several pages ago, Rooster said, "Christians are not the only ones that believe homosexuality is wrong. I'd venture to say there's probably a few atheists that feel it is wrong too. He then asked, "I wonder what the Indian cultures have to say about homosexuality. This is an excellent question, and I want to thank Rooster for asking it. Merlyn obliquely addressed it but then the thread went elsewhere. I would like to more directly adress Rooster's question. In contrast to Rooster's opening statement, by and large it is only the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition which has theological trouble with human homosexuality. Other, "non-western" religions and cultures are, generally speaking, much more accepting of the variability in human sexual expression. Among many of the North American Native Peoples, the so-called "berdache" was a recognized "third" gender role. Biological males were allowed to dress as females and interact with society in a distinctly non-male role. From the descriptions of early explorers an ethnologists, we would today label these people as homosexuals, bisexuals, and/or transgendered. These persons fulfilled a special role in society, were accepted by society and were often afforded a magical, or specially empowered role. Interestingly, a similar situation exists in modern India (you did ask about Indians! ), where the third gender is called hijra. Unlike Western society, where transgenders often keep their lifestyle secret, hijras in India have an active and celebrated lifestyle and are often employed as entertainers with magical powers. Finally, even in these societies it is generally only biological males which are afforded the opportunity to participate in society as a third gender. In male-dominated cultures, homosexual females were/are forced into traditional female gender roles (ie, reproduction) regardless of their personal feelings. Ironically, only in the sexually repressed western cultures are homosexual females afforded the opportunity to express themselves. If this topic is of interest to you, there is much information available on the web concerning the berdache, hijras and third genders. As always, material found on the web varies in reliability, so I would recommend following up with some of the published material than can be found cited at the end of the more reputable articles. Hope this helps.

Once again, "The Boy Scouts of America ... is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward ... religious training." (excerpted from the DRP). Since creationism is the religious belief of some specific religions and not others, it therefore has no intrinsic bearing on the DRP's "belief in God" requirement. It follows that incorporating the religious belief of creationism into the BSA program would violate the DRP just as would incorporating the religious belief of, say, trinitarianism.

Verily, there is no inherent conflict between religion and science.

That link has now been repaired. One other glitch I noticed: it should be clarified that the award may be worked on by Boy Scouts until their 18th birthday and by Venturers (including females) up until their 21st birthday.

I suppose I have a limited exposure to "the media" (I don't read the NY Times, for example, or watch much TV). However, here in Texas the radio spectrum is strongly biased towards Christianity. There are many, many stations which are openly pro-Christian. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the radio is biased against non Christian religions; I've heard some pretty horrific diatribes against Islam, Wicca, paganism, and other non-Christian faiths.

Ed, OK, I just misunderstood your point. I agree that it would be silly for BSA to formally accept or reject (for example) either Newtonian physics OR the flat earth theory. Neither have anything central to do with fostering citizenship, building character, and making ethical decisions.

Ed and Gern, You both seem to imply that it would not be appropriate for BSA to include evolutionary theory as elements of the Scouting program. I don't follow your reasoning at all on this, and I strongly disagree. This theory is a key element in the Geology MB. If you are suggesting this because evolution by means of natural selection is a 'theory', then we should also discontinue including 'electrical theory' in the Electronics MB, 'atomic theory' in the Nuclear Science MB, 'gravitational theory' in the Space Exploration MB, and so on. If you are suggesting this because some religions do not accept evolution, then I would remind you that other religions have no problem with evolution. The conclusion here is that belief in evolution has no inherent relevance to the DRP's 'belief in God' requirement. This point was made in post #2 in this thread, above. Belief in evolution is scientific, not religious; by contrast, the belief in creation/intelligent design is religious. The Geology MB is not required for advancement and Scouts whose religion forbids acceptance of this field of science are not required to study it.

This was my first time on staff and the first time at a Jamboree since 1969. I just got back two days ago, and already I wish I could look forward to another next summer! At our staff encampment (Longstreet) some staff were billeted in non-AC barracks, but most of us were in army tents on army cots. We had decent food from the mess hall, indoor showers, and washer/dryers. But still, the grueling weather and constant daily exertion took a toll on us the same as everyone else. And while some of our staff were X-gen, many were in their 60s, 70s, and even some great old guys (and gals) in their 80s. Over meals, I got the chance to chat with many long time staffers. For some, this was their 3rd, 4th, 5th or more Jamboree! The depth of experience and commitment to Scouting was truly humbling. At evening mess, when we would wear full uniform, I've never seen so many silver beavers in one place in my life! My one regret was that my 16 y.o. son was not there with a troop to share the jambo experience. I have no idea where my life will take me over the next 5 years, but given the chance, I'll be back on staff in 2010!

Yep, that appers to be a bad link. I'll pass it on to the webmaster. The icon to the left is a good link.

Just back from Jamboree, and wanted to let y'all know that the kick-off for the new religious award for UU Scouts and Venturers got a very positive and excited reception from everyone. Many, many of the scouts who visited at the UUSO booth were grinning ear to ear to learn they could earn this award! The requirements are posted on the UUSO website at www.uuscouters.org and Scouts and Venturers may begin work immediately. In addition, an estimated 250 persons attended our Sunday service.

Merlyn, we know you are just trolling here, but for the record, let me remind everyone that "BSA does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion" (BSA position statement, June 2001). Further, "The Boy Scouts of America ... is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization of the group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life." (excerpted from the DRP). Since creationism is the religious belief of some specific sects and not others, and so has no intrinsic bearing on the "belief in God", it would follow that incorporating this particular belief into BSA program would violate the DRP.

Neither did I know Mr. Gaskin, but this last week at AP Hill I was honored to meet several 80+ year old Scouters who were still very actively contributing to Scouting. Their clear dedication to the movement has reinspired many of us.

hi fellas wow, I'm impressed. This thread is still going strong, two weeks later!

Last week, late one day, we discovered a zip-loc full of patches that had been left at our booth. We stashed it hoping the scout would come back the next day. No one showed up, so my booth partner looked through the bag, realized which council the fellow must have been from (from all of the trading dupes in the bag) and she took it all the way across the jambo to his camp and turned it in to his SM, who immediately knew whose it was. He was plenty pleased to get his patched returned!

Ed, That's my point exactly! This 7 year old child told his mother he thought he was a girl. He wasn't choosing a "gay lifestyle". He wasn't choosing to reject a religious belief. He certainly wasn't trying to sin against God. He was simply stating a fact of how he felt inside. Ed and Rooster and others: I sincerely don't mind that your personal beliefs on this issue are different from mine. If this is what your religion teaches, fine. As I said above, LDS teaches that women are not fit to be Scoutmasters. However, LDS does not insist that ALL troops abide by their religious belief in this matter and BSA has allowed local option in whether or not women can be Scoutmasters. That is all I, and others, ask: that we be given the same right to set membership and leadership standards within our units according to the religious views of our Chartering Organization. ------- In any event, the back and forth has been fun here, but I'm out the door to Jambo! I hope to meet some of you ladies and gents and say hello. In the meantime, I'll be offline until early August.

Lynda, More to the point, Ed and others would have us believe that this innocent child chose to "sin against God" at 7 years old. That's ludicrous. How can anyone honestly believe that people choose their sexual orientation? People are born gay like they're born left-handed. They don't choose it like a clothing style or a religion.

Welcome to the campfire, Jim! Pull up a log and sit a spell!

Your original point seemed to be that BSA does indeed teach heterosexuality, albeit informally. ("My point is heterosexuality is taught to our children. Its not a formal education, but it is clearly and openly communicated to our children") I replied that this is not heterosexual behavior we are teaching, but just normal affection between (and here I should have clarified) spouses. Rooster, I accept the fact that you disapprove of gays for religious reasons. That is what your faith teaches. You don't want your sons to know any gay folks. And that is why I think that local option is the solution. My faith teaches the exact opposite. When LDS COs made clear that they disapproved of female leaders for religious reasons, BSA made leadership restrictions a local option. LDS folks have no problem with women in charge of other troops, they just don't want them in their own troop. So your CO could exclude gays on religious grounds and mine could accept them for the same reason.

Gern, maybe they object to singing Broadway showtunes around the campfire.

Rooster, you are confused. That is NOT heterosexual behavior. That is merely normal tenderness between two people who love each other. It is not the exclusive domain of straight folks.

The council spokesperson said of his scouts going camping, "... nearly all of them come home safely." That is supposed to make us feel better?

tj, you are right. Regardless of what science discovers in this field, there will always be some people who will disagree for religious reasons. Witness the furor about evolution. In the past, people have tried to "cure" the sinister "defect" of left-handedness. Red hair was seen as evidence of a defective fiery disposition and some people dyed their hair to mask this. People with kinky hair were told they were defective and some used hair straighteners. Dark skin ... wacko-jacko (need I say more?) Even today, some women who are genetically flat-chested are convinced they are defective. But we know that these conditions are genetic and are are present at birth and that these people DO NOT CHOOSE to have these "socially unpopular" characteristics. Yes, some genotypes will always be more socially popular than others. BUT, we no longer seriously believe that red-heads are all innate sinners or that the kinky haired are fundamentally immoral (both of these prejudices were common in the 19th century).