Twocubdad

Actually, Ed, that was my first choice, but the Cubmaster talked me out of it.

Not only did Mr. Jones not understand, but the parents thought Bobby's older brother constituted satisfactory supervision (wrong). The Scoutmaster thought the general troop leadership was sufficient for a Cub Scout (wrong) as did Mr. Jones (also wrong). Lastly, the three of them made this arrangement without notifying the pack leaders -- who, oh-by-the-way, were responsible for Bobby. -- were unaware that they had worked all this out without understand in the rules. We knew Mr. Jones was responsible for Bobby, but he had been gone from camp for several hours before the Cub leaders were aware of it. In addition to what ever consent or appointment of guardianship language the document may contain, part of what I want to accomplish is a paper trail so that the parents all understand the rules and responsibilities and the pack leadership clearly knows who is responsible for each child.

Does anyone hav a form they use to officially assign guardianship of a Scout to another parent? We had a issue on a recent Webelos/Boy Scout campout where the "Smiths" "assigned" their son, "Bobby", a Webelos Scout, to be supervised by another parent, "Mr. Jones". Mr. Jones and his Boy Scout-aged son camped the first night but then decided (or may have planned all along) to go home the second night, leaving Bobby under the "supervision" of Bobby's 15-year-old brother who is a member of the troop we were camping with. (Are you with me so far?) Apparently Mr. Jones had cleared this with the troop Scoutmaster (who doesn't understand Cub family camping rules) but didn't mention it to any of the pack leaders. When the Cubmaster and I realized what was going on, we immediately recognized that Bobby needed to go home. We then found out that the Smiths were out of town. Bobby's grandfather, listed as his emergency contact couldn't (or wouldn't) pick him up until morning. At that point our only option was to turn Bobby over to the sheriff's department or make the best of the situation. We had plenty of adults to be two-deep and Bobby did tent with his brother. An uncle did pick him up early the next morning. We've decided that from now on unless a parent is physically on-site with their son, we will require written permission for the Scout to be assigned temporary guardianship by another parent. The form will be required to be signed by the parent, the guardian and the tour leader. We will probably tack-on the appropriate rules and regs from the G2SS to be sure everyone understands them. Does anyone have anything like this? If not, can anyone suggest the verbage we need to include?

Bob, what these Scouts are doing is called Show and Sell which is a very common practice in our Council and community. The pack pre-orders an inventory of popcorn and the scouts sell it outright in front of local businesses. In our pack, or popcorn chairman arranges the sale locations and the scouts sign up for shifts. For my to two boys, we only sell at the show and sell. It is much easier and profitable. You make the sell and are done with it. No paperwork, not deliveries, no collections. As for the scouts crossing over into your territory, it doesn't seem sporting, but probably needs to be handled at the Council level.

That's what I'm looking for, Paul. I'll have to double-check if this is the manufacturer of our tent, but even if it isn't, I'll look for a accessory list. Thanks.

Bob I thought your first answer was a good one, in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Statement on Religious Principles. The key is that the application asks for a "religious reference" not necessarily a reference from a "religious leader." Hypothetical question, though: if a Scout and his family practiced a non-traditional faith, unaffiliated with any organized religion, would you accept a religious reference from a parent? Similarly, would a letter from a family friend be acceptable if it said something like, "Although I don't fully understand this Scout's religious beliefs, he demonstrates his duty to God by being a person of high moral character and serving others." I don't have a point to make, I'm just trying to understand the limits.

Rooster, either you're going to make an argument for biology or not. Which is is? Your last post contradicts your previous one.

When we Cubs camp, it is always family camping, but the rules clearly require us to have age-appropriate activities if younger siblings are along. If the weekend is a camp-craft sort of event and the little guy can just hang around the tent under mom's supervision, that's one thing. But on hikes or other events where he interfers or hinders the activities for the Scouts, he needs to stay home. This is waaaay off topic, but I'd like to comment on Chippawa's story. I thought you were going to say that the kid starting "Scouting" at age five with his brothers, but burned out by age 12. But this kid's been all the way through the program, made Eagle and now at 17 he's tapering off. And this is a bad thing? Is his Scouting career less that successful simply because we didn't have to throw him out, kicking and screaming, at age 18?

Last spring our pack purchased one of those large, 10x20 portable tents/awnings you can park a truck under. It's turned out to be surprisingly useful. Two local troops have borrowed it, we used it at day camp, our CO used it for vacation Bible school, an ASM in the troop used it at his daughters wedding, etc. ect. ect. The pack even used it once! Question is if anyone has a good idea for storing and carrying it. This sucker weighs over 100 lbs. easy, and takes two mules and a jackass to move. We've got the tarp, pipe fittings, bungees and guy lines in a big Rubbermaid-type tub. But the hassle is the pipes. There are probably 20 6- or 7-foot by 2.5-inch steel pipes for the legs and roof structure. We've tried bundling them together with the bungees, but can only bundle them into pairs. I've thought about having a local cavas company make us a couple of canvas tote bags large enought to hold pipes with carrying straps. But before I spend that money, I wanted to ask if anyone else has a better idea.

Okay, CJ, I'll agree with you. Anything is possible. In the future we could decriminalize pedophilia, rape, murder or anything else. It's also possible that civilization as we know it gets wiped out by an asterorid. But beyond that, I don't understand your point.

I've heard putting them in the top rack of the dishwasher works. Or I suppose you could wash them by hand and stuff them with newspaper to keep their shape while drying. I've said before cub hats are really cheap and tend to fall apart. We've had more than one not make it through a full year. Be gentle with them.

The Insignia Guide seems to make a distinction between Cub Scout uniforms and Webelos uniforms with each wearing the Progress Toward Ranks or the Compass emblem, respectively. But I'm not going to tell a kid to take it off, either. From a standpoint of encouragement I may suggest that he needs to try to earn his compass emblem and wear it instead of the PTR beads.

Actually, Hinkley is in a mental institution and has recently applied for unsupervised furloughs to visit his parents. Dare I ask? What's your point.

Last year was off for us, although we ended up "plus one" or better in all three areas. I haven't heard totals for the district, but I know we were already plus one or better in Boy Scouts and Venturers and the early Roundup numbers were very strong for the Cubs. My pack, er, the pack for which I spent two evenings signing up new Scouts, did very well with about 35 new boys, including 24 new Tigers.

Bob White wrote: "Your son is welcomed by the BSA, and so are you, as long as you choose not to make your sexuality a public issue. But if making your sexuality known is more important to you than being a scout leader for your son you will likely be barred permanently from membership. " I want to be sure I understand this, Bob. Despite the fact that Phil has "come out" regarding his homosexuality, has a male partner, and is open with his son and at least a few members of the community, he still has the opportunity to become a Scout leader as long as he doesn't make his sexuality a "public issue" from this point forward? Did you intend to say that or am I reading it incorrectly?

Just as a point of historical accuracy, CJ, the Constitution does not mention the rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. That would be found in the Declaration of Independence. I also found an interesting web site containing the text of all six Constitutions of the State of Alabama. http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/constitutions.html The preamble reads, "We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:" I'm not sure what 'invoking the favor of God' really means in this sense, but I suspect it is more a ceremonial flourish that a real statement of faith. However it is quite a stretch to construe that to mean all constitutional officers must seek the favor of God. Quite to the contrary, Section III "Religious Freedoms" specifically says "that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles." That section also says, in part, "...no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship..." Interesting.

Doesn't it feel good to know that your opinion is shared by the Supreme Court of the United States, Ed?

CJ, I won't try to parse and respond to every point of you post, but a few high points: If your test answers demonstrated an adequate understand of evolution but was graded as wrong because you added your opinion that you believed differently (and assuming it you weren't asked by the teacher not to include your opinions on the exam) then you were wronged. You should have appealed the grade to the school administration. That would have been your right. One over zealous teacher doesn't invalidate the First Amendment. There are zealots on both sides. If you truly believe that Greek Mythology constitutes the establishment of religion, then file suit. That, too, is your right. You may even approach the ACLU about representing you. Who knows, NJCubScouter may take the case for you. I don't disagree with you that much of the media and education "establishment" is dominated by liberals. The values, attitudes and world views of people who are drawn to those professions by their nature tend to be more progressive. By the same turn, most of the military and business "establishement", among others, tends to be dominated by conservatives for the same reason. So what? I can make the argument that the world should be thus -- that journalists and teachers should have a progressive outlook and seek change, while those who have the responsibilities to protect our economic and security interests should be more conservative and interested in maintaining the status quo. (But of course that's painting everyone in those professions with much too broad of a brush.) You don't really believe that because the courthouse square is "public property" you have the right to do what you wish with your share, do you? If you do believe that, go for it. Go camp on your portion of the square or maybe plant tomatoes. Note: take bail money with you. Of course I'm being facetious, but there is a serious point there, too. Under our representative system of government, We the People/the government/the majority (whatever you want to call us) are given certain powers over the individual. Those powers are expressed in the body of the Constitution. The government can draft us into military service, they can tax us, and they can pass laws and imprison us if we violate them. But the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit those powers and to protect the rights of the individual against the rule of the majority. The majority may not impose its religious beliefs on individuals. The majority may not take the life, liberty or property of an individual without due process of law. The majority may not impose cruel and unusual punishment on an individual. It is not that one or two will tell 10 million what to do, rather that when it comes to our protected freedom, 10 million cannot tell one or two what to do. Democratic government without a guarantee of individual rights is mob rule. Last thing, you said the school systems are trying to take religion from our lives. How's that working out? Did your experience in the public schools diminish your faith? Was anyone ever successful at preventing you from bowing your head and offering thanks before a meal or asking for guidance before an exam? How would they have done that even if they wanted to?

The short answer, Ed, is that the courts have said that the display of religious symbols on public property equal the unconstitutional establishment of religion. Like it or not, until it is changed, that's the law of the land. But to answer your question -- and to continue you metaphor -- display=promotion=establishment. While you may not choose to see the use of public resources for the display of religious symbols as the promotion or establishment of religion, I don't see how it isn't. Displaying a religious symbol may not "establish" a religion in a grand, formal sense, but it certainly promotes a religion. No one would argue that erecting a large Nike swish on the courthouse square doesn't promote sneakers. No, displaying a religious icon is not the same as passing a law making Christianity the official religion of the United States, but it does further the cause of the particular religion. Let me ask you this: why would you choose to publicly display a religious emblem? Forget where for the moment, it could be on your lawn, the bumper of your car or hanging around your neck (all of which would be perfectly legal, by the way.) Ultimately, does it not go back to the Great Commission to spread the Gospel? By proclaiming your faith publicly are you not trying to witness to others? Even if it is a small, subtle way isn't your purpose to bring others to your faith? All of which is a great thing. That we live in a country where you are free to persue those goals is one of our cherished freedoms. But I have to wonder why you would feel the need to involve the government in that?

Along the same line of logic, I think the courts have also ruled that Christmas trees and Santas are not religious symbols. Santa is a no-brainer, but you can make a reasonable argument either way for trees.

Maybe your council is different, FOG, but here we have hard-and-fast start and stop dates assigned to us by the United Way. Since we are one of the first organizations to do our fundraising following the UW campaign, they are pretty persnickety about us not jumping the gun. (Reason #374 to tell the United Way to stick it in their ear.)

I'm sure Merlyn will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember that the Supreme Court case involving holiday displays on public property was exactly as you describe. Both a creche and menorah were displayed and both had to be removed. Of course such a ruling is going to effect more Christian displays than those of other faiths. When was the last time your saw a Hindu shrine on the courthouse lawn? I have to confess that I don't really understand the reasoning behind wanting such a display in front of the courthouse or town hall. It seems to me they would be more appropriate and more meaningful at a church or synagogue or in front of the home of a person of that faith.

Along the same lines, here's a nice column from the morning paper: ----------------------------------- Eagles soar with family's love by KEN GARFIELD When you've spent 18 years raising triplet boys, this is the moment you've lived for. Forget the diapers, ear infections, dirty laundry, driver's licenses, college tuitions and girls -- all times three. Your three sons just became Eagle Scouts, together. Who said these guys have been anything but three times the pride and joy? I admired Dwight Dana of Darlington, S.C., long before he and Paula had Brenton, Payson and Radisson. I'll let you figure out why one is named for the old uptown Charlotte hotel. We were both young journalists in South Carolina back in his pre-triplet days. He was a good-natured sort who couldn't have known then what was about to hit him. It hit, and he and Paula dedicated their lives to raising the guys as good as they knew how. They just sent them off to college -- Brenton to Florence-Darlington Technical College, Payson to Coastal Carolina and Radisson to the hell that is freshman year at The Citadel. "He says it's the hardest thing he's ever done, but he says he's going to stick it out," said Dana, 58, a reporter at The Florence Morning News. But my old friend didn't call to tell me about college or the fact that the bedroom with the "three little single beds," as he put it, is suddenly empty. He called to tell me that the three boys simultaneously earned the rank of Eagle -- an apparent first in the history of the Boy Scouts of America. Brenton conducted a food drive for his project. Payson and Radisson each found old church cemeteries to clean in Darlington. But the projects aren't the greatest achievement here. The greatest achievement is that three boys dodged all the temptations that get teenagers off course; they stuck with scouting until the end. They didn't worry about the daily tumult of life in the home of triplets. They refused to let the normal, everyday bickering between brothers take their eyes off what mattered most: Starting something special. And then finishing it. "It was," their proud dad told me, "just the pinnacle." Dwight and I talked some more about the boys, and wrestled with correctly identifying their three photos. You try sorting out triplets some time by phone. Then he said something that helped me understand how they made it all the way to Eagle Scout -- how any child has a better shot at growing up great if there are parents behind them. Truly behind them. "There's not a day in my life that I didn't tell them I loved them," he said. "And they told me the same thing."

Our Council will cancel prizes for individual Scouts selling before the start date and fines the units if it is an organized thing. You're right about it being a poor example.

Neckties in family tartans are very common as are a variety of scarves, sashes, hats and plaques. Try the above link for e-Scots or www.DunedinScottish.com Both are very reputable companies I've done business with before. I bought my kilt through Dunedin and met the owner several times.