Twocubdad

I would be interested in a similar explaination of the ScoutReach program. I was shocked the first time I went to a Council banquet and saw the number of "Paraprofessionals" there. These are essentially just people who are being paid to do what I do for free, right? How much of the rest of the program is being paid for? I don't have a problem with financial assistance for under priviledged kids (my unit usually provides some assistance to a couple families every year), but paying people to be leaders, I'm not sure about.

So if COs have the right to accept or deny membership for any reason, how does BSA enforce its policy against descrimination based on race or disability?

Boy Rooster, if anyone ever claims that BSA isn't a diverse organizations, just point out to them that you and I are both members! I can't disagree more with your assertion that Scouting is simply "a means for the chartering organization to achieve its goals." I'm preparing for our annual pack planning conference this weekend and the first item in the packet is a copy of the BSA mission statement: "The Mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." I can't find a mission statement for our CO, but it lists its priorities for members as "Accepting Christ as Saviour, prayer, faithful attendance, active ministry, scraficial giving and The Great Commission." If our Scout program is simply a means to the CO's objectives, I've got a lot of explaining to do to a couple Jewish families. And we're sure wasting a lot of time on campouts, Pinewood Derbies, and flag folding. We would be much more effective if we simply directed all our Scouts to Sunday School and combined day camp with vacation bible school. I'm not saying there is no common ground between the mission of the BSA and our CO, obviously there is. But I don't see any basis for the notion that the goals of the BSA are subservient to those of its chartering organizations.

Rooster, I understand what you're saying, and I'm sure you are not a racist, but substitue "race" for "faith" in the above statement and see how it sounds. What you are describing is a church school program, not Scouts. Of course, if a Baptist wants only Baptist children and Baptist teachers in their Sunday School program, that is their right. But how does that jive with a "strictly nonsectarian" Scout program? And I'm still hoping for an explaination of how a unit can "shift the focus of the unit to focus on the teachings and obligations of their church," as Bob wrote. As it has been explained here many times, Scouting is a national program and the focus should be on delivering the program as promised in the handbooks. NWScouter -- the passage you quote, Where a Scouting unit is connected with a distinctly religious organization, no members of other denominations or faiths shall be required, because of their membership in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly peculiar to that organization. is repeated in the current(2001)printing of the Cub Scout Leader Book as well. It also says: "The BSA recognizes the religious elements in the training of a member, it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that training." (emphasis on absolutely nonsectarian) "The BSA does not define what constitutes belief in God...." "The BSA does not require membership in a religious organization...." "The BSA respects the convictions of those ... without formal membership in religious organizations." And finally, the section concludes with a highlight line that says "Only people willing to subscribe to these declarations of principles shall be entitled to certificates of leadership in carrying out the Scouting program." But what you guys are saying is that the above is the policy of the Boy Scouts of America -- except for those units who choose not to follow it?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Thanks OGE, nice touch!

It's news to me that non-LDS units can deny membership to a Scout because of his church affilliation. I know that there are many units which are all of one faith simply due to the demographics of the are they serve. I wasn't aware that a unit could actively exclude boys of differing faiths. My understanding was just the opposite -- that the Statement on Religious Principles prohibited religious discrimination like that. But let's see if I understand how this works: A local unit can go beyond national policy as long as they are erring on the side of a stricter or more conservative interpretation of the rule. We may go beyond the letter of a policy, but only of we are furthering the intent of the policy. For example, Safe Swim Defense doesn't require certified lifeguards. However, the unit I serve goes beyond the requirement and has a certified lifeguard supervising our water activities. The tour permit only requires one Youth Protection-trained leader on outings, our unit requres all our Leaders to be YP-trained. Apply that philosophy the the Statement on Religious Principles which says we are to be "strictly non-sectarian." Someone trying to read that fairly loose, liberal way may interpret it to mean "open to all Christian denominations." But to read the statement and err on the side of a stricter, more conservative interpretation -- to go beyond the letter of the statement while furthering its intent -- would be to allow Scouts of all faith, as long as they believe in a supreme being -- Hindus, Native American beliefs, Druids, etc.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Gee, Bob, thanks for your concern. I'll pass your thoughts along to our training committee chairman. I'm sure he'll be in touch. While I am aware that is one of the exemptions offered to LDS units, I didn't know other units could have a closed membership. Frankly, it's disappointing. Maybe you can enlighten us as to how units can "shift the focus of the unit to focus on the teachings and obligations of their church" and still abide by the BSA Statement on Religious Principles, all the while keeping up the official BSA program. I mean if we take part of a troop meeting to teach a merit badge half this board goes into apoplexy, but communicants classes are okay?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

National Association of Flag Manufacturers

Well that's a new one on me. And all this time I thought it was a basic principle of Scouting that the program is open to everyone, regardless of their faith. When we read the part of the statement on religious principles that states that BSA "is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training," we should add under our breath "but our individual units don't have to be." As the President might say, "I can sum this up in one word: 'slippery slope.'"(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I prefer to be called Mr. (last name) by the Scouts. I think it is a courtesy the boys need to learn. It something we've stuck with in my Webelos den, but in my younger son's Bear den, his leader likes to be called Mr. (first name), so among those boys, I'm also Mr. (first name). I don't think it teaches the same lesson, but I suppose it's okay. Another thing, Laurie, one of the reasons your may be getting the response you are when shaking hands is that I was always taught that gentlemen don't shake the hand of a lady. That's been updated to add, "unless she offers her hand first." It's a coustom I still follow. When introduced to a group, I'll shake hands with all the men but not the women, unless they offer their hand frist. It's sometimes interesting to see which women offer a handshake and which oned don't.

All due respect to Bob and Dave, but I don't buy the argument that UU Scouts should equate their religious emblem with a Little League or American Legion award. Scouts of other faiths certainly hold their religious emblems in high esteem, and I don't see why a UU Scout should be any different. While I imagine the folks at P.R.A.Y could clear things up with some statics, I'll bet my shorts that the vast majority of boys who earn the awards do it as part of the Scout program. I doubt seriously that many non-Scouts apply for the medal. Anecdotally, I know that's the case here. Our CO (a Presbyterian church) has equated completing its year-long confirmation class with earning the God and Country. Of all the kids who complete the confirmation class only the Scouts put in for the medal. The reverse of that is true, too. All the Scout who complete the confirmation class apply for the award. No Scout earns the award then sticks on the shelf with the baseball trophies. They all proudly wear the awards on their Scout uniforms. Given that, I don't understand why you would think a UU Scout would have any less pride or interest in his award. I suppoose what bothers me about this is that BSA has pierced the veil of the UU's theology, if I may coin a really pompous-sounding phrase. If a tenent of the UU faith is tolerance for sexual orientation, who is BSA to deny them that belief? BSA doesn't judge the religious content of other faiths. If they did, I'm sure there are elements of other faith which would be more offensive that the UUs position. God only knows what the Zorathrustrians believe -- and then again maybe He doesn't. Now I'm fully aware that the UUs tried to use the religious emblem as an opportunity to gig BSA on it's gay membership policy. They are not without blame in the matter. But the BSA has an obligation to follow it's own Statement on Religious Principles, which at its essence makes specific religious belief off limits to Scouting. Someone (and I'm sorry I don't know who to credit) earlier said they held BSA to a higher standard. I feel the same way. The high ground for BSA should have been to say the UU, "You want to use your religious program to make a political point? Fine, that's your business and we respect your right to administer your religious program as you see fit." Membership policy is different. BSA is fully within its right to tell UU congregations that they can't be COs if they won't adhere to BSAs policies. No argument here on that point. But membership policy and the religious emblem program should be two separate issues. I'm bothered by the fact that they have become entangled. (Note to Bob: Half of everything debated on this board is a non-issue. That's never stopped us before.)(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Roger that, OGE Point taken. But I suppose I would respond with essentially what NJ has said. It seems like a fairly short putt for the units to be registered to a "Friends Of" organization or an independent family services group. But I'm the first to admit I know nothing about military life. Maybe some of you guys in the service can explain how this would work.

Merlyn; There seems to be a fine distinction here you are overlooking. It may take me a minute to explain my point, but here goes: The government is prohibited by statute from discriminating based on race, creed, color, national origin, sexual preference, etc. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment further prohibits discrimination based on religious beliefs or lack thereof (unlike some on this board, I agree with you in that regard. So when I speak of religious freedom here, I include in that the freedom to be an atheist.) A governmental body, and the community of people it represents, decides it is in the best interest of that community to allow various community groups use its common facilities. We the People have spent millions building a particular facility, and it's silly to let it sit vacant for weeks at a time, therefore we're going to open it to public use. After all, the First Amendment also gives us the right to peaceably assembly, it only seems right that we are allowed to assemble on public property. Consistent with the government's anti-discrimination policy, all groups are allowed equal access to the facility. Now here's where we diverge. While the government must follow its anti-discrimination policies in making the facilities available, just because a private organization chooses or is allowed access to public facilities doesn't mean those organizations are required to adopt the government's policy. While I don't have all the case law under my fingers the way you seem to, what I know of it supports this. Skokie, which you mentioned, is on point. If any group is permitted to have a parade, then everyone is. BSA v. Dale is on point. The doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions says the government cannot require you to forfeit constitutional rights in order to receive a benefit from the government. If BSA has a constitutional right to expressive association, how can the government deny it access to facilities for exercising that right? In broad terms -- VERY, VERY broad terms -- I tend to agree with much of your position regarding First Amendment rights. Frankly, I think the Balboa Park case is correct -- if BSA is a private organization, we needs to stand on our own two feet without preferential taxpayer subsidies. But you take your argument to an illogical conclusion. If enforcement of the Establishment Clause was the singular, paramount purpose of government, then you would be absolutely right. But that's not the purpose of government (and before anyone asks, allow me to refer you to the Preamble to the Constitution). I think the bottom line is this: if the government treats all groups -- secular and non-secular -- the same, then it has met its burden under the Establishment Clause. I don't see any support for the idea that government has to be completely sterile of all religions, only that it be neutral among them. If the school gym is used by a fundamentalist Christian church on Sunday mornings, a Jewish congregation on Friday nights, and the local chapter of American Atheists during the week, how is anyone damaged? How is the First Amendment harmed?

Good suggestions. Actually, I think the uniform and the flag were in the original. The best items are those with more than one meaning, like the square knot and compass. I think an application is the last item you pull out. Eight of 10 items is the max, otherwise it goes on too long and you start loosing them. I used this last year at School night and the response was very good.

What an interesting juxtaposition between this thread and the one I just came from regarding the definition of "active." On the one hand, BSA very strictly dictates the meaning of "morally straight" to include things not readily available in a common reading of the words. But the meaning of "be active in your Troop" is left to the interpretation of each individual Scout. Very interesting.

Does anyone have access to or know a link for the "Magic Backpack" presentation? It is used for recruiting Cubs and is basically list of all the stuff in the backpack which represents some element of Cub Scouting. Seems like there were 10 or 12 items. Here's a few I can remember: A small tree branch because Cub Scouts like to go outside and do things. A Scout vittle kit (or maybe a long hotdog roasting fork) because Cub Scouts like to eat good things we cook ourselves. A harmonica because Cub like to sing, perform skits, tell stories and have a good time. A piece of rope tied into a square knot because learning to tie knots is something all Scouts do, and the square knot is a symbol of Scouting, reminding us be fair to everyone. A compass because as Scouts we learn how to use a compass to find our way through the woods. Scouts also learn other things, like honesty and good citizenship which helps us find our way through life.

How can this woman pull this off without the consent of at least the chartering organization? Someone else had to sign off on the recharter, too. If she's acting on her own, the SE should have approved the charter, declaring the statement moot since it violates BSA policy, then revoke the woman's membership.

You're right about the origin, but the line is from Hamlet, "For 'tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard..."

FOG, have you tried the wool dress pants? They're cut like a real pair of men's trousers. I don't remember the price (I got mine as a Christmas present), but I'm sure they're pricy. Of course you don't want to wear them in the woods, but I'm comfortable at enough indoor meetings to justify them You're right about the field pants, though. I think they were all designed for 60 pound 12-year-olds.

Being a dentist nowadays must be a real bummer. They've all mostly worked themselves out of a job. With flouridated water, the whole business is on the down side of the curve. So they've all started spending their spare time taking marketing courses. Going to the dentist is like listening to an Amway salesman. "So are there any parts of your smile you're unhappy with?" What the heck is that?!?!? Last year I went in and was told I needed a full set of x-rays. "Why?" "Well you need to have x-rays every two years" "Why?" "Well they won't cost you anything." "They're free?" "No, your insurance company will pay for them every two years." "I don't have insurance, I'm paying for this myself." "Well we can finance them for your." At that point I'm getting irritated. "Look," I said, "If you can give me a good clinical reason why I need x-rays, we'll do them. But if the only justification is that 'Somebody will pay for them,' then forget it." You would think I had pooped in the middle of the waiting room. I had to sign a waiver declining the service and listen to a long lecture. It used to be that the essence of a professional relationship was that the professional had my best interest at the fore, not their own. When this guy tells me I need something done, I immediately wonder if I need the dental work or if he just has a balloon payment due.

In my humble opinion, it sounds to me like you've planned a really fun weekend -- for the adults. A driving tour of pioneer farms? An architectural tour of old CCC cabins? I would be facinated, but I doubt my Scouts would be. Try and make the stuff more hands-on and active. On the farm tour, can they get out and grind corn or milk a cow? At day camp this year, at the nature station we had rubber models of animal paws and made tracks in the sand. The boys made plaster casts of the tracks. Dismembered animal parts, playing in the sand, slopping plaster all over -- a Cub Scout trifecta! The water activities sound great. You might plan an hour or two of swimming each day. My Webelos all had a scheduled swim period at camp but then chose to go swimming a second time during free period. Turn at least one meal in to an activity by letting the girls prepare it themselves. Hobo dinners (can we still say "hobo"? Is that PC?) have the advantage of being easy AND everyone gets to participate. You've got the big-theme activities, but I would have in my back pocket some easy filler activities like knot tying and stretcher races. Throw a ball in the car for a quick kickball or dodgeball game. I think freetime is great if there are things available that kids can do on their own, like play areas or fishing. But if free time is down time, you're inviting trouble.

Perhaps you can set some minimum criteria, including making it through a couple of shake-down hikes, and then just draw straws among those who make the cut.

Great story, Barry. But turn it around. What would have been wrong if this kid was one to rip through the Eagle requirements? What I get from your story is that different Scouts respond to different parts of the program and methods. That's one of the great strengths of Scouting that it's not one method for all boys. So why do some of us stigmatize boys (or even whole units) who key in on advancement? I was -- and still am -- like that. Tell me to find something to do and I'll likely go find a shade tree. But give me a list of things to do -- or requirements to complete -- and I'm like a dog on a bone (that's not an unhandy trait for a building contractor). My older son is the same way. He really feeds off the acheivement part of Scouting. Christmas two years ago his cousin was bragging about having earned all 20 Webeblos activity pins. The whole ride home, my son was bouncing of the top of the car about activity pins -- and he was still a Bear! Fast foward 18 months. He's now getting ready to start his Webelos II year and already has 15 of the pins. I have no doubt he'll make his goal of all 20 by crossover time. On the other hand, my other son is just the opposite. He loves Cub activites and would go to den meeting five nights a week, but is indifferent about advancements -- even to the point that he has completed some belt loops but never bothers to put in for them with his den leader. Isn't it grand that both boys -- and others who are motivated by yet other things -- can all thrive within the Scouting program? I have no doubt that there are a fair number of paper Eagles and "deathbed" Eagles (love that phrase) out there. Take 40,000 of anything and you'll find a few clinkers. But I'm concerned that some folks have a Rockwell-esque mental image of what an Eagle Scout is "supposed" to look or be like. We may not be adding requirements in the usual sense of "here's something extra to do," but are we adding a requirement that a boy needs to meet our image of an Eagle Scout? My copy of the Scout Handbook shows Troop Scribe, Historian and Bugler as acceptable positions of leadership -- actually the requirment says positions of responsibility, not leadership. While a bookish 13-year-old toiling away at the troop scrap book may not meet our expectation of a leader the same way a strapping, 17-year-old SPL stepping out in front of a troop on a high adventure outing does, both meet the requirement. And I may add both can be fine Eagle Scouts. (Note to Barry -- upon further review, this may sound like I'm ragging on you and the Scout in your post. I'm not. I'm just using you post as a starting point for my thought.)

Meryln -- that's a very lawyerly reading of the religious principles and could make sense except that in practice BSA doesn't interpret it that way. Case in point was the atheist kid booted last year. The letters from BSA were pretty clear that just about any acknowledgement of God, god or gods would have gotten the kid off the hook. I will grant you that in my opinion the trend in BSA is toward a less inclusive application of the religious principles. The membership rules, disallowing the Unitarians religious emblems and other policies seem to me to be nibbling at the religious principle without actually touching it. I would hate to see it, but I would not be surprised to see some "clarifications" issued that would tighten what is now a very broad principle. But again, that's just my opinion. Others may (and I'm sure will) disagree. CubsRgr8 -- you make an excellent point, but I don't think we come to the same conclusions. For exactly the reasons you describe, I would hate to see any youth member booted for merely saying they are atheist or gay. Whenever we have a kid struggling with family or behavioral problems we, as Scouters always say, "but those are the boys who need Scouting the most!" Shouldn't a boy struggling with issues of faith or sexuality be given the same opportunities? Of course we can all envision a worst case where a 17-year-old Scout is particularly outspoken in his beliefs and tries to influence others. That's something that could be handled on a local basis, up to and including revoking the boy's membership. But bottom line, I wouldn't want the same standards applied to youth members as adults. I don't know if the boys in Irving see it that way and are more lenient with youth members, but it seems that all the high-profile cases involve adults.

Red for port and green for starboard