whitewater

It seems like no one can discuss politics without the discussion degrading into name-calling.

It did appear that there was more mud slinging this year than in past elections. It was on both sides as well, but I felt like Kerry was given more favorable press than Bush. I also thought that the 527's on the democratic side (especially moveon.org) were the more viscious. I also think I saw somewhere that the democratic 527's had much larger advertising budgets.

I keep hearing democrats claim that the swiftvets were dis-credited. I have yet to see or hear this. Where was this discrediting done? I also thought it was a bit odd that there were 6 or so of Kerry's fellow veterans supporting him, while the swift-vets claimed to have about 200 or so.

Merlyn,

It sounds like Hunt correctly interpreted your intentions and yet you said "Hunt lies:" That doesn't seem to be very fair- Hunt appears to be one of the most level-headed and open-minded people here.

How do you feel about military chaplains? It seems like they are even more discriminatory toward atheism than the Boy Scouts and yet your tax dollars are paying for them too.

I suppose there is a legal difference between access and sponsorship. However, it is unlikely that any of the Scout Troops on military bases will actually go away. They may cease to be sponsored directly by the military but they will then be still be sponsored by another group or entity on the base. And since they will still be afforded access and resources they will retain some semblance of support.

Because of that, I doubt the assault on the Boy Scouts will stop when they are no longer directly sponsored. That is why I was referring to access in my arguments- I was simply trying to be more general.

Personally, I don't see much technical difference between the military sponsoring a Boy Scout Troop and having Catholic Chaplain on the payroll. Yes, I know a chaplain must provide generic religious services if there are those of other faiths present. But it is still religious in nature, which means there is no benefit to atheists.

Merlyn,

No, I'm afraid I don't agree.

How is removing access to a group with a particular viewpoint to be construed as promoting equal access to all viewpoints?

I don't see government sponsorship of the Boy Scouts as practicing religious discrimination unless the BSA is the only sanctioned youth organization allowed. As long as other groups are allowed and you aren't forced to join, I don't see a problem.

I don't think anyone here doesn't understand the Constitution or the First Amendment. The problem is that everyone looks at issues through their own perspectives.

Everyone has a basic belief system that shapes their lives and the way they look at things. Christianity is a belief system- Buddhism is a belief system- other religions are belief systems. Even atheism and agnosticism are belief systems.

And there lies the problem with the ACLU's postion as I see it. By removing religion from government (which could be argued isn't even possible because government is still run by people who have inherent beliefs), what we are left with is an atheistic belief system. In other words, we aren't really left with government not promoting religion. In fact, we have government promoting atheism. Atheism is not the absence of religion- it's just another belief system.

I think the proper solution is not removal of everything religious. The proper solution is the teaching of tolerance for others' views and beliefs, and providing equal access for all viewpoints.

I believe the policy is that "avowed" homosexuals aren't allowed in Scouting. In other words, if someone is outspoken about their sexual orientation they are not allowed to join. I'm sure there have been, and will continue to be many homosexuals in Scouting that just never talked about it and it never became an issue.

You'll see a lot of arguments in these forums in support of this policy (and against), but my feelings on the issue are that sexuality and discussion of related topics have no place in the Troop. The parents have complete control of this topic and any leader that discusses sexuality (other than to refer it back to the parents) is out of line.

The problem with an "avowed" homosexual is that by just being there and the knowledge of who he is, the topic is likely put on the table. Just my opinion.

Another problem is that the Boy Scouts will lose a lot of support if this policy is changed. Many people feel strongly that homosexuality is morally wrong and that it is a behavior that shouldn't be encouraged or condonned.

I know quite a few parents (right or wrong) that would pull their kids from Scouting if their Troop got an avowed homosexual leader. Yes, I know they could just change Troops. But the real point is that there are a lot of people who still don't believe homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.

Eamonn,

I don't know anything about that SM that let you forget the food, so I can't say if he was a twit or not, but if the campout was close to home as you said I might have been tempted to do the same. I doubt I would have if the campout was a 6 hour drive.

Since the consequences of forgeting the food were a little greater, perhaps the lesson learned sunk in a little more. Did you ever forget the food again? I wonder if the missing food had been discovered earlier with little or no consequences, if the food would have been forgotten again?

I think the hydrogen fuel cell will be viable soon. President Bush has been pushing it.

The current problems with it are that the fuel cells are very expensive to produce, there is no infrastructure in place to provide hydrogen to fuel-cell cars, and the hydrogen itself is about 4 times as expensive as gasoline to produce. These will improve with time and I think we will start seeing hydrogen-fuel cell cars on the road in 5-10 years (maybe sooner if oil prices continue to climb).

Also, someone mentioned burning hydrogen- fuel cells work by a chemical reaction that combines the hydrogen with oxygen and creates electricity and water. There is no combustion taking place.

"As soon as the boy cries out of fear, or looks for a way to publicly back out, you've added more potential for ridicule here."

Not necessarily. If it does develop then a leader should step in. There is potential for ridicule in almost everything an 11-12 year old does but we can't eliminate everything.

I don't disagree that hazing is bad. I don't even disagree with most of what is said here (although I like playing devil's advocate sometimes), but I do think we get caught up in being PC sometimes and worry about too much.

Singing for the return of lost items can be hazing but often it's not and I don't see anything wrong with it as long as it isn't allowed to go too far.

Life is full of hazing- I have to do things all the time I don't want to do.

I don't see singing for lost items to be hazing as long as it doesn't get out of hand. The staff has to be sensitive to what is going on. Our camp staff still has you sing for lost items but usually a staffer or 2 will join in with you, and if it is obviously deeply disturbing to you they won't push it.

I've seen kids that have been terrified to get up in front of people. Should we just accept that they are like that and see that they never have to get in front of a group, or should we encourage them to get over it through prodding, games, etc.

I think we often get carried away with the no-hazing, politically-correct diversity stuff. Suzzie is a game and it adds to the "character" of the camp and staff.

It's impossible to never offend or embarass someone and we can't go through life worried about it. As responsible leaders, we need to step in if it goes to far but I think we do a dis-service to our youth if we try to protect them from everything. When they get out on their own it will become quite a shock to them to find that real life is not what they saw growing up.

Have a great time! In my opinion it's some of the most beautiful country in the world! I've been to the boundary waters quite few times, both to Sommer's Canoe Base and on my own.

Are you going to the canoe base? Are you using an outfitter? Or are you traveling on your own? Sommer's and most outfitting options will supply the food. If you are on your own, some of the guidelines that apply to backpacking will also apply to canoeing. Weight and bulk are still important, but not as important as backpacking. Remember there will be times when you must carry everything between lakes. Many portages are quite short, but there are some that are long, too.

We always paddle with 3 people to a canoe and 2 packs. One pack is shared by the 3 for personal gear and the other pack is group gear and food. When portaging, 2 people carry the packs and paddles, and the third carries the canoe- very efficient and quick.

Bug spray is important- the Minnesota state bird (the mosquito) has been known to give welts to the canoes and has no trouble bitting through jeans and flannel shirts.

I'm not sure what you mean by wearing the OA sash on the belt, but when I was on camp staff (long ago), we would fold the sash in two and loop it over our belt at our side to carry it on Thursday afternoons. We were usually pretty busy preparing for parents night and the call-out and staff village wasn't always very convenient. We never considered that to be wearing the sash- just carrying it until it was time to put it on.

I can't imagine the shock and pain. They will be in my prayers.

I was once involved in a Troop where the adults were "subsidized" by the boys. The SM insisted that he should not have to pay for food on campouts because he was donating his time. I didn't agree and saw nothing wrong with the adults paying the same as the boys.

There are extremes in the other direction as well. After spending over $70 last weekend on gas to transport boys to an out-of-council event, a little subsidy would have been nice!

I know a lot of Eagles are involved in planning their own COH's, and they probably should have some input, but shouldn't it be the Unit and family's responsibility? It seems to me that an Eagle COH should be a special recognition. Isn't recognition for a job well done more meaningful if it comes from someone else?

I've never liked the recognition program we have at work because we have to nominate our own projects. I want my work to be noticed by others not me.

Yes, 11 yr. olds can lead 11 yr. olds. But the point about them being a different animal is valid. They will require more guidance and follow up than more experienced Scouts. Maturity can also be an issue. But then I've seen 16 year old that weren't very mature either.

To those that have had bad experiences with 11 yr. old leaders:

Were they trained or just thrown into the job?

Were they elected by their peers so that they had some "validation"?

Were they given extra guidance?

Deloe,

Forgive me if I've come across as rude or overly confrontational, but I sincerely cannot understand your position. I don't deny your right to hold that position, I just don't understand it.

I sincerely believe there is an agenda by liberal groups to "punish" the Boy Scouts for their beliefs. To me, that is where the intolerance lies.

I have no objection to anyone practicing a homosexual lifestyle. I do object to it being celebrated or promoted. Neither homosexuality or heterosexuality has any business being discussed or promoted in a Scout troop.  If that is intolerant, then I guess I am.

I am curious about your beliefs that we have no choice in what we believe. Will you elaborate more on that?  It seems to me that if we have no choice in what we believe, then it is not much of a step to assume that we have no choice in our actions either.  Aren't our actions a consequence of our beliefs?

You said I had no cases where the Boy Scouts were not considered a religious organization- here's one: In 2002, Powell v. Bunn stated: To be sure, there is a religious component to the Boy Scouts--that is, a scout must profess to believe in God and must take an oath to do his duty to God. In addition, a scout may choose to earn a religious emblem for his uniform by exploring his religious values. But a scout's religious beliefs--both their strength and their substance--are left to him and his family; any exploration of them is done individually and voluntarily. Beyond that, the record establishes that the bulk of Boy Scouts' activities is secular (i.e., recreational and social). The record provides no basis for concluding that religious teaching or indoctrination is a substantial purpose or activity of the Boy Scouts, which is a fact that "reduces the risk that government aid will in fact serve to support religious activities." Tilton, 403 US at 687.

Deloe:

Don't atheists choose to not believe in a supreme being? No.

That makes no sense to me.  A person's beliefs are not a choice? Are we pre-programmed?  Don't people change their views?

Are you suggesting that it's not proper to fight a suit? No, Im suggesting that its not proper to AUTOMATICALLY fight a suit, regardless of the subject of the suit.

I'm sorry, but if I feel I'm right about something, I'm going to fight back.  You seem to think that the Boy Scouts are wrong and they know they are wrong.  I'm here to tell you that they are correct and they believe they are correct.

If the City didn't feel the agreement was the best use of the land, why did they originally extend the lease? Because they were evaluating it on unconstitutional bases.

They felt they were correct at the time.  The only reason the judge ruled it unconstitutional was because he decided they were a religious organization- which I very strongly disagree with.  There are cases that determined the Boy Scouts were not a religious organization and that will be the grounds for overturning this judges ruling.

Do you have an example of one? I know of quite a few atheist groups that are not receiving rent-free leases from the City of San Diego.

Again, that is only relevant if they applied and were turned down

Do you honestly believe that if the lease were offered on the open market and the Boy Scouts still were able to retain the lease, that the issue would be over? Yes.

B--- Sh--.  If that were true, then all groups recieving "special" deals would have been named in the suit, not just the BSA.  The BSA was specifically targeted and they will continue to be targeted.

Religious organizations are exempted from state and federal laws which would affect their ability to choose their leaders or exercise their beliefs. Its not quite that simple.

It is that simple- anti-discrimination laws were written with specific exceptions for religious organizations.  If the Boy Scouts are classified as a religious organization, then they should be exempt from being required to have leaders that don't share their views on that basis.  Besides, constitutionally protected freedoms should carry more weight that anti-discrimination laws (regardless of how honorable the intent).  Otherwise the laws are inherently unconstitutional.

(This message has been edited by whitewater)

"...HUD grants explicitly forbid religious discrimination."

So isn't it discrimination to exclude a group because it is religious?

I don't think the BSA breeds hatred for atheists. I've been involved in Scouting for over 30 years in various capacities and locations and I have never seen anything remotely like what you are accusing us of.

The negative attitude toward atheism that you are experiencing is brought on by yourself, not any BSA indoctination. Virtually every Scouter on this site devotes hundreds of hours a year to providing a program for boys that they strongly believe in.

You've come into our "community" and virtually denounced the BSA as an evil organization because they discriminate against atheists and gays. And then you are surprised because you receive a negative reception? And then you have the gall to blame that reaction on "an organization that breeds hatred".

I agree that adults wearing a patrol patch is wrong since it violates uniform standards. However, there is nothing that says the adults can't have a patrol flag and set an example for the boys in that way.

The merit badge program also encourages the boy to show some initiative and pursue individual interests. Its hard to get some boys to show initiative, especially when they are often used to having everything done for them.

I agree with the others. 17 boys out 80? That's not just a red flag, it's a red billboard.

From the slim information, it sounds like the boys might not feel "empowered"- like the program isn't theirs. It's important not to get into a rut and do things just because "that's what we've always done". And the boys should decide what they want to do- adults should have very little input.