Zahnada

I'm putting together a little packet of information on Low Impact/ No Trace Camping for scouts. Does anyone know of any really good online resources for this? thanks.

The "Agnostic Boy" topic quickly turned into a religious debate. Rooster partly described his experience about how he found religion. Such topics truly interest me and I would like to know more about all of your religious experiences. I think we can all agree that religion is quite possibly the most powerful force in the world and guides the lives of many. Yet there are hundreds of different religions. Some are very similar and some are very different. The question I pose is: How did you find your religion? Have you kept the religion you were raised with? Was there a specific moment or person who brought you to your current religion? Have you faced any problems with family based on your choice in religion? Most people believe that their faith is the "One, true faith." They believe that their God is the "One, True God." These are strong beliefs and should not be formed lightly. I am curious as to where these personal beliefs originated from in your lives. I hope that nobody thinks I'm questioning your beliefs or that I intend to use this as a platform to attack you and your beliefs. This is genuine curiosity. Answer if you choose. A healthy religious debate is a great thing for the mind and the soul. But please, keep it healthy and civil.

Welcome to the forum kcolarusso. My first post was ripped up by some people in here. I remember being attacked for one quote in one post that I even explained later in the same post. Goes with the territory. Unfortunately, I cannot offer much assistance because I know next to nothing about the Gold Award. And I think that statement probably explains a huge difference between the two. Everyone in the country knows about the Eagle Scout Award. I say I'm in scouting and they automatically ask if I'm an Eagle. There are expectations of a person who is an Eagle Scout. Even with all the recent contraversy, I've met people who hate BSA policies but still respect what the Eagle rank stands for. Ever notice that in the news whenever a person saves a life or does something extraordinary they always point out that he is an Eagle? They also mention that fact whenever a person does something that goes against the standards set forth by Eagle Scout. The same national recognition does not hold true for the Gold Award. Most people do not know the Gold Award exists. They have no knowledge of what the award stands for or what it takes to earn it. And that's too bad. With some quick internet research I discovered that about 3,500 girls receive their Gold Award every year. In 2002, I believe over 45,000 Eagles were awarded. So one is much more rare than the other. More difficult? Impossible to say. That's all the comparing I can do. I know it doesn't answer your question, but I like to be long-winded. In any case, welcome to the forum. But a word of advice, don't let the forum get the best of you.

Ever get the feeling you're about to walk into the middle of a firestorm and you won't be able to leave? That's how I feel as I write this response. Bob writes: "And what does it say of the people who were responsible for teaching you right from wrong?" I won't ask for a retraction of the statement, but I really hope the conversation does not follow this track anymore. I know that present actions of a person are linked to their parents and their childhood teachings, but there is still no need for this. This is entirely my opinion, but to bring a person's parents into such a discussion turns the focus from a quest for the truth to a personal attack. Fat Old Guy's parents are not the issue and it makes me uncomfortable to read posts that can be interpreted as saying, "You have horrible parents who either screwed up or are horrible people themselves!!" I hope others are on my side on this side-issue. The topic is ugly enough without taking these detours.

I'm starting to agree with Hops. This topic was interesting to me, but the novelty wore off around the time when Dan and Ed were comparing their "stones." This whole thread has deteriorated into nothing but personal attacks. Frankly, it didn't start off far from a personal attack. I consider the accusation that Fat Old Guy is really Yaworski to be a personal attack if there is no actual evidence besides some language style and a distast for Bob White. There is nothing about Scouting in this topic and it's an argument that will make little headway. All this has become is a thread for people to stand on different sides and yell at each other. Even for me, a person who mostly resides in the Issues and Politics section, this thread is distasteful and reflects negatively on Scouting. So, how about that clovehitch? Does it ever come loose on you too? Ruins the whole lashing. (my attempt to add something that pertains to Scouting to this post)

"Eagle is not the end of the scouting experience, but really a springboard to other fascinating scouting venues. Don't quit now!" Great quote, rlculver415! And how true! Eagle is just something on paper you can take with you. It's a physical representation of all that scouting offers that can be recognized by the rest of society. However, these scoutmasters seem to be taking it a bit too seriously. A scoutmaster should never act as "The Keeper of the Eagle Award" where a scout must overcome obstacles to obtain it. Eagle should just be something that's achieved on the route to a greater learning experience brought on by scouting. Therefore, the scoutmaster is one of many guides on this trail. jyoklavich, I too hope that you and your son stay in scouting. It has so much more to offer than this one award.

Mark, You need not worry. I have had disagreements with nearly everyone on this forum. I know that you've argued against me at one time or another. But I still consider you one of the most "courteous" members and I feel that your good intentions flow from your posts. This can be said about many members, but I just wanted to put your mind at ease.

I must agree with what most of you have said. These discussions get us nowhere. Neither side is willing to give any ground and I believe all points and opinions have all been said (not heard, mind you, but they have been said). So I posted this completely unscientific poll to determine why there is some cyclic nature to the gay issue. Luckily, the favorite response is that people don't care either way. Yet, there is nearly a tie between those who feel BSA will change by their own decision and those who feel BSA will never change. This is why we continue to argue and debate. If everyone agreed that change was inevitable or impossible, then there would be no discussion. That's why the atheist controversy hasn't been as popular because few believe that scouting will ever change their stance on that issue. Disagreement fuels communication. Communication is a natural attempt by humans to bring things out of conflict and into some agreement or compromise. This is why we debate the gay issue. Because we don't know what the future holds for scouting and gays.

Yak Herder, Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Scouting is a great way to bring people from different walks of life together. While we disagree on politics, we do agree that scouting is a wonderful organization and an amazing experience for the boys. I would like to say that I am fortunate to never have had to "mask" my views. Luckily the issue has never come up around the boys and really I never talk about it with the exception of this forum. Although I may sound pessimistic, I have noticed that my scouting interactions have not changed in the slightest due to the controversy. It's outside of scouts where I see the unfortunate effects.

I don't have a problem with any of those responses.

I guess this leads into a question to ask of Yak Herder, Bob White, and Rooster. I hope for an honest response (which I do not doubt you will provide). Do you consider a person like me to be an undesirable element in scouting? I know that none of you know me personally, but you know my views. While I would never discuss these opinions in front of the boys, it is very obvious that I do not agree with the BSA policy on a number of issues. If you had the choice, would you want me in your troop and interacting with your son? I hope you answer honestly instead of something like, "Well, it's not my choice if you belong in scouts." I don't intend to open this up for debates because I'm asking for your personal opinion. I will respect your opinion and let it stand where it is. So, to rephrase the question, do you personally have any problem with me as a scouter?

Bob White wrote: "Don't kid yourself. The Democratic National Committee in 2000 asked the local BSA council to provide an Eagle Scout honor Guard to present the nation's flag and lead the Pledge of Allegiance to open the Convention. Then the thousands in attendance waited for these boys to enter and on national TV boo'd them until they left. Thousands of adults ambushed these boys and you think they want what is best for scouting. They want what is best for their personal political agendas. They want to gain public acceptance threough the aknowledgment of the BSA or they want to shut the BSA down. PERIOD." Well, Bob, your example is about the Democratic National Convention which took place only months after the Supreme Court decision in Los Angeles. Hardly a representation of the United States. Do I doubt that there are gay activist groups who want to make BSA their battle ground? No. Do I doubt that there are political lobbyists who want to use this situation to their advantage? No. Do I think the majority of opponents to the BSA policy fit into these two categories? Not at all. Many of the people who don't agree with the policy are in scouting and want the best for scouting. This is especially important to keep in mind when posting in this forum. To generalize all opponents into one group is flawed because not all of us have the same goals. We feel scouting has made a mistake and this may hurt the program. Most people on this forum wish no ill will upon BSA at all. They just disagree. Even Merlyn does not advocate the end of scouting or even a change in scouting's values. Merlyn only wants to stop government funding of scouts. This is just something to keep in mind before you mentally start dividing the country into two camps on the issue.

"Dale knew what to expect. He did it to start the media ball rolling." I don't know about this, Bob. There are many stories about the situation floating around but it was my impression that he loved scouting and hated to be kicked out. I heard that he was seen at a gay rights activity. It's not like he announced it to his troop and was trying to get removed from the organization. But as I said, there are many stories floating around. Anyone else care to back up one side or the other? In any case, I feel it's important to note that not everyone who is gay or supports gays wants to create large media exposure to force the BSA to change from the outside. Also, not everyone who's included in the "them" do not want to destroy BSA. Many just love scouting and feel it's taken a wrong turn. I get the impression from many posters that it's an "us vs them" kind of argument. It seems that everyone against the policy is often lumped into the vocal, anti-BSA, activists. Of course the flip-side is true about the people who support the policy. There are many generalizations on all sides. It's important to remember that the majority of people from the many different sides and perspectives want only one thing: the preservation and growth of a great organization and the boys who participate.

The gay issue has surfaced in force recently and there are many new voices in the forum. I'm curious as to how people view the outcome of this controversy and if they feel all this banter actually may serve a purpose. So the actual question: What will the future hold for BSA's position on homosexuals in scouting? I'm sorry to limit it to 5 answers, but that's all I'm allowed. If you want to answer it a different way feel free to respond.

Actually, Bob, I think we agree on much of your post. However, I must agree with Mark in that this debate will soon deteriorate in "quibbling over details." And the main detail is: What is considered "policy"? While there may have been a vague policy ("Scouts must be moral") or an implied policy ("Gays can't be scouts") there has never been a written in stone policy on the issue that takes away large portions of interpretation. Such a stated and written "position" on the "policy" now exists. I consider such a strong change in vocalizing a "position" to be a change in "policy." But now we've moved into a battle of words that dances around the real issue. In any case, your post makes some comments that I trust were not directed at me. To clarify, I love scouts and am not trying to destroy the program (but some of you may debate that). I also do not believe that BSA is holding rallies or attacking the gay community. I don't want this to turn into an "us vs. them" kind of debate. There was one of your quotes I'd like to close on, Bob. "The longer scouting holds to its "timeless values" the wider the gap appears with the fluctuating morals of todays world. That doesn't make scouting wrong just different. And we all know how difficult people have tolerating others who are different." And we all know how difficult people have tolerating others who are different? Hmmmmm... That's too bad for anyone who's "different".

Well, Bob, I believe I answered your question and it is now your job to prove me wrong. Quit beating around the bush and answer my challenge. I think it's obvious that I don't know what the written policy was before all this recent discussion because I believe there was none. So enlighten me! You argue that policy hasn't changed in 90 years. Offer me the evidence that you so strongly desire! Show me a passage from the past that openly states, "BSA will not allow gays." Stop asking the questions and start giving some answers to defend your side. If you can prove it (which there is a good chance because your knowledge of scouting history probably surpasses mine) then I will admit I was wrong. In the meantime, I stand by my statement that no such stated policy existed before. It may have been implied. It may have been believed by most scouters. But it was not written policy. Prove to me that it was.

Bob White, I can't help but feel I'm walking into a trap, but I'm very curious as to where you're going with this, so I'll bite. On the BSA's website, under "Press Releases" there's a statement from June 28, 2000 that sets the policy that the BSA adopted because of the Dale Case. It says: "We believe an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law." Now, Bob, I know darned well that you know this information. You've quoted it yourself on numerous occasions. So now that I have taken the bait, you are free to make your move.

Bob White, Sometimes I wonder if you actually read my posts. Of course there is a policy change. The change is the fact that what once was implied but never stated is now written law. The policy change is the fact that there are concrete rules (which their concreteness may be debated) that say "No Gays!" I'd call that a pretty big change. It's even stated on BSA's website. Why can't I find differences from past scout handouts or books? Because, as you have stated, there is no mention of the subject. It's a change because of previous ommision. So naturally there is a massive change in policy, unless you can find in one of your old books and notes, in plain English, a passage that reads, "No Gays!" So in answer to your challenge, "Quit spewing generalities about what you 'remember' or what you 'think' or what you 'feel'. Give me proof that what you say existed in the BSA program." then my proof is that what was silent is now written. Unless you can give me proof that it always existed in writing and plain English. (no interpretations of morally straight)

Bob, Both of my previous points can and do co-exist. Let me start with point 2: BSA hasn't changed. Very true. It's what I agree with you on. You'll be hard-pressed to find changes in BSA values in the various handbooks. The values haven't changed. I'm not debating whether this is a good thing or not. There's a thin line between consistency and stagnation. Now for point 1. The values haven't changed, but the policy has. There are now written rules about gays saying that they are not moral enough to be scouts. The fear is that this policy change can create a value change for scouting's members. The values have always been that we are all human and everyone is equal. The values are that this is a moral program (however you define morals). Those two values haven't changed in the scout handbook, but this controversy may change them in the minds of the members. Boys are learning that gays are not equal. However, the morality argument represents the other side. Both are slippery slope arguments. Do you now understand what I'm saying? No change in values, but a change in policy. This change in policy may (and probably already has) result in a change in values.

Bob White, I agree with everything you said. BSA's values have not changed during its history. As you said, the lack of evidence to the contrary only serves as reinforcement of the truth. I fully believe that if a scout were to publicly come out of the closet in the past, they would receive the same reception as they do today. In fact, they would probably be treated much worse than scouts today. So therefore, BSA is not completely intolerant. I would like to add two side-notes to what I've said. 1. The fact that there's a written "law" and consequences for homosexuals should be counted as a massive change in policy if not in values. It takes control completely from the unit or charter to decide for themselves on the issue which is what I believe people did for the other 90 years of scouting. The effects of a written policy cannot be overlooked. It sends a message to the scouts about homosexuality. Since these boys will undoubtedly encounter gays throughout their lives, this negative message may produce very negative response. Luckily sexuality is left off the troop-meeting agenda, but it's an issue that's always there. Not a change in values, but it could easily become one for individuals or entire troops. 2. Just because something hasn't changed does not make it right. The world is constantly changing and we as humans should be changing with it. (I know the counter-argument will be "Just because society changes, does not make the change right.") Just think about what I'm saying for a moment.

Bob White, I think you misread this passage of Questioning's last post: "Now for a scout who comes to a scoutmaster about orientation the SM needs to deal with it not by telling him it is right or wrong but by guiding him to his parents and not kicking him to the curb." I'm very tired right now, so it's possible that I'm the one misreading it. However, I interpret this to say that the Scoutmaster should help the scout discuss this issue with his parents. The problem with the BSA policy is that it gives people a dehumanizing view of homosexuality. The boy is then abandoned or kicked "to the curb" instead of being helped in dealing with this issue. As for the change in values, an argument can definitely be made that values have changed if you believe that homosexuality is something a person can be born with. I personally feel this is often (but not always) the case. The simple truth is that when a boy realizes (or more accurately "fears") that he's gay, he'll do all sorts of things to change. He may date women he feels no affection towards or maybe isolate himself from society. Sometimes, a boy may feel the best solution is suicide. Being gay is a difficult life. Few people choose it willingly and many try to change or convince themselves they are not gay. With so much effort, I don't believe it's a choice. However, a person can probably be socialized to be gay. I'm sure there are a number of factors that influence a person's sexuality. But if these factors (ie. lack of stong male influence in life, etc.) take place in youth without the boy's choice, then how can be blame him for the result. If homosexuality is something you're born with, then to turn away a gay boy would be equivalent to BSA turning away a boy who's born handicapped. If it's something socialized, then it's similar to BSA turning away a boy who fell in a swimming pool when young and became handicapped that way. (sorry to compare sexuality with birth defects or disabilities. I hope you see the point I'm trying to make) In any case, the existence of an actual written rule that prohibits one group of boys based on circumstances they can't control, is probably a difference in the communicated values. I would call it discrimination, but I know we'll get in a battle over word meanings and then the real subject will be lost. I hope you all slept well. I'll be sure to clarify things that don't make sense when I write in my sleep deprived state. Just ask away.

Bob White, You've made me laugh again. I don't know if we've ever had a conversation where we've accurately represented the each other's opinion. I checked your link on the Trail's End Popcorn thread. My comment towards you in that thread was directed towards the issue of fundraising in general and not specifically the popcorn. So once again, we have our conversations crossed. In any case, I did not mean to offend you in my previous post and it is unfortunate that you took it that way. I guess we are born to disagree. How unfortunate.

One of the few rules of this forum is that there are to be no personal attacks. I think the negative nature of this conversation stems from some rash decisions made by both sides. Bob White started out with a very harshly worded comment. We should always give our fellow scouts the benefit of the doubt. A better response would have been "Am I right in assuming that you're saying______?" This brought on a strong counter-attack that focused on Bob White personally. This is a big no-no for any intelligent conversation. Of course, I can see how Bob's comments warranted a strong come-back, but it shouldn't have happened. I don't really know what type of person ASM514 is so I can't pretend to assume his intentions, but if I go off the criteria that he is a scout, then his intentions must be well-meaning. Always remember that. Bob White is a very passionate man who expresses his passion in many of his posts. I remember he once gave an equally strong response to a post that attacked Trail's End Popcorn as being a low quality product to sell. He also (like many of us) likes to get in the last word. Many people in this forum are very passionate about scouting, religion, and America. We should respect each others passion and we must remember not to let our passions take advantage of us.

"How has scouting influenced or affected other areas of your life?" (ie. school, sports, etc)

I was wondering, where does everyone here draw the line between a "learning experience" and "setting the boys up for failure"? In a boy led troop, the boys should have the ability to make decisions and live with the consequences. Do the other adults in here need to restrain yourselves from interfering in such decisions? An example: What if a patrol decides to go on an extended outing without using a duty roster? They tell you, "Don't worry, we'll do the work as it needs to be done. Everyone will help." As experienced adults, we know that it hardly ever works out that way. Do you veto the idea or do you let them experience if for themselves? I bet everyone in this forum has dozens of examples of boy's ideas that almost made you choke. Any others? Where do you draw the line? Naturally, safety first (ie. "We don't need ropes or helmets to climb" or "This gas will make the fire start quicker.")