Scouter99

clearly its indicative of what kind of council you have

A typical council based on the comments re:OA that generally bubble up online.

If the late great OGE were here' date=' he would probably say this thread should be closed under "Godwin's Law." I will just say that the sentence quoted above is just about the most hideously inappropriate statement ever made in this forum. It is absolutely disgusting. Scouter99, you should be ashamed of yourself[/quote']

I'm not. I find your embracement of government putting people's convictions in front of the muzzle to be disgusting. 1983 was a warning, not an instruction manual.

 

RememberSchiff' date=' that is a testimonial to the character of your IH and COR. It is also what Jesus would likely do. The town council can't possibly learn from it if they aren't given the chance. But if as you say, the object lesson would not 'take' with the town council, it is still the right thing to do.[/quote']

 

"Let totalitarians be the first into their furnaces" -Jesus. See, Jesus says whatever we want him to say.

In all seriousness, chasing people with whips and flipping over tables is not out of the question when we ask what Jesus would do.

 

A troop is not in a position to discuss a B.S.A. policy. Look how well the "chapter" rep did.

Exactly. The"subject" is the scouts' application to sell water, not the membership policy, so what does NJ mean when he blames the scouts for not discussing the matter at hand when the council wants to discuss a different matter? He wants gays so don't expect anything except flagellation.

I got one, it was as big as a tent, never wore it any. If Pascal Tessier is reading, I'll sell it to you for cost+shipping, it's great for parades.

It's sad' date=' but there were people arguing for admitting gays into the BSA on this forum who were insisting this kind of thing would never - never! - happen.[/quote']

Liars or delusional?

Our 15-yr-old chief uses tobacco right out front of everyone. Frankly, it's the kind of thing I expect from the OA.

Anyone else find it a bit amusing that the belicose instigator does not even know where the BSA is located nationally? And the press that let that slide is just as ignorant. None of these people that push this political football care a whit about the kids. And the media' date=' about half the time, has wrong information, and mis-identifications on photos and in stories. They do not know the difference between cubs, scouts, and senior level youth and often take things out of context in order to make it seem worse than it is.[/quote']

My favorite was the lesbian mom/den leader from Virginia who had won all sorts of awards that do. not. exist. What a great scouter! What a great reporter!

 

This story highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism as well as any could. This tin god big fish in a little pond decides its his duty as a member of government to censor and persecute a group of local 11-yr-olds operating under their Supreme Court affirmed rights. Bastiat couldn't have written a better hypothetical. If Guerlain is going to build gas chambers let him and his voters be the first ones in.

 

You'd think an idiot bent on "sending a message" would find the correct address first. Hah, Washington.

If we want to get more specific around use of Scouting in politics, it will get tough. There were Boys Scouts doing the flag ceremony at the Democratic National Convention. One of the people published in the voting guide in California for Proposition 8 listed in his profile his role in the San Diego Council - would we want him tossed out?

 

If a Scout or Scouter wants to broadcast their membership - great! The only time to remove him or her from scouting is when they are in violation of the oath and law. Being involved in politics is not a violation of the oath and law, in my opinion. Rather - involvement in politics is encouraged by our beliefs.

Do your homework.

Scouts/Scouters were prohibited from wearing their uniforms in support of political causes before the membership vote, the membership resolution itself again explicitly prohibited Scouts/Scouters from using their uniforms to participate in political campaigns (precisely because everyone knew that the supporters were going to march in uniform beside the pervs that populate these parades).

A candidate saying "I'm a Boy Scout leader" is indicative of what values he holds, not using his unit/uniform to promote his platform--there's no comparison unless the guy wears his uniform to the debate. And if he does, then, yes, he should be disciplined.

BSA's encouragement for boys to be active in their patriotic duties, such as participation in the political process, does not mean that Boy Scouts should put on their uniforms and campaign for a particular party. You know that and you're being deliberately obtuse, or else you're dumb. and I say so right out because it's so annoying and tiresome. Or can I expect your support if I go march in uniform at the Klan rally? That is exactly why when in the past BSA has done things like put out election doorhangers, they say "Vote as you think" not "vote for Roosevelt!"

What this boils down to is association. My gut reaction on this one is "go away and never return" because the boy has made his personal problem a troop problem by enticing fellow scouts to join him. If he were allowed to stay in my troop, he would never, ever get that SM signoff on anything related to Eagle.

I've never had to deal with a Scout bringing drugs to a scout function, so it's all philosophical to me, but I think you've made a grave error in keeping him around. At the very least, you now owe an explanation to your scouts and to their parents as to why you're allowing this wolf to stay among the flock.

Back to association: I've had scouts who were deeper down the rabbit hole than this--harder drugs, seen them high as a kite in public, bled into school--but they didn't bring it to Scouts and if they did it was in the deep dark night by themselves. I have never thought they ought to go because if they keep their drugs away, then Scouting can keep working on them, and I believe its my duty to work on them, and I pray to God I'm doing something good by them. Some have pulled it out, cleaned up, and made Eagle with most people around them none the wiser. Others will live the rest of their lives bouncing up and down. At Boy Scout age, no drug is trivial.

I don't know when or why it started, but situations like this are one reason I'm glad that it's our troop's practice that the Scout Spirit requirement isn't ever signed until after the SM conference. There's no rule or anything, we just do it that way.

Maybe they out to jerk their registration for such flagrant abuse of the symbols of BSA for their family.

Sounds about right.

Maybe the only issue here is the person doesn't like the idea that this is not their candidate and such a gesture is going to sway voters away from their candidate. Is there a wee bit of politickin' going on here that hasn't been brought to light?

I haven't got the slightest idea who the candidate is or what his politics are. I simply know that it is neither OK nor within the rules for a Scout or Scouter to use his uniform to promote a political candidate, platform, or party. The notion that the rule is suspended when it's yourself strikes me as silly at best.

Absolutely not.

I get what he's asking. I'm hoping that it was intended as humor (looking at that smiley thing).

My jokes often tend toward the gothic.

Can we accept Darwinian ideals and accommodate these people?

The line on the federal law requiring proof of age is images taken after 1996 (or something like that, its US Code 2257 but I don't really care to do a lot of Googling down that line), and whether the photo is sexually explicit. A 15 yr old girl sending out photos of herself to elicit a sexual response is illegal because it is pornography and she's the one that created and transmitted. A funny baby photo is not.

My troop dates to 1921, as does our council. In the local museum there is a scrapbook with photos from the first 10 years of the council. And when you look closely at camp photos there are naked scouts in the water or on the shore. In my troop scrapbook, I have one of some of my scouts, along with other senior scouts, who posed very carefully in the buff (so nothing showed but bare limbs and skin) somewhere near a Sierra lake in the mid forties on a hike after staffing the local camp. The adult that sent it to me even included most of their names and a map. At our 85th anniversary, I got a complaint from a parent about the photo, so I now do not display when we have the reunions, though it is still in the archive.

 

Funny how today, the traditional baby on a blanket on a lawn or the floor is seldom seen anymore. That was always one of the ones you did not want mom to show to visitors when you were a teen; or at least we didn't. And almost everyone had at least one of that type.

There are a couple of moons in our troop archive. As many adults as youth

Thanks!

When I was a member of the Y in the early fifties, they had father/son swims on Friday evening that were suits optional. They had a window above that had a curtain on it. And the kids used the same locker area as the adults, including the showers. Of course, skinny-dipping was fairly common even then, even in scouts when in the outback. Of course, we also had to take real showers in open shower areas for PE and sports; there was no excuse that someone might be emotionally harmed by lack of modesty or whatever. It was just the way it was then. In some respects, it may have been better in that we did not have the modern fears of adolescent boys (and likely girls too). Do not know how often I have to almost force boys to go to the showers, even in their bathing suits, while at camp. And they often will not change to suits or clothing if their tent mate is there.

 

But, as I have often said, I am OLD, and was raised in different circumstances and cultural ideas.

And at Boy Scout camps: (warning, obviously there are very old photos of rear ends in this article on the subject at hand) 9th image down is Bucks County Council's Camp Ockanickon http://houseofmirthphotos.blogspot.com/2010/04/old-swimming-hole-by-brooks-peters.html

And on the cover of the official magazine of the UK Scouting association in 1951: (again, be aware, a side view of a rear on a Scouting mag cover) http://storage.canalblog.com/75/55/326328/32474750_p.jpg

Nothing so forward in American Scouting mags, as far as I know, but of course our patron saint Greenbar Bill's photos of Indian campouts would curdle the modern Scouter's blood. http://boyslife.org/wayback/#issue=wfUIHchKA94C&pg=38

Pack18Alex' date=' Scouter99 and others, this is taking on characteristics that were not allowed in that experimental thread. I sense aggression and defensiveness in this discussion. [/quote']

I assure you all that no aggression or defense was intended in agreeing with my Jewish pal, if in more vivid language. I'm more than happy to adhere to the rules you're referring to if you'll favor me with a hyperlink, I don't see any threads started by MattR within the first 5 pages of this forum.

 

If there's one thing for pre-modern times, its cosmopolitanism. Post-nationalism, there can't be any real coexistence. National identities and systems depend on creating identities that fit the biggest group, which creates minorities that must either leave or be given tolerance, which isn't acceptance. Without national identities there are no minorities to be mistreated based simply on identity or considerations to give them, no constant looking for slights real or imagined.

BSA is non sectarian. Those within it are sectarian. No such thing as a non sectarian prayer. Prayer is offered to a deity. Pretending otherwise is silly. Prayers offered not to a deity aren't prayers' date=' they are well wishes. Christians say grace, Jews say Hamotzi, Muslims offer their prayers. The idea of a non-sectarian prayer that includes non Christians is a Christian fantasy. Suggesting that dropping the name of the Christian savior while leading a Christian prayer includes non-Christian monotheist sis insulting to those of us of other faiths.[/quote']

This is why Scout's Own poses a severe danger to me of my eyes rolling out of my head.

The only Jewish boys who've been our Chaplain's Aide have been sort of wishy-washy guys and their closing prayers don't sound any different than the Christian boys who've been prohibited from saying "in Jesus name"--they both say the same stuff and end it with "in your name"

We had a Buddhist boy as CA, his one time he did his job and held a service on a campout was definitely not non-sectarian, it was Buddhist. Big deal, it was interesting.

One other interesting thing from looking at those old reports:

There is actually a lot of info in the reports worth mining for lessons learned - I don't know if anyone has done that other than internally within BSA headquarters for risk factors.

Yes, it's the Warren Report. Link on the bottom left of http://www.scouting.org/jamboree/sitecore/content/bsayouthprotection.aspx

Direct link to the report: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/youthprotection/pdf/WarrenReport.pdf

I did not answer the largest portion of your second-to-last reply to me because I had already made my thoughts on the matter clear (which you have now quoted in your last reply), and repeating them didn't serve anything.

Peregrinator has it exactly right when he says that the agents provocateur are current scouts/scouters who break policy to use their uniforms to protest. I named several, but you saw NJ's name and I imagine saw no more.

I did not tell NJ to consider joining BPSA because he expressed his opinion, I told him if he's got so much grit in his mouth that he can't stand it, to the point that he'll defend these dirtbags who are trying to do nothing but wreck BSA, who deliberately and repeatedly break the regulations you say you' yourself will support if shown them, then he ought to find a movement that he's in line with. And that's true of anyone. I am not a vegetarian, I do not go to the PETA meetings and demand they start serving hamburgers.

Frankly, I have to say I find the suggestion that when a moderator says let a topic die or else I might have to kill it is any different than a moderator just pulling the switch to be a little silly. If you want to split hairs, split them. So, yes, I find it more than a little ironic that you're all bent out of shape over my thoughts on association, and think it's just peachy that a mod tells people he disagrees with to can it. We see the ultimatum differently.

I don't have any personal problem with NJ in general, he's a likeable guy. I disagree with him on a certain point. He seems to understand that disagreement doesn't equal ad hominem, I don't think you need to white knight him any further. Should I have kept it buttoned or expressed myself in a more suave manner? Absolutely, my apologies. Do I hate NJ or think anyone with an opinion should leave? Oh, please.

Yeah, I'm very comfortable calling 97% of the population normal.

This all becomes an exercise in irony as a gay scout leader and his boyfriend get hauled into jail for molesting teenagers.

Gay people preserve the worst stereotypes about gay people, which are rooted not in fear from normal people, but because sex with boys was the central tenet of gay activism from the 1800s until the 1970s. Forgive us for believing what they said about themselves and their desires before they realized it wasn't working for public opinion.

60% of Ineligible Volunteer-Perversion files involving a minor (let's don't forget that there's more than one way to land in the IVP section, including just being gay, and there are multiple categories of IV files) contain information from the public domain, including "newspaper articles, police reports, criminal justice records, and/or records of civil litigation."

This was not a BSA problem, it was an America problem. Unlike the rest of the country, BSA created a comprehensive, nationwide system to keep these people out when they were reported, innocent or guilty.

Like Fred said, hindsight is cheap. In every stage of the evolution on thinking about sexual abuse, BSA has been ahead of the curve--the federal law requiring proof of age in porno didn't even exist until 1988, 5 years after this gay guy took the Polaroids of his victim. The parents didn't even call the police, from a contemporary perspective, the BSA should have called the police, but we're condemning BSA for not doing what the victim's own parents didn't do.

Should Athens have allowed women to vote? Sure. Should the BSA have called the cops against the parents wishes? Sure. In reality, by blacklisting the guy BSA was already doing more than anyone else.

Ineffectiveness of the particular attempt. I think you all do a fine job especially given the crummy state of the software you have to work with.

Unless there is new standard which states that no member can express an opinion in opposition to BSA policy. When I see that' date=' or something to that effect, written in the membership standards, I'll rethink things.[/quote']

We're not talking about members expressing or holding opinions, we're talking about members using their uniforms to participate in political activities, which you know as well as anyone else is prohibited. It was prohibited before the vote, and it is again specifically prohibited in the membership resolution: "...nor may any member use Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda..."

 

Scouter99' date=' I can assure you that the moderator team isn't the progressive thought police. We don't edit, move, or close topics because of their idealogical content. We have from time to time closed or moved topics at the OPs request or when the thread devolves into personal attacks.[/quote']

Right. Ineffectiveness notwithstanding.