Scouter99

You could tell him that BSA didn't start actively removing gay youth until the 1990s. As far as I can tell, before that, gay youth were only liable to removal if they engaged in sex acts during scouting activities. I base that on this quote from the 1972 Scoutmaster Handbook (the oldest one I have access to):

"Sex Curiosity

...You may discover or hear about incidents of sexual experimentation among troop members. How should you handle such matters?

...Incidents of sexual experimentation that may occur in the troop could run from the innocent to the scandalous. They call for a private and thorough investigation, and frank discussion with those involved. It is important to distinguish between youthful acts of innocence, and the practices of a confirmed homosexual who may be using his Scouting association to make contacts. A boy of 15 of or so cannot be assumed to be acting out of innocence, and should be separated from the troop for the protection of younger boys..." (73-75)

To me, that reads that even a boy who was known to be gay ("confirmed") could be a member without issue unless/until he engaged in sex acts with members of the troop. Frankly, regardless of national policy, that's pretty much the way 99.99% of troops have handled gay kids for the past 20 yrs, anyway. Your boy in question doesn't know that, so he thinks gay kids have always been outright barred regardless of whether or not they're acting inappropriately.

The boy should also be made to understand that only recently have the vast majority of troops been chartered to churches. Before 2002, schools, police- and fire departments, military bases, juvenile detention centers, and even the Department of Housing and Urban Development chartered troops, but in 1998 the ACLU sued Chicago Public Schools, Housing and Urban Dev., and the military because when a gov't employee/agency required a boy to say the Scout Oath, he was forcing the boy to do his "duty to God" and that amounted to a breach of the first amendment. HUD, the military, and Chicago Schools all settled, the military holding out til 2002.

At that point, rather than screw around with it anymore, BSA simply stopped issuing charters to gov't institutions, and those units were forced to move to churches, "Friends of XXXX" LLCs, civic institutions like Rotary Club or Moose Lodge, or even private businesses. Units currently meeting in schools are not chartered to those schools, they have a CO with no space, and a school that's willing to let them use its space.

What this has amounted to is a drastic change in the demographics of BSA, to an institution cornered into churches, and no wonder more socially conservative than it used to be. It's easy for a 17-yr-old to misunderstand BSA as a religious institution; BSA was pigeonholed into churches before he ever entered Scouting.

Why does anyone want to do Woodbadge? Is this some kind of fraternity thing or is there really some benefit to it? And if there is' date=' please describe what those benefits are. Just curious. [/quote']

You cry at the end.

 

In all seriousness, I've got just over 20 years split between youth and adult service, and I feel absolutely no impetus to go to Woodbadge. I've read Hillcourt's 1950s PL Handbook cover-to-cover (yes, even the recipes appendix ) and refer to it often, the current PL Handbook (which took considerably less time with its 14-pt typeface and paltry length ), the Guide to Safe Scouting, Guide to Advancement, Uniform & Insignia Guide, read the current material and watched the videos for youth leadership training, etc etc. That looks like bragging, but what it is is the reason I personally am not planning on taking Woodbadge: I know my scoutcraft and I know how a troop works.

 

However, I do not preach my reticence. I'm the rare bird in long-term, continuing, thoughtful study of the material, and we're all surrounded with guys who are clueless or ignorant and are perfectly happy to remain so. If Woodbadge motivates some of them to get moving, that's great and I'm all for it.

I do get sick of smug people nudging me and asking "when are you gonna get your woggle?" I used to be good-natured about it, now I just say "when I feel like I need it."

What, are you planning on telling them they're not allowed to date? Common sense: No PDA, put their tents far apart. Extra mile: Flour on the ground around their tents

Upload a photo to imgur.com and post a link here.

The short sleeve Cub shirt isn't really any hotter than a regular shirt' date=' and Cubs have the options of buying shorts, or the zip-off Switchback pants. The problem with Cubs is a lighter weight uniform will not last a week. Especially the pants. Little boys seem to be highly affected by gravity. They spend a good portion of their time on their knees, and/or skidding across floors/sidewalks/etc. You need something extremely sturdy.[/quote']

 

I have to agree about tougher pants. I collect old uniforms, and sometimes I get hold of 40s-60s Cub pants as part of a Boy Scout lot, and I've yet to see one pair that the knees aren't worn out. Suggestions that the old uniforms were more durable and/or comfortable strike me as patently ridiculous. The uniform was completely canvas and denim until the 60s or 70s, then it was 65/35 Dacron poly/cotton from the 70s on.

Comfort: Anyone want to postulate that denim shirts are more comfortable in heat? Give me a break. The polyester blend shirts are arguably cooler if they had no collar, but there was an option with a collar. You cannot argue that they were cooler than the Oscar de la Renta (ODLR) or Centennial uniforms based on material, because it's the same material.

Durability: Fully half of the collarless shirts that I acquire are muslin-thin, which might make them cooler, but it's impossible that they were more durable because (1) they were made of the same material or (2) in many cases the fabric was so thin.

I love the old uniforms, but I don't have any illusions about their comfort in some cases, or their durability in others.

 

Digital' date=' your cubs aren't the only ones unhappy with the uniform. The BSA hasn't fielded a functional, durable, affordable, user-popular uniform since the early '70s. Today's uniforms are designed for sedentary activities, like passive listening at meetings, watching powerpoint slide shows and videos, crunching JTE metrics in a cubicle, and the like.[/quote']

 

There's truly no difference between your 1970s uniform and the ODLR or Centennial uniforms. The shirts are made of the same 65/35 Dacron polyester/cotton blend. Sure, the pants were stifling and the shirts were little plastic steamers. But that's true of both: the pants and shorts are the same between the 70s and ODLR, just a different color. The shirts are the same, just no collar in some cases (but again, even in the period you're talking about, you could buy the shirt with or without a collar). The pants for the Centennial uniform are made of a better material for the outdoors. The Nylon Centennial shirts I can't speak to, I never wore one; I have no complaints with my 67/33 poly/cotton shirt.

You also overlook that in the 80s/90s there was an activity uniform option that consisted of khaki shorts and a red polo (http://boyslife.org/wayback/#issue=z2YEAAAAMBAJ&pg=53).

Scouter99:

I wrote two letters to national and got no response. The official word is that I was not prevented for holding leadership positions, removed as a district trainer, and prevented from completing my ticket because I’m not Christian. I was removed because I refused to adhere to the principals taught at Wood Badge.

 

Basically, I didn’t wear the hat unless forced because in my religion your head is sacred and should not be covered. Then, by asking for religious accommodations I wasn’t following the patrol method because everyone in the patrol has to do the same thing, so I can’t go off on my own at any point for any reason AND I had to participate in all the Christian Religious ceremonies.

King DD: I think to be a modern druid you just earn the Astronomy, Sustainability, Bird Study, Fish and Wildlife Management, Soil and Water Conservation, Mammal Study, Reptile Study, and Beekeeping MBs, plus the Leave no Trace Achievement Award, Paul Bunyan Woodsman award, and Hornaday Award.

What non-sectarian means to me and what it means to my council are entirely different. To me it means that a scout must believe in a higher power' date=' but nowhere does it state which higher power. To my Council non-sectarian means non-denominational Christian. At Wood Badge last June I was told that my religion was occult and had no place in Scouting. (I’m Druid; goddess forbid that scouts interact with people who worship nature and count the solstices and equinoxes as holy days!) The upshot of “coming out†as a non-Christian was that I was not allowed to complete my ticket. Then when our committee chair stepped down in January our Troop Committee wanted to put me in his place, but our council said they would revoke our charter if I was Committee Chair. Speaking from experience I can honestly say that I hear a lot about how membership is left up to the units, but even when a unit accepts a non-Christian there can still be significant obstacles from the council and national. [/quote']

 

Your Wood Badge counselor and Council are wrong and in violation of National policy; you should contact your Region or National and have the situation resolved. The Declaration of Religious Principle (http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/Appendix/CharterAndBylaws.aspx) requires no specific faith, only faith. It also explicitly mandates reverence toward difference faiths in carrying out activities.

Watching the antics over at bryan on scouting.....

"Basement Bob," I presume? Quite the battle you're putting on. Definitely a lot of dumb going on in the comments for that blog.

After he decided to turn his scouting manual into a full-blown program for boys, Baden-Powell's program had no advancement, and it didn't float. When he incorporated Seton's Woodcraft Indians advancement concept, he had what he needed: motivation. Young men can camp, fish, set fires, play Frisbee, build a robot, toast marshmallows, and fool with rope anywhere. They get the ceremony, recognition, belonging/bonding, etc. in Scouts.

You ask if a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay. You are confusing a semantic description ("gay") with behavior (homosexual acts). Yes, certainly a boy who considers himself "gay" can entice another boy, especially a younger boy, a boy he has some authority over, or a smaller boy, into homosexual acts. There is currently a thread concerning such an incident on this forum, right now. Without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of expelling the boy from the BSA for his actions (and I agree with "Thomas Jefferson" that the behavior merited expulsion), do you believe that the scout in question was somehow able to locate two other boys who shared a desire to experiment with what sounds like homosexual acts, or at least pretty close to such, or was this a case of a boy who encouraged some naive (probably younger boys) with no pre-existing interest in same-sex acs to experiment in such behavior?

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe that boys who identify as homosexual or bisexual can encourage other boys to try out such acts, I don't know what to tell you. You have an unusual view of sexuality. I don't think a boy with Downs Syndrome will be able to encourage other boys to acquire Downs Syndrome, so you are using a false analogy. Down Syndrome is a legitimate genetic condition, whereas the science is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic, not genetic, or a combination of genetics, pre- or post-natal environment, etc. The research shows that men who identify as gay had childhood (per age 14) sexual contact with adult males in numbers far beyond what straight males have, so could early sexual contact with a teenage or adult male, which would be frightening for most male children, be one of the causes for self-identification as "gay?" Probably. We know that young girls who are molested repeatedly by adult males show an earlier rate of sexualization, a higher rate of promiscuity in adult life, and difficulty in forming adult relationships. Why would sexual contact with a homosexual, and the resultant feelings of shame and loss of masculine identity, not be expected to cause differences in sexual identity later in life in males? Complex human behavior rarely has a single cause, and there could be several reasons why people self-identify as gay. Some people may be born gay, some people may be made into gays. That comports with what we know of human response to early sexual molestation. We see that adolescent females who are forced into child prostitution typically internalize the idea that they are "prostitutes" and quickly adopt the persona that a pimp introduces them to. Sexual identity while young is unfortunately malleable in conditions of fear, shame, and degradation, and this is a lesson that is usually overlooked by LGBT apologists who argue, "well, I'VE always known I was heterosexual. Do you think anyone would willingly CHOOSE to be gay?" The answer, as we have seen, is no. In some (not all) cases, they may well be dealing with the effects of childhood sexual abuse. Many gays probably have always felt themselves gay, but the higher rate of early childhood sexual contact in males who identify as gay would be hard to write off as coincidence.

 

 

 

 

 

On your last point, yes, boys DO choose sexual behavior. If the sexual behavior is negative (we don't even need to argue that it is immoral or degrading to the individual spirit, using Natural Law arguments), we can choose not to do it. We don't argue that child molesters, or adulterers, or rapists, or polygamists, or those with anger issues towards intimate partners, or even simple philandering cads, are "forced" to do it by their natures. People who have sexual drives that are damaging to others (or to themselves, in the case of, for instance, those who enjoy pursuits such as auto-erotic asphyxiation) can and should be encouraged to pursue a celibate life.

 

 

 

 

 

One could argue that, well, homosexuals aren't hurting anyone but themselves, so they're not like the examples I cited. Yet, it takes two to tango. If one introduces another to homosexuality, or encourages another, how is this a victimless act? Is homosexuality "bad" for the homosexual and his partner? Objectively, yes. They live much shorter lives, as the research shows. They live far more depressed lives, and for reasons that are not solely based on societal disapproval. They are far more prone to a wide variety of problems, including substance abuse and suicide, for reasons that research shows are not largely related to societal or family disapproval. They willingly enter into what can only ever be sterile relationships, and thereby deprive themselves (and their parents) of one of the great joys of life, having children and continuing your line. They are far more likely to be unable to find a committed partner, and this will grow worse as they age. They have a far higher rate of divorce in communities where gay marriage is legal. They are more likely to suffer from a variety of ailments (not even including STDs) from the deleterious long-term effects of sodomy, as proctologists and urologists can tell you - anal fissures, prolapsed rectums, and other problems tend to show up much earlier in life than they ever should. As the CDC's research shows, they are far more prone to a wide variety of unhealthy and risk-seeking behavior. These rates are seen even in countries with a high rate of societal tolerance of homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

So, yes, they should be regarded with compassion as fellow children of God. No, their behavior (which could be described as sin from a sociological standpoint, and gravely unhealthy from a secular standpoint) should not be normalized or encouraged. If any other set of behaviors were so damaging to young men, would we encourage it, or would we seek to actively discourage it and tell boys they shouldn't do it?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Asperger's and PTSD can cause behavior that has to be monitored. Would you agree that there is a qualitative difference between a kid who had a scout with a behavioral disorder take a swing at him or throw a hatchet at him (as bad as those behaviors are) and the boy who is sexually molested by another scout or scouts? There's abuse, and then there's abuse. The men I've spoken with who were molested as scouts (whether by leaders or other scouts) have very, very different feelings about Scouting than those who had to deal with a fight or a non-sexual attack by another kid, which is usually accepted as just part of being a boy. Believe me. Not a single one of them would ever let their son be in Scouting now.

 

 

 

 

 

The Youth Safety policies that the BSA has evolved to deal with the continuing risk of sexual assault have worked to reduce the number of molestations far below what we saw in the past. Keeping out, as best we can, those who have a sexual interest in the male sex, admitted or not, is a major part of that policy. Abandoning those elements is not a good idea and is unfair to the other kids whom we are entrusted to keep safe.

"...have a cite?" I assure you, I'm not the one to be cheeky with on this front. Pedophilia is a specific medical term with a specific definition. It means a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. We generally peg puberty to 13. You are free to borrow or buy a copy of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) if you want to check up on that, or pop over to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

While I'm humoring your citations request, as noted, we "generally" peg puberty to 13, but as I said, "in increasing numbers" boys are entering puberty as young as 10, which you can read (or listen) all about here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/12/24/167735056/like-girls-boys-are-entering-puberty-earlier

You may read the book I referenced for free here: http://books.google.com/books?id=buDwPEe95OIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false But a digital copy is cheap if you want to be able to read all of Ch 13. Might I also suggest "Gay Man's Worst Friend" for a prominent gay publisher's explanation of how it is that you don't know about the intrinsic tilt of homosexuals toward youth despite the wealth of historic and contemporary evidence. You can read about the classical Greek ideal of adult-youth gay sex as the height--the most superior--of love in Plato's "Symposium" which has inspired and influenced homosexuals for centuries.

You ask if a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay. You are confusing a semantic description ("gay") with behavior (homosexual acts). Yes, certainly a boy who considers himself "gay" can entice another boy, especially a younger boy, a boy he has some authority over, or a smaller boy, into homosexual acts. There is currently a thread concerning such an incident on this forum, right now. Without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of expelling the boy from the BSA for his actions (and I agree with "Thomas Jefferson" that the behavior merited expulsion), do you believe that the scout in question was somehow able to locate two other boys who shared a desire to experiment with what sounds like homosexual acts, or at least pretty close to such, or was this a case of a boy who encouraged some naive (probably younger boys) with no pre-existing interest in same-sex acs to experiment in such behavior?

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe that boys who identify as homosexual or bisexual can encourage other boys to try out such acts, I don't know what to tell you. You have an unusual view of sexuality. I don't think a boy with Downs Syndrome will be able to encourage other boys to acquire Downs Syndrome, so you are using a false analogy. Down Syndrome is a legitimate genetic condition, whereas the science is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic, not genetic, or a combination of genetics, pre- or post-natal environment, etc. The research shows that men who identify as gay had childhood (per age 14) sexual contact with adult males in numbers far beyond what straight males have, so could early sexual contact with a teenage or adult male, which would be frightening for most male children, be one of the causes for self-identification as "gay?" Probably. We know that young girls who are molested repeatedly by adult males show an earlier rate of sexualization, a higher rate of promiscuity in adult life, and difficulty in forming adult relationships. Why would sexual contact with a homosexual, and the resultant feelings of shame and loss of masculine identity, not be expected to cause differences in sexual identity later in life in males? Complex human behavior rarely has a single cause, and there could be several reasons why people self-identify as gay. Some people may be born gay, some people may be made into gays. That comports with what we know of human response to early sexual molestation. We see that adolescent females who are forced into child prostitution typically internalize the idea that they are "prostitutes" and quickly adopt the persona that a pimp introduces them to. Sexual identity while young is unfortunately malleable in conditions of fear, shame, and degradation, and this is a lesson that is usually overlooked by LGBT apologists who argue, "well, I'VE always known I was heterosexual. Do you think anyone would willingly CHOOSE to be gay?" The answer, as we have seen, is no. In some (not all) cases, they may well be dealing with the effects of childhood sexual abuse. Many gays probably have always felt themselves gay, but the higher rate of early childhood sexual contact in males who identify as gay would be hard to write off as coincidence.

 

 

 

 

 

On your last point, yes, boys DO choose sexual behavior. If the sexual behavior is negative (we don't even need to argue that it is immoral or degrading to the individual spirit, using Natural Law arguments), we can choose not to do it. We don't argue that child molesters, or adulterers, or rapists, or polygamists, or those with anger issues towards intimate partners, or even simple philandering cads, are "forced" to do it by their natures. People who have sexual drives that are damaging to others (or to themselves, in the case of, for instance, those who enjoy pursuits such as auto-erotic asphyxiation) can and should be encouraged to pursue a celibate life.

 

 

 

 

 

One could argue that, well, homosexuals aren't hurting anyone but themselves, so they're not like the examples I cited. Yet, it takes two to tango. If one introduces another to homosexuality, or encourages another, how is this a victimless act? Is homosexuality "bad" for the homosexual and his partner? Objectively, yes. They live much shorter lives, as the research shows. They live far more depressed lives, and for reasons that are not solely based on societal disapproval. They are far more prone to a wide variety of problems, including substance abuse and suicide, for reasons that research shows are not largely related to societal or family disapproval. They willingly enter into what can only ever be sterile relationships, and thereby deprive themselves (and their parents) of one of the great joys of life, having children and continuing your line. They are far more likely to be unable to find a committed partner, and this will grow worse as they age. They have a far higher rate of divorce in communities where gay marriage is legal. They are more likely to suffer from a variety of ailments (not even including STDs) from the deleterious long-term effects of sodomy, as proctologists and urologists can tell you - anal fissures, prolapsed rectums, and other problems tend to show up much earlier in life than they ever should. As the CDC's research shows, they are far more prone to a wide variety of unhealthy and risk-seeking behavior. These rates are seen even in countries with a high rate of societal tolerance of homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

So, yes, they should be regarded with compassion as fellow children of God. No, their behavior (which could be described as sin from a sociological standpoint, and gravely unhealthy from a secular standpoint) should not be normalized or encouraged. If any other set of behaviors were so damaging to young men, would we encourage it, or would we seek to actively discourage it and tell boys they shouldn't do it?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Asperger's and PTSD can cause behavior that has to be monitored. Would you agree that there is a qualitative difference between a kid who had a scout with a behavioral disorder take a swing at him or throw a hatchet at him (as bad as those behaviors are) and the boy who is sexually molested by another scout or scouts? There's abuse, and then there's abuse. The men I've spoken with who were molested as scouts (whether by leaders or other scouts) have very, very different feelings about Scouting than those who had to deal with a fight or a non-sexual attack by another kid, which is usually accepted as just part of being a boy. Believe me. Not a single one of them would ever let their son be in Scouting now.

 

 

 

 

 

The Youth Safety policies that the BSA has evolved to deal with the continuing risk of sexual assault have worked to reduce the number of molestations far below what we saw in the past. Keeping out, as best we can, those who have a sexual interest in the male sex, admitted or not, is a major part of that policy. Abandoning those elements is not a good idea and is unfair to the other kids whom we are entrusted to keep safe.

So....

1. Don't mind the knots. Do mind more than 9. Rules say stop at 9 so set the example. Not in favor of knots not earned (i.e., West knot).
   
2. Don't mind temp patches on the right pocket. Usually wear the most recent summer camp one or whatever we as a troop earned.
   
3. While you can wear a temp patch high above the right pocket, it is pretty silly we wear your Jamboree 1973 patch. Sure you went, but really? Does a 50-something man need that much validation in his life? Wear the 2009 Jambo patch or your Philmont trek patch. Better yet, leave that space blank. I think the rules call for the current Jambo patch anyway.
   
4. Interpreter strips seem to be non-existent any more. I could wear 4 but wear only one. Want to avoid looking like Richard Dreyfuss in "Moon over Parador".
   
5. Service stars are another thing you don't see. Don't mind seeing those on scouters for cub and boy scout service.
   
6. Adult patrol patches tick me off. I get the concept but they are not allowed. Actually saw a scouter wearing 12 knots tell a guy with an adult patrol patch that he was not compliant with uniform standards.
   
7. Unit anniversary bars are for certain years of service. Personalized unit bars for 20 years of service are just tacky. Great you have a 20 year-old unit but wait 5 years and then buy the correct insignia.
   
8. Name tags, wish I saw more of these.
   
9. 
   

It's my experience that the boy solves the problem for you when he quits because either (a) he hates mama and daddy henpecking him over advancement or (b) he agrees with mommy and daddy.

There's a SM from another troop who comes to RT every-once-in-a-while who has a stack 2-inches deep of activity patches hanging off his right pocket button; it takes every ounce of my self control not to cut the button off.

Square knots don't bother me, if they earned it there's no reason they shouldn't wear it. BSA has adult awards to motivate and recognize volunteers, and in many cases to ensure adherence to policy; people that sneer at them have a problem. That said, BSA recommends no more than 9 in 3 rows; pick your favorites if you have more. (I only have 2 myself, AoL and Leaders Training Award)

If it really bothers you, the furthest I go is to compliment their accomplishment and follow it with a friendly "it would look nicer if you wore it [wherever it's supposed to go.]" But I wouldn't do that with a stranger.

The first year that my dad went to camp with me, about Wednesday he grabbed me and we stole into town for supper. He never drank except a beer at a baseball game or maybe with pizza (I'm talking 5 beers in 20 years) but if he'd had one with dinner I don't think it would've been a big deal, nor would I have a problem with another adult doing so now that I'm an adult. The problem would be if they had more than one and/or came back still buzzed and/or smelling, or talking it up. The problem with people that drink with any regularity is that they can't keep their mouths shut about it--protip: No one cares about what you're drinking, bro.

 

Smoking is comparable here. The camp we attend allows smoking in one spot, and one spot only, far away from everyone's eyes and noses.

 

It is simply not a moral issue for an adult to have a drink. I don't, but it's not illegal and it doesn't set a bad example in my opinion, until you start yammering on about it like some frat boy or connoisseur.

 

That said, this I have an issue with:

I will certainly pack some quality meat and vegetables to cook myself.

Nobody likes camp food. If I get sent out of camp on an errand, yeah, I do it at lunch or dinner time and stop at McDonald's (which is ironic, but I digress). But I would never walk into camp with my own special food in front of everyone else who is suffering through it; it's rude.

 

What I would suggest, since this all stems really from the food avoidance rather than any desire to leave expressly to get a drink, is that you talk to the boys and adults about maybe cooking your own suppers in your site, like summer camps used to do and the way they do at jamboree. You can all certainly cook better cheeseburgers, grilled chicken, etc than the crap they churn out from the D hall. Maybe sweeten the deal by offering to do the cooking yourself.

But to me, it's the height of rudeness to bring your own meals to camp absent an allergy.

 

Working with the SM and committe we have a plan for me to gradually pull back' date=' but at this time we decided it was not best to plunge him into a full week of independence with people he does not know well at all. [/quote']

I really applaud you for that. Way too many people turn camp into trauma by forcing it too early.

People do what they want to do.

A lot going on in this thread.

The first year that my dad went to camp with me, about Wednesday he grabbed me and we stole into town for supper. He never drank except a beer at a baseball game or maybe with pizza (I'm talking 5 beers in 20 years) but if he'd had one with dinner I don't think it would've been a big deal, nor would I have a problem with another adult doing so now that I'm an adult. The problem would be if they had more than one and/or came back still buzzed and/or smelling, or talking it up. The problem with people that drink with any regularity is that they can't keep their mouths shut about it--protip: No one cares about what you're drinking, bro.

 

Smoking is comparable here. The camp we attend allows smoking in one spot, and one spot only, far away from everyone's eyes and noses.

 

It is simply not a moral issue for an adult to have a drink. I don't, but it's not illegal and it doesn't set a bad example in my opinion, until you start yammering on about it like some frat boy or connoisseur.

 

That said, this I have an issue with:

I will certainly pack some quality meat and vegetables to cook myself.

Nobody likes camp food. If I get sent out of camp on an errand, yeah, I do it at lunch or dinner time and stop at McDonald's (which is ironic, but I digress). But I would never walk into camp with my own special food in front of everyone else who is suffering through it; it's rude.

 

What I would suggest, since this all stems really from the food avoidance rather than any desire to leave expressly to get a drink, is that you talk to the boys and adults about maybe cooking your own suppers in your site, like summer camps used to do and the way they do at jamboree. You can all certainly cook better cheeseburgers, grilled chicken, etc than the crap they churn out from the D hall. Maybe sweeten the deal by offering to do the cooking yourself.

But to me, it's the height of rudeness to bring your own meals to camp absent an allergy.

 

Working with the SM and committe we have a plan for me to gradually pull back' date=' but at this time we decided it was not best to plunge him into a full week of independence with people he does not know well at all. [/quote']

I really applaud you for that. Way too many people turn camp into trauma by forcing it too early.

No, I got it: You're a picky eater and your body has conditioned itself to that.

Believe you me, I crap my brains out at camp, sometimes for the first couple days, sometimes the whole week. That does not entitle me to special meals when odds are many of the boys are also suffering, and I know most of the adults are. I pack my own toilet paper of preference and Cottonelle wipes, and a box of Imodium.

 

Do what you want to do, but it's not a matter of you living or dying, and you're just going to raise the ire of people around you. I would definitely advise against any drinking while you're already annoying everyone around you.

 

As for the so-called Paleo diet fad, if you want to get serious about it, might I suggest an authentic primal diet based upon the native americans observed by the Spanish explorer Cabeza de Vaca who was marooned among them for a year or two: "From October to the end of February every year, which is the season these Indians live on the island, they subsist on the roots I have mentioned. Only [in November and December] do they take fish in their cane weirs. When the fish is consumed, the roots furnish one staple. At the end of February the islanders go into other parts to seek sustenance, for then the root is beginning to grow and is inedible. . . Three months out of every year they eat nothing but oysters and drink very bad water. . . Many a time I would go three days without eating, as would the natives."

As it happens, 63% of Americans are obese, and as such I believe that we should remove "physical strong" from the oath, and make Personal Fitness, Cycling, Hiking, and Swimming merit badges optional rather than Eagle-required.

The first year that my dad went to camp with me, about Wednesday he grabbed me and we stole into town for supper. He never drank except a beer at a baseball game or maybe with pizza (I'm talking 5 beers in 20 years) but if he'd had one with dinner I don't think it would've been a big deal, nor would I have a problem with another adult doing so now that I'm an adult. The problem would be if they had more than one and/or came back still buzzed and/or smelling, or talking it up. The problem with people that drink with any regularity is that they can't keep their mouths shut about it--protip: No one cares about what you're drinking, bro.

Smoking is comparable here. The camp we attend allows smoking in one spot, and one spot only, far away from everyone's eyes and noses.

It is simply not a moral issue for an adult to have a drink. I don't, but it's not illegal and it doesn't set a bad example in my opinion, until you start yammering on about it like some frat boy or connoisseur.

That said, this I have an issue with:

I will certainly pack some quality meat and vegetables to cook myself.

Nobody likes camp food. If I get sent out of camp on an errand, yeah, I do it at lunch or dinner time and stop at McDonald's (which is ironic, but I digress). But I would never walk into camp with my own special food in front of everyone else who is suffering through it; it's rude.

What I would suggest, since this all stems really from the food avoidance rather than any desire to leave expressly to get a drink, is that you talk to the boys and adults about maybe cooking your own suppers in your site, like summer camps used to do and the way they do at jamboree. You can all certainly cook better cheeseburgers, grilled chicken, etc than the crap they churn out from the D hall. Maybe sweeten the deal by offering to do the cooking yourself.

But to me, it's the height of rudeness to bring your own meals to camp absent an allergy.

Working with the SM and committe we have a plan for me to gradually pull back' date=' but at this time we decided it was not best to plunge him into a full week of independence with people he does not know well at all. [/quote']

I really applaud you for that. Way too many people turn camp into trauma by forcing it too early.

I don't have any intrinsic problem with the James West, I'd love to earn one one day myself, I did think it looks odd on the kid in that photo.

Let us know how many more of your Scouts start smoking pot on your trips after you hand this boy his reward for doing the same.

To be fair, the BSA has a century more history than the BPSA, so the big difference in membership numbers is expected. More significantly, I'd look at the percentage growth of the BSA vs. the BPSA, which I'm sure will be significantly higher for the BPSA and will continue to remain so regardless of how the vote goes next week. I'd expect that BPSA growth rate to increase significantly if the BSA vote reaffirms the membership policy.

There are two cotrolling policies on statements of political support or activism that apply to the uniform issue:

 

1) The rules governing when and where to wear the uniform are clear. Essentially, if it is not a Scouting activitiy then its a no-no. I think we are all smart enough to know where the grey areas are. Wearing it to a 5k for breast cancer because the Scouts are doing a flag ceremony? Yes. Wearing the uniform because your troop is setting up chairs for service hours? Yes. Doing those same funcations at a political rally? No. When in doubt ask your council.

 

2) As far as badges or patches like the rainbow knot, the Insignia Guide and BSA policy on approved licensees of BSA products are also pretty clear. If the temp patch is making a statement or supportive of a cause it cannot be worn. Period. That goes for gay rainbox ribbons, breast cancer ribbons, wound warrior patches, etc.

 

In my troop we follow a simply policy: If it did not come from the Scout Shop, Council, District or OA we simply do not wear it. The ONLY exception are homemade neckerchief slides (as long as they follow guidelines), temp patches we do as a troop (very seldom and done through classB) for special events and that's it.

 

I even asked an ASM to remove his "I Voted" sticker at a meeting last fall. Rather than invite argument or debate I thought it best remove it. He did...without question.

There are two controlling policies on statements of political support or activism that apply to the uniform issue:

 

1) The rules governing when and where to wear the uniform are clear. Essentially, if it is not a Scouting activity then its a no-no. I think we are all smart enough to know where the grey areas are. Wearing it to a 5k for breast cancer because the Scouts are doing a flag ceremony? Yes. Wearing the uniform because your troop is setting up chairs for service hours? Yes. Doing those same functions at a political rally? No. When in doubt ask your council.

False. http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2012/03/08/can-packs-troops-teams-or-crews-participate-in-political-rallies/

They may wear the uniform to perform a flag ceremony, but they must immediately leave, or change out of uniform.

Krumpus you haven't been watching the news have you?.. There are scouters in uniform standing in open public squares spreading these hate messages with signs and public speechs. With kids all around them' date=' be it youth scouts or just youths with their parents passing by a public place [/quote']

 

Only two words for a claim like that: Show. me. Social conservative that I am, NPR is my main news source and they cover gay issues like 97% of the population is gay rather than 3%, and they haven't said a peep. Not one HuffPost article in my FB newsfeed which has seen lots of anti-BSA content over the past year. This is the only photo I can find in a quick search that resembles what you're talking about: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/06/nation/la-na-boy-scout-gays-20130207

 

What are you calling "hate speech?" "Stand strong" "Keep scouts morally straight"? Hardly hateful.

Or do you simply take issue with Scouters advocating a position in uniform, hateful or not? I'm sure, then, that you're very disappointed that Zach Walls, Will Oliver, Jennifer Tyrell &c. have been wearing their uniforms to do the same. I'm sure that you denounce scouts/scouters who wear the rainbow square knot. I'm certain that you're cringing at the idea of the Inclusive Scouting Network exploiting youth in uniforms to read anonymous (and therefore unverifiable) letters from gay scouts to the media (http://www.inclusivescouting.net/2013/05/08/the-voice-of-the-gay-scout/). If you can stand their god-awful 1996 web design long enough to get to the photo galleries, I'm positive that it grates your nerves that Scouting For All activists wear their uniforms to their demonstrations (http://www.scoutingforall.org/data/photo_albums/photoAlbumMain.html)

Indeed, it seems that for every scouter demonstrating support of the status quo in uniform, there are a dozen "reformers" demonstrating in their uniforms.

 

So, we all agree that this is a problem and against the rules, but let's get serious: It's a you problem.

 

 

Prediction? I won't be surprised either way, really. If you put a gun against my head I'd say they'll allow gay kids.

Plans? If no, I plan to get angry at every loudmouth that sounds off for the next 2 weeks until some Senator farts and distracts the 24-hour news cycle.

If yes, meh. I knew of a few gay kids in our troop when I was a scout myself, and I've been aware of a couple as an adult. The difference now is that kids are pushed to come out as soon as, if not before, they've got their first pube, so it's a different dynamic: It's one thing to have a "funny" kid in the troop, it will be another thing to have an honest-to-God gay kid in the troop. Every normal molehill slight will be made a bigotry mountain, every funny look will be sexual harassment. For every kid that doesn't give a rip, there'll be at least one parent with grave concerns. So, it'll just be learning to deal with the new tension.

Media will be a nightmare either way. First 15-yr-old that gets screwed by a 19-yr-old will be called a victim of "pedophilia" which is a joke. Or, worse, the victims will simply be ignored from now on, since they were never more to the media than a tool in the first place. A yes vote won't satisfy any of the weirdos and their "allies" since it won't allow adults, so we'll have another round of Kick the BSA. And in a year all we're going to get is a crusade over atheists with lots of "we won on gays" smearing in our faces.

Maybe I'll add "invest in Valium" to my plans.

It has become very tiresome to continue to have certain individuals posting over the top opinions about National's policy. While it is certainly not exactly 21st century, and it can be at times very burdensome and ill advised, I cannot see that it is "hateful", purposely intended to demean Gays, or a witch hunt to find them and remove them. There is a definite disconnect between what I would call the real scouting, that is on the unit level, done by volunteers within the basic standards of their particular charter org. Reality is, that even today, close to 70% of the general population in this country has pretty much unspoken, but traditional values. While there is far more tolerance and less chest beating by the majority, the larger majority of society still chooses to not associate directly with Gays and other related individuals. They accept that they have certain rights and must be tolerated without public turmoil; but they also choose to have as little interconnection with them as they can. That is not hatred; it is not bigotry, it is simply their right to move in the elements of society in which they are comfortable.

 

BSA needs to find a workable solution to this. But that solution should not force the majority to interrelate should they choose not to; nor should those that are more open to acceptance or are part of the minority be disallowed to participate within their own groups or barred from general larger group participation. Those that are so thin skinned that they cannot abide anyone with different beliefs or styles of life anywhere near them need to simply follow their own choice and not intermix if the situation arises. Just like in the general public, most will have little or no actual knowledge of these issues, as they technically are not a direct part of the real program and are delegated to the parents or guardians should it become necessary.

 

Both fringes of this Political Spectacle should simply be ignored and butt out, as they have no interest in BSA and its basic program. Let the wheels of change continue to move, and stop demonizing either side. That is the problem in the country today; our leaders set such a poor example with their polarization in government, that somehow it becomes a similar focus in just about any other politically charged public interaction.

 

Now, I will sit back and await the vitriol; but this is my simple opinion. And I continue to just not get why so many cannot just allow people to be people and to keep their noses out of others' lives as much as possible. Freedom is not license. Rights are not absolute. Find your comfort zone, and play within it; but if it does not mesh with someone else, just accept it and move on.