camilam42

I'm coming into the conversation pretty late, I apologize for that, but I do have a couple of views.

First, I will offer the following caveat, I've not read through the entire thread, so I may be re-hashing something already settled, if so, I apologize, but...my point of view:

The BSA is a uniformed organization. If one is going to participate in the organization, he should do what the organization asks of him. If that means he should be uniformed, then he should be uniformed. If that means that he should not be, then he should not be. However, that is not the case with the BSA. The BSA has a uniform in place. There are regs as to when the uniform is appropriate, there are times when it is not. There are times when a modified uniform can be worn, and there are time when they cannot be worn.

If one is an adult leader, he should make the investment in the uniform. After all the BSA is a uniformed organization. While there are circumstances in which a given leader may not be able to afford a uniform, but wants to participate, I would suggest that he approach the Scoutmaster (I'll use BSA lingo, but this applies to all areas) or Committee Chair and make his problem about uniforming known. I have never heard of a troop not helping a leader not obtain a uniform. If it is a matter of paying for it, I know several troops which have purchased the uniform and had the leader pay it back to the troop and/or provided it based upon a vote of the committee based upon need.

If the pants are such an issue, then perhaps he is not suited to being an adult leader. I know this sounds harsh, but in the long run, what example is he setting for the Scouts? If the BSA is a uniformed organization, shouldn't the expectation be to wear the uniform. What does the Scout/Scouter gain from "cherry picking" parts of the program he doesn't like? How is that being obedient?

I know there are more than a few who disagree and you're entitled to your opinions. I will not attempt to take that away, but the fact remains that the BSA has never waivered on this issue. Uniforming is as important as any other aspect of the organization, for a variety of reasons. Some may not like the reasoning, but if one is going to practice the Scout Law, then obedience is part of this. The last time I checked the precepts of the Law were not subjective, but rather objective. So, one is to be obedient to parents, communities, peers, leaders and the BSA. I also know some will say the expense is too much and how does that apply to thrify? As an example, I have spent an estimated total of $180.00 on two uniforms. That was two years ago. So, in that timeframe, I've spent a grand total of $0.25 a day on uniforming. That's pretty thrifty. And the uniforms are in great shape, because I rotate through them.

So, in my honest opinion, I see the excuse of money as being a very lame one. I also see the aversion to following the precepts of the organization as being a sign of poor leadership.

When I am in a Scout uniform, I am always completely uniformed, that means socks and belt. As I said, I find no reason not to be and I can honestly say that there is nothing more to my being uniformed than that of providing a proper example to the Scouts. That also means to be properly badged. So, while I don't adorn my uniform with anything undue, I do wear the patching which is appropriate to my role. I follow the unwritten rule, "if it's not good for the Scout, I won't do it." Being uniformed is good for the Scout, so I am uniformed, according to the BSA standard. And the expectation is that my Scouts will be as well. Because the expectation of the BSA is my expectation, the Scouts have no problem with it and they embrace it, fully.

So, getting back to the OP. Perhaps loaning him the money is necessary, from the troop. But have him pay it back. It is not that much of a financial burden.

@ Basementdweller;

I completely understand your position. Like I said, I was in it several years ago. I had to make the decision as to what was more important to me, my moral convictions and beliefs or my career. I chose the former. I also am very well aware that not everyone is in that position and I don't begrudge you or anyone for your views, they are your own.

But, for me, I couldn't acquiesce. It was there that I made my stand. Was I ostracized for it, yes. Was my evaluation docked for it? No, but that is because there was a letter from an attorney in there. However, I did choose to abandon that job (2007) for a different one.

As far as the LFL issue, I have made it clear to my Council and to National that I think that it is inappropriate to allow them to continue to use the BSA tax exempt number. However, I do know where my direct $$ go with regard to the BSA, so I feel more comfortable in holding the position I do regarding the BSA.

All of that being said, I clearly understand and can empathize with your conundrum. I've been in your shoes. You know yourself best and you know your tolerances, just like I know mine. I offered my experience to show one possible version. You will, undoubtedly, have your own. One of the important aspects of the BSA law is loyal. You have my support.

Personally, I believe that this is one of the biggest scams in all of business. I was literally threatened with being fired if I didn't give money to the United Way, several years ago.

I told my employer that I was unable to give to United Way, due to a moral opposition and that if they terminated me for this I would be bringing a lawsuit for extortion and breach of contract.

My earned monies are my earned monies. There was nothing stated in my contract that I was required to give to United Way. I have an uncle who is an attorney and he drafted the letter for me, which was sent to local, regional, and corporate HR. At that point, they did back down.

As a matter of transparency, I am opposed to the $$ given to Planned Parenthood. Regardless of whether my $$ go directly there or not, I will not support a company which gives monies directly to an organization such as this.

If you don't want to give monies to United Way, legally there is nothing they can do to force you to give your monies to an organization you are opposed to. Your wage is your wage.

To Extort -- to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power : wring; also : to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extorting)

@qwazse,

Considering I am going to be the advisor, the options are pretty well thought out. Like I've said on both threads, I want to get the ball rolling, by bringing in a Catholic bent, but the Scouts will bring the rest and run with it.

As for "controversies," they definitely are that and I do have my own views regarding them. I will offer my point of view, if asked, but otherwise I will let them work through the issues themselves. I do have the resources available to research and to help them make informed, more adult decisions.

As for the expansion of the group into other areas, that will be a collaboration between the Crew and their officers. At no time, though do we want them to lose their Catholic base. So, if they go to Kodiak or if they go to VLSC or whatever, we want them to come back and look at it from a Catholic point of view and see how they can apply it to their daily lives and how can they involve the principles they've learned into the Church and how can they involve the Church into those principles.

Bottom line, I don't want this to just be a "ministry group" unless that is the direction the Crew wants to go. If they want to pursue it that way, fine. But if they want to be more integrated with some other aspects of Venturing, that is perfectly fine too!

These are exciting times for our Scouts, because we've never done anything like this before, in my city.

My thoughts pretty much echo the others. Our plans are to start it, give them the vision and the basics of what the Crew is about, have them take the surveys. Have the leaders, parents and others take the inventories and then we are going to let them develop it.

We're not going to run the program, but we are going to give them guidance. That is the important thing, I think.

@ OGE,

It is ambitious, but it will ultimately be up to the Crew. I am excited to see how they respond, if we can get it up and running. I think that we can, so I'm pretty excited.

You're right, every organization will have issues. Even the Church has issues, but thankfully the issues lie with the men inside the Church and not the Church itself. I think that by and large we can say the same thing about the BSA, for the issues which exist there.

I will look to the forums for support and ideas. Happy Scouting.

All,

Thank you for your responses. I would like to add a couple of things, which may clear up some things.

1. This Venturing Crew has not been established yet, it is still in the planning stages of creation.

2. While we do have a focus to start with, the ultimate direction would come from the Venturing Crew. If they want to take it in a different direction, then we will explore it.

3. The Catholic Church has a two deep program as well called Virtus. So, in my eyes, a Catholic Venturing Crew is stronger because it has two different two deep programs. This will do nothing but help the Venturing Crew.

4. It is a Catholic Chartering Organization, so there will be a Catholic focus regardless of what the Scouts choose. I don't necessarily care if it is ministerial or something else, but it will definitely be influenced by the Catholic Church.

A couple of other things...

@OGE, I am sorry to hear that you were taken advantage of by a priest. I know several people who are in your situation and it is deplorable. I will not defend the actions of any person who takes the innocence of another. I will pray for you and that you either find or continue to solace in the Church. It isn't the Church's fault, but the fault of a sick man.

Secondly, @basement dweller, no a priest is not a leader in the Crew. We have a priest who is the chaplain of the CCS for our diocese, we will ask him to be our chaplain, but we don't necessarily need a priest to be a leader.

Thirdly, speaking about the co-ed nature. Male serving of Holy Mass is strictly speaking only for the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Mass. Our diocese allows for female altar servers in the Ordinary Form of the Holy Mass. So, that aspect will be up to the Crew, however, we will allow them to research and look into what they would like to do regarding that aspect. But remember, it is only one of several aspects we want to be part of. We also want them to be Catechists (teachers) and members of the review boards for Catholic emblems.

@emb021;

Thanks for the correction. I am still pretty new to this aspect and I think of it in older terms. I will be more diligent.

Thanks for the insight too. I guess that it comes down to the Venturing Crew being pretty specialized, in certain cases.

Knowing that there are not "ranks," but rather there is a more graduated way of advancement, is it possible, that a Life Scout could be President and an Eagle could be nothing at all? Or is there deference paid to the ranks, from Boy Scouts? I know that most Eagles are more mature and are more leader oriented, but does that matter with Venturers or cause friction? I tend to think not, but I would like to hear how that has worked too...

@ OGE,

That is hilarious! I was thinking more of just having them wear open fronted cassocks, kinda like Neo in the Matrix, but your idea is good too!!!! LOL!!!

Seriously, though, thanks. I didn't know if being exclusive was going against the grain, in too big of a way. Obviously, I'm only one voice in the CO, so it wouldn't really be up to me.

As for teaching them to chant, I have been chanting for years and years, since I was in my early 20s. I'm 39 now, so I have a pretty good handle on it. What I'd really like to do is promote that they learn to chant in both Latin and English.

Also, I would like to teach them to serve both forms of Holy Mass, so they could be truly universal. But again, that would partly depend on the level of interest from the Scouts.

This brings up another question. I would really like to have it be co-ed. But, certain aspects are male only (such as serving the extra ordinary form). Are there ways to specialize, such as having a mixed schola, made up of male and female Scouts, while reserving serving to the male Scouts only? And if that is too tough, then would it be better to talk to the CO about it being a male only Crew?

duplicate post...(This message has been edited by camilam42)

Thanks everyone! This is great information!!!

As a matter of transparency, what we're looking at doing is this...I am part of my diocese's Catholic Committee on Scouting. We will be the chartered organization. What we'd like to do is get a group of our AAD (Ad Alatare Dei) and PPXII (Pope Pius XII) Scouts together and form a Venture Crew which will focus on serving Mass for the bishop and other bigger functions, as well as singing/chanting and eventually getting them to help with teaching catechism and assisting with review boards for our Catholic emblems. We at the CCS for our diocese believe that this is consistent with the Pope's call for a New Evangelization, so necessarily follows in a Catholic model.

While we would like for this to be the focal points, we want the Scouts involved to be able to branch to other areas which will engage them in a way which is consistent with what they know to be Scouting.

We live by the rule, "If it isn't good for the Scout, we won't do it." So, with that in mind, we want to make sure that we give them strong guidance on the ministry part, but give them the freedom to do 99% of the work. We also want them to have the freedom to do Kodiak and Kodiak X as well as other things such as Powder Horn, etc...

This does bring me to another question though...while we would look at this being a predominantly Catholic endeavor, is there anything prohibiting that? If a Lutheran or a Baptist wanted to join and engage in what we are doing, I would be inclined to accept them, as the adult advisor, but the Scout would need to know that the crew has a Catholic bent to it. Is that something which would be feasable, or is it best to keep it Catholic?

I'm not trying to play denominations off one another, but I'm trying to explore how to be inclusive. Or is being exclusive acceptable in a Venturing scenario?

@emb021;

Thanks, that does help. I think that as we get going, we want this to be focused on ministry, but we would like to be open to exposing them to more than just a church related experience. While that is the main focus, we'd like to see them grow in other areas as well. Is the built in flexibility able to accommodate something of that nature?

In other words, is it possible to have them combine ministry and outdoors, if that is something that interests the group?

Thanks for the response. I look forward to more discussion and additional feedback.

Hello All;

We are looking at starting a Venturing Crew in my city. We, to my knowledge have never had one, or it has been defunct since the days of Explorers, exclusively.

I have a couple of questions which I would appreciate your input on.

1. What are the bare minimums for getting a crew started?

2. How much direction am I supposed to be giving, as opposed to allowing them the freedom to explore and grow this on their own.

3. Is Venturing always geared toward "high-adventure?"

4. Is the structure, administratively, close to a Boy Scout troop?

5. What are the major advantages/disadvantages to having it be co-ed and what is your experience with co-ed Scouting?

I know that these may seem like fairly simple questions, but I've done my research from the "official" Scouting end and it is something we'd like to move forward with, but I am also asking here, for some real world experiences.

I have no preconceived ideas and I am looking for any and all views on this. Thanks so much, in advance. We are excited about this and I'm looking for a little more practical feedback to compliment the official feedback from the Council and National.

Come on Gern,

You really think that Obama is not connected? He may be smart, but he is also really connected. Reasoning; in 1983-84 Obama attended several Socialist Scholars Conferences. He then became and activist and worked in NYC and Chicago. After that he enrolled at Harvard and eventually became a member of the Harvard Law Review in 1989. That is a pretty fast rise, don'tcha think? He only worked for Sidley-Austin in Chicago for about a year. Nope, no connections there...

I am not saying that Obama isn't smart, he is, but it is naive to think that he didn't use connections to get into Harvard Law. He may not be old money, but he certainly didn't get to where he is today because he is a good 'ol boy who made good. He is as connected to the "liberal machine" as anyone, including the Clinton's and the Gore's.

Ironic though, is that Sarah Palin is none of the things that you're going on about. She got her degree from the University of Idaho. As for the show though, I still think that she's doing a wonderful job promoting Alaska and while there is self-promotion going on, she is not be pretentious about it. She's very down to earth and I don't think that anyone can complain about that.(This message has been edited by camilam42)

No Beavah, I don't have any more thoughts on the thread. I have said my piece regarding that.

I merely posted saying that I didn't appreciate the anti-Catholic word "Papist." I don't really care how any person uses the term, it is still offensive. I have asked once that you please not use it and I am now asking a second time, as you think that there is some sort of justification for the word.

The word is anti-Catholic and it is offensive. Please understand that as in racial slurs, the term "papist" fits in with a bigoted idealogy. It may not have been your intention, but it is what it is.

There is a term I could equate it with, but to do so would show just how offensive it is for a Catholic. I think that you get my point.

Notice that in all of our conversations I have never been offensive to you and have shown you the utmost respect. Please offer me the same. Thank you.

@clemlaw,

What you're asking isn't the same thing. I haven't made a bigoted slur toward another religion. That is what the term "papist" amounts to.

My statement, "For Catholics, the Catholic perspective on religion is how we are to form our consciences. Not the other way around, which is how many Protestant communions view it."

I was speaking about Catholics specifically. I was not making a statement that can be taken as a slur toward another ecclesial communion. I also was not making a statement that was inconsistent with Catholic teaching, which was clearly defined.

In short, I fail to see your point.

"Most Protestant theologians would agree with the proposition that you advance as being uniquely Roman Catholic."

How many Protestant theologians have you read, becaue that statement is patently false. Everyone from Luther, to Zwingli, to Calvin, all the way to modern theologians such as Dr. Adrian Rogers and Dr. Robert Schuler.

"You know to an absolute certainty what you believe, and I know to an absolute certainty what I believe. But I do not know exactly what you believe, nor do you know exactly what I believe."

No, I don't know to an absolute certainty, I am certain insofar as the Church teaches it to be so and I form my will according to the Church.

"It often makes conflicts superficially easier to resolve if I can first decide what you believe, and then refute it. It's easy, but it's not being Trustworthy, nor is it bearing true witness. If you strive to always bear true witness, then it's easy to avoid bearing false witness."

Again, your point is lost. How is being certain being untrustworthy? And how does a Protestant theologian to justify forming one's conscience to the Catholic view? Because that is what I was getting at. Catholics are to form their consciences to Catholic teachings and Protestant ecclesial communions do not. Not many Protestant theologians will support their constituents forming their consciences to the Catholic Church. That is a simple fact.

Beavah,

As a matter of protocol and a request....

Please do not use the term "Papist."

It is a pejorative and it is insulting to Catholics. It is an anti-Catholic slur which was coined during the English Reformation. As a faithful Catholic, I would appreciate it if you did not use it any further.

Thank you.

Our CM has inquired to me about the possiblity of attending Wood Badge or sending committee members/leaders. The problem comes in that many of our leaders are not financially able to swing the course. My question is two-fold: 1)are there scholarships/aid available and/or 2)is it unheard of to have the pack/troop pay/CO for the leaders to attend?

Thanks in advance!

@ Gern,

"Not so much a wiggle, more like a tingle.

That Todd is one fortunate man."

She is definitely attractive....moreso than say....Hilary, don'tcha think?

@ Beavah,

"I don't reckon after a moment of thought that "selflessly" is an adjective I'd use. I don't know what her compensation was for the series, but even with no compensation at all it's a heck of a self-promotion."

I don't know about that. I think that if you actually watch the show, she tries to make it about Alaska and how she inserts herself into the life of the State. She is a native and that she is willing to promote a State that most Americans don't know anything about, is pretty self-less. A lot more so than going on Arsenio Hall and playing the Saxaphone.

Plus, the times they are a changin'. This is how promotion is being done these days. It is forward thinking use of MSM to promote oneself. I don't begrudge her anything by taking advantage of the system that wants to dismantle her, piece by piece.

"Yah, yeh don't really think she did it for very long, eh? It's a TV series. Yeh do that stuff for a few minutes while they're filming, then quit for a break. Have to so they can move the cameras around and shoot from different angles without seeing another camera. It's not the same as actually workin' a fishing boat."

If you watched the show, she spoke about how she and her husband actually did do this years ago. While she was showing how the slimeline worked, she also spoke about how she had actually done it.

"Well, actually, the lawsuits and ethics inquiries all involved her public life, eh?"

It had cost the State of Alaska roughly $1.9 Million for legal costs, whereas it cost the State of Alaska $40k for her resignation. Pretty self explanatory, as to why she chose to resign on that particular part of the issue.

"Truth is, from a personal financial perspective quitting was a good move for her, eh?"

I don't necessarily agree with that. I mean look at the winfall for the Clinton's and Whitewater....that was a pretty good winfall for them....well until it failed....right? She could have chosen to be unethical in her activity, but she chose not to.

I find it to be courageous to stand up in front of your constituents and say "I can't do it." It would have been easier to jet-set around and be unethical, but she chose a different route, especially when she knew she wasn't going to seek another term.

BTW, the FBI has categorically denied any investigations.

"I'm not sure that's the example I want to hold up to young people, but yeh certainly can see the attraction."

I'd rather hold her as an example, as opposed to former governors of the likes of Jesse Ventura, Bill Clinton, Jennifer Granholm, and the like.

I'm just sayin'.

@ Gern....

"Her daughter is also a really good dancer."

I know that this is to be taken with a grain of salt, but.....

If the idea of the show is to be taken seriously and not simply turned into a popularity contest (which is another thread altogether), I agree with you. When Bristol started, she was awful. I mean stinky. But as the show lumbered on, she actually got better and by the end of the show, she WAS the best dancer, based upon where she started.

I'm just sayin'.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with that too. You said it very concisely, even if the grammar was terrible with the run on sentence. However, I have a sneaking suspicion was probably intentional.

I watched it and I liked it. It shows several things, in my opinion.

1. She is a Mom and she cares about her family

2. She cares about her State. She is selflessly promoting Alaska when she really doesn't have to

3. She is a VERY hard worker. I'd like to see any of you get on a fishing boat and do what she was doing, or on a slime line, for that matter

4. She's an outdoorsman. She shares alot of the same passions that we do here, camping, canoeing, family values

As for those who simply want to rip her for "quitting" on Alaska, I'd say this....she stepped down for several reasons. First, she knew that she was going to have her personal life drug through the mud (and she came out pretty clean, I might add); and she didn't want Alaska attached to that.

Second, she realized that her family was more important. While she could have continued in the role of governor, she chose her family.

Before all of you get bent out of shape, she does have to make a living and going on book tours is no different than taking a business trip. I challenge you to see just how long she is separated from her family at any one given time. It isn't any different than any other author or business person in America today. We should not vilify her for a standard that is acceptable to everyone else.

Third, most don't like her because she's honest, straighforward and the antithesis of what the establishment expects. She speaks her mind, she is pro-woman, she is pro-family, and she doesn't worry about what the MSM has to say.

Finally, I support her, not because she's a Republican, I support her, because she embodies all the positive outcome that women have struggled to achieve in the last 100 years. I'm not talking about the Sanger/Steinem wing of women's rights, but rather the authentic application of women's rights, in the vein of Phyllis Schlafly and Jane Roberts.

I've gone back and pulled some pictures of when I was a Cub Scout. Our flags were worn over our right pocket above the BSA strip. This was a consistent placement, because one of the pictures was of the winners of the Pinewood Derby and myself, which had me with my trophy. Another picture was of my den a year later. Flag in in the same place. This was 1983-1984. I was a Wolf in 1983 and a Bear in '84.

I've also googled 1980s Cub Scout uniform and it seems that this is a consistent placement.

Just an FYI....

@ SSScout,

I know I said I wouldn't post on this thread again, BUT.....

"she," is a "he." I am a gentleman, not a lady. Just an FYI...

I have made my statement. Some may agree, some may not. That is fine. Bottom line, while I believe I have given proof as to why I think that the BSA policy is a just policy, I have always realized that not everyone will agree. However, I hope that it has made anyone who has read this thread to understand that there is a basis for the policy, beyond simply saying, "well, the BSA says so..."

There are many reason for and against the policy. The BSA has made and has been consistent in it's position. It has taken courage for the leadership of the organization to hold to this principle. Like it or not, this is the reality that the BSA espouses.

If one works for change, fine. That is one's perogative. I will not stand in the way of that, however, the burden of proof lies not on the BSA, but on those working for change to prove the BSA is unjust in it's actions. That is a tall order. Good luck.

I will not compromise my understanding of not only Faith, but also the policies of the BSA. Now, that does not mean that I am not willing to learn more about the policies of the BSA and if by learning that means that I adjust my position, then so be it. But education is never a compromise. It is an ehancement and growth of a truth that already exists.

Thanks to everyone for their time. I look forward to future contact on the boards.