acco40

"Youth are a treasure. I think of your method, your educational program, and that to be a Scout means to be close to nature, to appreciate its beauty, to understand its creation, and to respect mankind." - Pope John Paul II

Again, married couples may share a tent in the eyes of the BSA ONLY if they are considered adults (over 18 for Boy Scouts, over 21 for Venture and the OA). So a husband and wife who belong to a Venture Crew and who are both 20 MAY NOT share a tent.

Duplicate post.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Oh great. Thanks OGE, I work best when given a deadline! Rooster, is someone unrepentant if he feels he has done nothing wrong?

AOL recipients do not automatically receive the Scout badge when joining Boy Scouts. While many of the requirements overlap, they still need to be earned.

Go easy on Mr. Ed folks. His spelling comments were a direct response to my post.

"I will stay with the BSA stance, select good leaders, do not allow your sexuality to interfere with the program." Oh my gosh, are dogs sleeping with cats? Are Republicans giving to the poor? Democrats not looking to Government to solve their problems? :-) Bob, why do you believe that is the stance of the BSA? Do they disallow avowed heterosexuals? Do they disallow avowed homosexuals? I agree whole heartedly with part of the above statement that you made. Select good leaders, do not allow THEIR sexuality to interfere with the program. Alas, I just don't feel that it is the BSA stance. P.S. To Terry and/or moderators - in the spirit of promoting good spelling (I need the training) could you alter the forum so we can correct errors in the subject line?(This message has been edited by acco40)

Barry, as your probably know, psychologists really don't care much about what is "normal." Sex can have disturbing effects on those who are not physically or mentally prepared/mature enough for it. With good nutrition in our society we have many girls (and I mean girls) who are physically ready for sex (i.e. mature enough to bare a child) much earlier than their mental maturity to handle the ramifications of sex and motherhood. Same for boys except that, and it may be a surprise to some feminists, boys don't get pregnant. But look at the horrible consequences that have happened to boys who were molested by authority figures, women who were taken advantage of by older men, mere children who were sexually abused, etc. Many are scarred for life. Frank discussions about sex are very rare in our country. Now add to that mix the neuroses that western society brings about beauty, sex, etc. and you get a very volatile mix. This reminds me of the results of a French survey that asked Frenchmen what was it that they did right after they had sex. The number one answer? Go home to their wife. :-)

Back in the old days before YPT was on-line, I attended many a YPT in a forum like session. We watched videos, and a discussion ensued led by a qualified professional. We were always taught that a husband and wife combination did not constitute two-deep leadership from a YPT perspective. Now, I admit that is not stated in the G2SS or in any other BSA publication that I could find. Just a few weeks ago I had my annual Merit Badge Counselor training and the trainer stated that when a scout comes to your house have him bring a buddy because having you and your wife present doesn't fulfill the no one-on-one contact rule (two-deep leadership is not required for non-outings but no one-on-one contact, excluding intra-family, is always in effect). So, we've got two issues - does a husband wife only team constitute two deep leadership and fulfill the no one-on-one contact rule in the eyes of the BSA? My guess is that yes it does. Does it in the eyes of the US judicial systems? I don't know. Is it wise? No. The talk about the husband and wife sleeping in separate tents brought to mind another question. Usually, a husband and wife may share the same tent on a BSA outing. However, not always. A set of newly-weds who are 20 yr old may share a tent on a BSA outing but not on an OA or Venture outing. Youth may not share a tent with a member of the opposite sex. Youth in Boy Scouts is under the age of 18. Youth in the OA and Venture is under 21. Riddle me this Batman!(This message has been edited by acco40)

But Hunt, surely you know that for some the reasons or "whys" as you state can be fairly obtuse. Some are really afraid of that scary frightening monster called "change." Others just get beaten down trying to defend things they firmly believe in from outsiders that they see as constantly chipping away at those beliefs. The lazy mans response then becomes - go away, if you don't like it the way it is start your own group. Reminds me of the "America, love it or leave it" crowd. When challenged with ideas, battle back with bumper stickers and vindictiveness. That way is much easier than to battle back with their own well thought out ideas. On the flip side, Scouting values should not be determined by a majority vote. Standards should be just that, standards that do not change. However, the world does change and some ideas - slavery, indentured servitude, racism, etc. do belong on the trash heap of history. Last, remember that Scouting is a business. Many individuals livelihoods depend on it. In other words, money talks and BS walks. My wife served as the district popcorn chair and both her and I have been involved in unit fund raising (popcorn) at both the Cub and Boy Scout level for ten years or so. At one of our Scouting colleges I told the council Scout Executive/CEO that a handful of the stores that used to grant us (units) permission to do show and sell, i.e. store sales, had refused in the recent past stating specifically the reason was because of Scouting's stance on homosexual leaders. I did not add my opinion (Is this good? Is this bad? How should we respond? etc.) just stated the fact. He got defensive and his main response was purely from a dollars and cents perspective.

Eamonn, for reference - look at my response in the "Was it another dream" thread for the Outlander's Promise.

Without naming names, some of the goofball responses I read here don't upset me as I have come to expect very little from some forum posters on particular topics. However, Eamonn, I was disappointed in your response and it troubles me because I don't understand it and believe it to be very prevalent. Your earlier post describes a man, Ernie, who in your own words was the "Top man" for 20 years, was very active in the Masonic Lodge, was generous and an all around nice fellow, someone you admired and respected, and you knew he did a lot for the District and for Scouting. But then you state that, "They would not be setting a bad example to the youth if they never come out." Now, I don't advicate wearing one's sexuality on one's sleeve but why wouldn't Ernie still be setting a good example if he simply lived his life openly, like myself and millions of other heterosexual couples do?

I'll stupidly take the bait. First, I'd be able to tell if the leaders were trained (or could at least easily find out). I wouldn't know on the surface if they were gay. But, for arguments sake lets say they were allowed to be avowed (hey that almost rhymes!) and advertised their unit as 100% Gay & Trained and proud of it! I couldn't answer on the surface. Given only these two choices what I would proceed to do is to ask the untrained Scout leaders why they were untrained. Running a great program and being untrained while rare are not 100% mutually exclusive. I'd ask the other unit why they had 100% homosexual leaders (both male and female??). Was it because of the charter organization? Did it effect their program? Why do they feel the need to advertise? I'd base my decision dependent on the answers. In other words, program delivery would be my litmus test so to speak. Not posed in the question was my son's preference so I won't attempt to provide an answer to that.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Oops. Duplicate post.(This message has been edited by acco40)

American values, un-American values, traditional values - these are terms that politicians and BSA big-wigs use. For those that really want to communicate with others, they should refrain from using these terms.

Yes, but give a youth a fish and he may just say it stinks. Teach a youth how to fish and he may say "I already know that." Sorry, for the above, I'm cranky today. The john88 post gives creedence to my wish to identify youth vs. adult member postings. I know we can supply a profile but many do not. An answer to this post would vary greatly depending on if posed by a youth or an adult. My advice is to always assume a youth if unknown.

I agree with BW - go with four adults as a minimum for safety (if not regulation) reasons. On our outings, I always try and make a contingent plan for one adult leaving for any reason (sickness, work related, family emergency) and therefore request three-deep leadership. Not required, but not a bad idea.

In all of the other forum topics where "God" is brought up people seem to forget that the Cub Scout Promise, Pledge of Alligiance, etc. originally had no reference to God. During the "red scare" days, Godless communism was attacked by the US by changing some of our popular culture. The phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance (1954?). In 1950 the Cub Scout Promise changed to add the line to do my duty to God and my country. In 1971 Cub Scout Promise dropped to be square and added to help other people. The Boy Scout Oath has gone about similar machinations. The traditional (British, not BSA) Scout Law made no reference to reverent or duty to God. Traditional Scout Law (Scouting for Boys, circa 1908) A Scouts honor is to be trusted. A Scout is loyal. (to the King and others) A Scouts duty is be useful and to help others. A Scout is a friend to all, and a brother to every other Scout. A Scout is courteous. A Scout is a friend to animals. A Scout obeys orders. A Scout smiles and whistles under all difficulties. A Scout is thrifty. A Scout is clean in thought, word, and deed. The traditional Scout Promise (or Scout Oath) however did mention a duty to God. Traditional Scout Promise On my honor I promise that I will do my best: To do my duty to God and my country; To help other people at all times; To obey the Scout Law. According to tradition, Baden-Powell wrote an alternative oath called the Outlander Promise for Scouts who could not, for reasons of conscience, recognize a duty to a King (the norm in the USA), for individuals or members of religions (such as Buddhism, Taoism, and others) that do not worship a deity, and for members of orthodox religions that do not use the name of God in secular settings. Traditional Outlander's Scout Promise On my honor I promise to do my best: To render service to my country; To help other people at all times; To obey the Scout Law

I'd ask what to do with my purple knots.

Barry, I feel your pain. I (an engineer) grew up in a household led by my psychologist father! I enjoyed your post. It is true, boys (and girls), troubled or not, do seek out boundaries. You state that moral decision-making is the only tool you have to give a boy the boundaries where he can see himself in the future, and see how to build respect toward himself. What if a boy believes himself to be gay? Should he not have adult role models too? Do we want him to feel shame about his feelings? Do we want to encourage self-loathing? I don't want to debate genetics, learned behavior, etc. but I think Scouting can teach our youth, regardless of their sexuality, about fidelity, respect, and numerous other fine qualities. Now as a Scout leader, I don't see myself as a heterosexual adult role model - I see myself as a role model period. Many religions view homosexuality as a sin. Many do not. Why not allow COs to choose their leaders FULLY. Try this analogy on for size. Let's say the Scouting program was identical the way it is right now except for an added "Declaration of Meatless Fridays" clause. I for one would still be tempted to join up, allow my boys to reap the benefits of Scouting, etc. even though I was somewhat ambivalent about the Meatless Fridays declaration. Yes it may have some worth, Americans do tend to eat too much red meat. Similar to the tradition of Ramadan and other periods of fasting (Ordeal weekend ring a bell?) can teach us to reflect on worthwhile things. But if asked (please don't ask by whom!) why Friday?, why meat? do you really believe this?, etc. I may answer no. I'm sure I would be called a hypocrite, asked to go start my own program, be criticized if I wanted to change that declaration, etc. Now on the flip size, let's say the BSA relented and made the Meatless Friday a CO option. What about Jamborees, Conclaves, District events - i.e. anything with multiple units participating? Should most go meatless on Friday out of respect for those who do believe? Should one go up an chomp on a juicy steak in front of others to show defiance? Choose your battles wisely.

No need to be sorry. Reread my post, I did not pose a question (see lack of a question mark). I'm not going to get in the mud and wrestle a pig.

That Bob, is irrelevant. The BSA policy still stands and I think it is not in the best interest of Scouting.

Snake Eater, you repeatedly state the you find homosexuals behavior immoral. What I think you and many others fail to realize is that the BSA bans avowed homosexuals BUT NOT BECAUSE OF BEHAVIOR. That is my beef. A trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent (ring a bell?) homosexual who does his best to do his duty to God and country - and remains celebate but who, when asked, is truthful in stating his homosexuality, is deemed unfit to become a leader in the BSA. That is where I feel the BSA fails its members.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Time for a little levity. Our parish priest, who is of Polish descent, has a favorite T-shirt which reads: I went to Rome to see the Pope, but he was in Hamtramck. Sorry, that maybe was a little too much regional humor but I liked it. My guess, OGE, was that you were really not looking for an answer (I'm sure you knew the answer) but were asking a rhetorical question. I'll do the same. Why does Dubya, in the Shiavo case, talk of erring on the side of human life, but when Governor of Texas, allow the execution of more inmates than all the other states combined? His comment at the time, after spending on average less than 15 minutes reviewing each case, was that he would not interfere with the courts. He must have had some type of ideological turnaround since then or maybe, just maybe, he is doing what is politically expedient? Karol Jozef Wojtyla, like Ronald Reagan, was a trained actor (and I don't mean that in a negative way). They both firmly understood the power of television and modern media. The Pope, even more so was the "Great Communicator" being fluent in a multitude of languages (8?) and knowing many more. He used these capable tools to send his message to all. I highly respected the man. Like the Scout Oath and Law, the Catholic Church has guidelines for those to follow. The vast majority strive to meet them but all fall short. He was very much against the USA's actions in both of our conflicts with Iraq. He was not in agreement with the communist leaders of Poland, Cuba, USSR, etc. but was able to make an offer they could not refuse. He would come visit their countries, recognize them (the leaders) - lending a sense of legitimacy to them - but speak of human rights. The crowds he would draw added legitimacy to his doctrine. Many forget that as well as a religious leader he was also a head of state.

I can see why they may choose to disclose such information for public relations reasons, but why would a private organization, in every sense of the word - no stock, etc. be required to disclose the income of their highly compensated employees? Obviously, I have no real legal background but that puzzles me. When I attended commissioners college a few years ago one of the sessions presented typical district executive salaries. I was surprised at how low they were given the college educated requirement and the time they put in. Can anyone direct me to a hierarchy (sans salaries) of district executive, district director, scout executive, etc.?