DanKroh

Thanks guys!

Now I just gotta make it through the CoH in June without getting all misty eyed

My son, who has Asperger's, ADHD and OCD, as well as some physical limitations, passed his Board of Review last night for First Class. It's taken him just over 3 years, but I couldn't be prouder.

One of the big hurdles was passing the swim test. Because of coordination problems and a pretty bad fear of water, we weren't sure he'd ever be able to pass an unmodified swim test. But this past summer, we visited the pool a couple times a week to work past the fear. Then, he went every day of his week at summer camp to the instructional swim time, and by the end of the week, passed the swim test.

Sometimes it's been hard to watch his peers zoom through advancement, but I think it's important to remember, especially for these guys with special needs, that the journey is definitely as important as the end result, and they will ultimately make that journey on their own schedule.

Anway, I just wanted to share his success with anyone else who might be struggling with a scout with special needs. Don't give up him, and don't let him give up on himself.

Our pack presents the boys with their new neckerchief, slide, and handbook when they graduate ranks. For the Webelos going into their second year, we present them with their new Den emblem patch that they have chosen before the ceremony. As our boys have a tendancy lately to come up with... er... creative den names, we have had to order or create custom patches. Last year's Webelos were the "Flying Pigs". I can't wait to see what they come up with this year.

I think Webelos I and II are perfectly fine shorthand, fwiw.

Oops, thanks Gern for the correction. The atheist symbol is an A within a set of three electron orbitals (it's #16 on the chart):

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/funeral_information/authorized_emblems.html

Packsaddle asks, "Dan, curiosity is about to kill me again, what's the atheist symbol?"

It's an A with a circle around it, I believe. (Darned close to a pentagram, if you think about it)

hey pack, where does that leave us UU/Pagans? I guess we have a double whammy on us....

BobWhite asks: "While the church of scientology might be a chartering institution you will note that they do not have a BSA recognized religious award either. But I am unaware or any belief held by the scientologists that would prohibit them from having a Scout unit, can you."

Yes, I can think of several beliefs I would consider inconsistent with scouting. However, I don't wish to turn the discussion here into one about the beliefs of the CoS, but of the inconsistency the BSA in treating non-mainstream religions (which is already enough of a hijack, and I apologize to the OP for that). Let's turn that around, Bob, are you aware of any belief held by Wiccans that would prohibit them from having a Scout unit?

I think it's a good bet that the CoS isn't even going to bother putting forth an award until they meet the 25 unit rule, if at all. They are a bit too secretive to be willing to put the tenants of their "faith" out there for approval by someone else.

Trev,

Yes, there are small steps. The battle over the pentagram on the headstone was really quite an unbelievable bit of bigotry, considering they allow a symbol for atheists (not that they shouldn't have one). Like I said, it's not the exclusion by the BSA that bothers me so much as the hypocrisy of their "we welcome all religions" party line. Just some religions are more equal than others, obviously.

Thanks, Pack and Trev, for dispelling the "must have a national organization" whooey. Never mind that CoG *is* a national organization.

So, the BSA then had to make up a new bogus rule, the 25 unit rule. Now I'm curious, are there *really* more than 25 unit chartered to Buddhist temples, to Hindu temples, to Zoroastorian organizations, by the followers of Meher Baba?

"To date there are no scout units chartered by a wiccan or pagan organization."

No, there aren't, but not for lack of trying by Wiccan/Pagan organizations. And if the BSA has its way, there never will be. I wish I could find the letters of rejection from National to the Aquarian Tabernacle Church or the Covenant of the Goddess when they asked to become chartering partners, but the basic gist of it was that "the values of Wicca are inconsistent with the values of Scouting". Another bunch of whooey; of course, the BSA couldn't outline *which* values of Wicca conflicted with scouting.

I find it particular ironic that somehow the values of the Church of Scientology (considered a dangerous cult by just about everyone outside of it) don't conflict enough with the values of scouting to disqualify them as a Chartering Partner. Or perhaps it has more to do with their large bankroll.

"Religious award requirements must be submitted to the BSA by the religions official national or international orgnaization."

Except that the BSA has already violated this rule by recognizing the UU award put forth by the UUSO, which is NOT the religion's offical organization (that would be the UUA), and which is not even "recognized" by the UUA as an official UU organization. A little consistency by the BSA might be too much to ask for, but would be nice.

"Wiccans/pagans have no such national organization."

Covenant of the Goddess is as close to a national organization as Wicca is ever likely to get, and has at least as much "clout" with Wiccans as the UUSO does with UUs.

Buffalojoe, I second CalicoPenn's recommendation to take a look at the religious awards already developed by CoG. The awards are very appropriate for many variations (but not all) of Paganism. I think Kevin's cause would be better served by throwing his and your efforts behind CoG.

Of course, all that said, I honestly don't give a hoot if the BSA "recognizes" my faith's (or anyone else's) award or not. But I find their hypocracy on this matter disturbing.

Lisabob asks: "Just out of curiosity why are you awarding trophies (presumably paid for by the pack, perhaps from pack dues or fundraisers) to non-pack members?"

It is one trophy, to be passed to the new winner each year. It's not like the pack is laying out a bunch of money each year to buy a bunch of trophies for parents and sibling Boy Scouts. We also award trophies to the younger siblings, even though technically, they are not pack members, either. If by "non-pack member", you mean someone who doesn't have a family member in the pack, that's not what's happening here.

The adult trophy is new this year, in response to a request by many parents to have one trophy for them. Personally, I don't have a problem with letting the parents have input into how the money they helped raise (or paid as dues) is spent.

"Lose the trophy and part of this problem goes away. PWDs are chiefly for cub scouts. Any "open" races could be simply for bragging rights, without costing the pack money."

I think part of the impetus for the adult trophy is that they evidently have a very competitive adult division with a trophy at the Council level derby, and the adults who have been in that liked the idea of the perpetual trophy for the pack. Personally, I've never entered my own car, and never will; it's enough of a challenge for me to help my kids with theirs. But there are enough other parents who feel differently.

DYB-Mike,

I think I would also be inclined to let a Cub run a car without being present if there were extenuating circumstances, but what do you think about this case, where the person running in absentia is not a Cub, but a Boy Scout in the adult division. Especially in that case, where this is only one trophy to be won, and he won it. I have gotten a sense from a couple of the other adults who ran (and my own Boy Scout son, who had a car in the division as well), that they didn't feel it was right.

Just to make it clear, the Boy Scout knew about the conflict well in advance (i.e. before he began making the car), it's not something that came up at the last minute.

This is part vent, part questioning what you do in your unit.

First the vent: This year, we started offering a trophy for the "adult" division, which also includes siblings (mostly Boy Scouts) who are over Cub Scout age. The trophy is going to be one of these where it is passed year to year to the new winner. Anway, the winner of the trophy this year was a Boy Scout who is the older son of the guy who runs the Pinewood (and his younger son was the grand winner in the entire Pack, and has won every year he's been in scouts, but that's another rant, and I digress). My problem with this is, he wasn't there. He was off at a merit badge college run by the Council. His parents registered his car for him (Mom is the committee chair, fwiw) in his absence.

Personally, I don't think that cars should be run in absentia, except possibly for extenuating circumstances, which I don't think this is.

Ok, now here's the question part: Does your pack allow cars to be entered for people who aren't there (and is there/should there be a different policy for cubs/young siblings vs. adult/older siblings)?

"As an engineer, first of all I'm appalled that 300 feet got converted to 300 yards and then attributed to a Brit. B-P, in all probability would have stated 100 meters."

Acco, the UK didn't undergo metrication until the 1960's and 70's, as I recall. So B-P would definitely have been using English measurements like foot and yard in 1909.

WildernessStudent, if you are looking for information about specific rivers, I suggest taking a look at the American Whitewater website. They have a information of just about every river in the country that can be paddled, including current conditions, suggested put-in and take-out points, and sometimes maps.

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River_view_

One suggestion:

If you can, have at least one person come along who is an experienced kayaker. Kayaks are much more maneuverable than canoes, and they can be a great asset in rescuing boys and boats and other gear after a canoe flips.

When my son's troop goes canoeing, my friend and I bring our kayaks. We also find them useful for scouting the river ahead, since we can more easily paddle back to the group against the current than a canoe can.

One time on a river in Maine, this same friend and I ended up rescuing a canoe of a high school group that happened to be going down the same river. It was slack water, but the current was just strong enough that it started to take the canoe while the kids were recovering from their dunking. We got ahead of the canoe and actually used our kayaks to push it back upstream. Inexperienced paddlers (which all the high school kids were) would not have been able to do that with canoes.

"Now, I hope every one of you who has responded to this thread has earned the "Eagle Required" Coffee Drinking Merit Badge"

moxieman, does that also come in a beltloop for us Cubbies?

Just be careful leaving those Coleman Drippers out overnight if the temps are going to dip down into freezing.

One of the ASMs on my son's last campout did an impressive job of blowing the thing up in the morning because some water froze somewhere that didn't like being rapidly heated up.

I second the coffee tea-bags. Just for the love of everything holy, not instant, which is what we had this weekend on our Cub Freeze-out overnight -- bleh! (The person in charge of buying the food is evidently NOT a coffee drinker....)

stevejb,

If you truly do believe that the ACLU is trying to "abolish anything to do with religion in this country by using the court system", I suggest that you familiarize yourself with some of the cases they have brought to support freedom of religion "of Those Identifying Themselves as Christian" (these are only a few of the cases you can easily find by googling):

The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The City had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted "free speech zones." After receiving the ACLU's letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance.

www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLetter.pdf

www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=57665

The ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school's team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate.

www.aclu-or.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Lit_tp_nak

www.aclu-or.org/site/DocServer/Lit_OSAA_mtgmry_3_07.pdf?docID=1861

The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) sued on behalf of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) university student who won a prestigious scholarship to West Virginia University. Although the state scholarship board provided leaves of absence for military, medical, and family reasons, it denied the ACLU's client a leave of absence to serve on a 2-year mission for his church. The ACLU filed a religious freedom claim in federal court.

www.aclu-wv.org/Newsroom/PressReleases/07_19_07.html

The ACLU of Wisconsin (2007) filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that individual pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious scruples, provided that patients can obtain prescriptions from willing providers in a safe and timely manner.

www.aclu-wi.org/wisconsin/rights_of_women/ 20070201_Pharm_Refusal_amicus_complete.pdf

The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-Court brief. After a favorable settlement was reached for the student, the federal lawsuit was dismissed.

www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html

Excellently put, Calico!

Ed, Lambda Legal represents the rights of the GLBT community.

"You guys all sound pretty gay to me, but I won't assume you are homos. And if you were, I wouldnt think any less of you."

Pappy, do you have any clue how derogatory this is? Do you often go around calling people "homos"? Personally, I couldn't give a rip what you think about me or my orientation. But you certainly proved my point.

If we are an Order of Ilks, does that mean we get to wear funny hats? Wouldn't be a lodge without funny hats....

Pappy, my momma always said, "Homophobic is as homophobic does". Well, ok, she didn't, but anyone who uses a "slippery slope" argument to use fear of homosexuality being accepted in society as the beginning of the downfall of civilized values (and of course, let's not forget the orgy-filled scout outings) is certainly displaying the qualities of homophobia.

Pack, the lack of concern for your tenture seems to be related to the presence of a Y chromosome in your genome.

I'm also intrigued to find out that evidently the opposite of a republican is a communist ("gay or straight, believers or atheist, republicans or communists").

"And Lisa bob, do you honestly believe that homosexual scouts would be any less inclined to break the ban on sexual activity during campouts than would boys and girls sharing tents in a coed camping situation?"

I'm not Lisabob, but I'd like to answer that. No, I don't believe they'd be less inclined. Nor do I believe they would be more inclined, as you seem to, Pappy. Actually, that's not entirely accurate. I do believe they'd be less inclined, for a couple of reasons:

1) statistically speaking, the chances of finding a partner who is of the same orientation, and there being mutual attraction, within a troop of 20-40 boys (average troop size, no?), is pretty low.

2) currently, there would still be significant fear of peers reacting negatively. Don't have that with hetero couples.

"Or just maybe, deep down, you also believe this to be true, and you are too petrified of your fellow lefty professors learning that you might hold a belief out of lock-step with theirs. That is a sure fire way of getting yourself UN_invited to the next faculty pot-luck and maybe tenure as well, isn't it?"

Wow, Lisabob, I think you are right. All I got was my opinions dismissed with the "Blue State" label.

"I am not an expert on this issue of transgender. And I found the Wikipedia article very educational. But I do have a problem with identity politics. It lends itself to balkanization. And I have noticed that many groups make their particular sexual orientation the focus of their identity. I think this is troublesome."

Then perhaps it is better not to throw transgender around as a buzzword to indicate moral terpitude. BTW, transgender is NOT a sexual orientation. It is a gender issue.

"You also mentioned that heterosexuals can exhibit sexual deviance. I agree- sexual deviance is pretty universal. But an open adulterer is as much of a problem to a community of scouters as would be a Homosexual player. They are a destabilizing influences on the formation of normative values a community comes around such as marriage an sexual abstinence.. An open adulterer- or a closeted adulterer- whether Homo or Hetero is a pariah and should be unwelcome to an organization promoting contrary values."

Good, then let's judge people on what they actually do instead of who they are. Here is Massachusetts, same-sex marriages are legal. Have been since 2002. But a married man, who has been faithful to his spouse, still can't be in the BSA if that spouse happens to be another man.

"I know that you have written about all the seemingly normal everyday varieties of homosexuals who lead lives like most normal heterosexuals but the exponents of the hedonism found in many clubs would probably not put themselves in this category."

Then you better look open your eyes to some of the hedonism going on in clubs frequented by heterosexuals as well. The point is, again, that the BSA is not judging the homosexual on their lack or presence of hedonism or promiscuity. They are judging them on their identity as gay.

"Come out and say it --DO you want scouting to be open and admitting of gays or not?"

I believe I have always presented my position on this matter as an emphatic YES!

"But the idea of norming this behavior is ridiculous: IT IS abnormal by its very definition."

Using the definition of abnormal as "being outside the majority", yes. But so are many other things that are accepted by society. Being left handed (as Merlyn pointed out already), wearing glasses, having red hair. Doesn't make any of those things inherently immoral.

"So what we are really advocating is a boy scouting that would have no moral ground to say that boys who buddy up shouldnt participate in friendly behavior such as mutual masturbation- oral and anal relations, and group antics. After all- there is no harm done if it is consensual, right?"

Wrong. Sexual relations of any sort is prohibited between scouts (or scouters) at scouting events. Doesn't matter whether it's between two boys, two girls, or a boy and a girl. Not allowed. Period.

Do I think it's a good idea outside of scouting? No more or less than I think it is for young heterosexual couples to engage in irresponsibly sexual behavior before they are mature enough to handle it.

"This is what this is all leading to. Why shouldnt a boy want to satisfy himself with another boy especially if the other boys are willing to reciprocate the actions?"

Well, either of these hypothetical boys not being homosexual (or bisexual) would be a big reason. And chances are, at least one of them isn't. And if they both happen to be gay or bi, see above statements about irresponsible sexual behavior.

Same with the examples of Scoutmasters Steve and Ken. This presumes that homosexuals are less able to "keep it in their pants" than heterosexuals, which is an incredibly ignorant and insulting supposition. I know several heterosexual married couples who go on scouting trips together. They aren't sneaking off into the woods or shaking the tent at night. Why would you presume Steve and Ken would (and here in MA, Steve and Ken may even be married!)?

Thanks for the link, Pappy, but you didn't answer my question, which was what you think "transgender relations" are?