DanKroh

We had our pack meeting Friday night, following the Down on the Farm theme. We visited the small farm of one of our den leaders. The boys learned about and got to pet goats, a miniature horse, ducks, and see a bee hive. Lots of hands on stuff (tasting goat cheese, and honey straight from the hive). The Wolves did a joke skit, and the Tigers led us in a rousing rendition of "Old MacDonald". Man, a pack meeting just doesn't get any better than that.

Saturday was also our University of Scouting, and I taught CPR and First Aid to a group of about a dozen leaders and older scouts. Everyone passed the written exam and will get their certification cards from the Red Cross.

Sunday was more of a family time, we carved the pumpkins we had picked last weekend. Hmmm... might be able to work that into a Bear achievement or elective somewhere, right?

"I wouldn''''t allow him to become a leader nor would I allow him to attend meetings or outtings"

Keep in mind that this is Cub Scouts. If a parent can''t come on an outing, that generally means that the Cub doesn''t get to go.

I''m assuming that the boy is not a Tiger, and that the father isn''t trying to get registered as his adult partner, so he isn''t required to be at every meeting (although some packs, like ours, still encourage parents to attend meetings). I would imagine he certainly couldn''t pass muster to become registered as a leader, but as just a Cub Scout parent, I think the ground is a little grayer.

some other things I would need to take into consideration:

1) does the boy have another parent/guardian who can come to meetings and outings instead of the felonious father?

2) would you know anything about his record if he hadn''t volunteered the information in the first place? I think he does deserve some points for disclosure.

3) is the father the boy''s legal custodial parent? It seems quite plausible that the parents may be divorced under the circumstances, and one would hope that the mother would be in a better parenting position than the father. What is her role in this, and does she do anything to support her son''s involvement in scouting?

I agree that the man''s record should disqualify him from active participation in any youth group. I think the best situation would be if there was another adult who could accompany the boy to meetings and outings. If there isn''t, then I guess you have to gauge how much you don''t want the father around against the possibility of losing the boy from scouting. While I can''t see him doing too much harm at a pack meeting, for example, I think it is another thing to have him along on a campout where people may be leaving personal possessions unattended.

Hopefully your DE can provide you with some guidance. Otherwise, I think you need to look specifically at how his presence could impact your pack, and decide if it is too much of a risk.

good luck!

oh, how I miss those dulcet tones.

None of it seems to work as well when Dad says it....

There is also a thread already going about this in the Cub Scout Subforum.

There is also a notice about it on the Scout Stuff website:

http://scoutstuff.org/bsasupply/info.aspx?page=cskit

Ed, I''m glad to hear that you would be ok with a public prayer to Thor. So what would *you* do during that prayer if it was said at a public event you were attending?

I''m still a little unclear, though, on what prayers would and would not be ok in a public school. Ed, could you share your vision of how you would see public prayer implemented if the SCOTUS ruled tomorrow that public prayer in public schools was now ok?

Just leaving out the atheists for a moment (sorry, Merlyn), how would you accommodate the diversity of religions (and subsequently, the diversity of gods to be prayed to) in the school?

I, btw, am in the camp of those who feel that if I can''t have a public prayer that is going to be spiritually meaningful to me, I''d rather not have one at all. While I will stand by quietly and respectfully at places where public prayers are being said (like scout functions), don''t expect me to join in a prayer that is not to my gods, because it''s not appropriate for me to do so. I would much rather have a moment of observed silence during which I can make my own prayers. I find it much harder to make a silent prayer when someone else is talking in the background.

Hey Ed,

If the person making the public prayer before the school football game happens to be an Asatru and starts it with "Oh great and all-powerful Thor..." would you still support their right to public prayer?

anyone else get deja vu of Pong when reading the last page or so of this thread? Or Steve Martin from Roxanne.... hypnotic, isn''t it?

Hey Lisabob,

In case anyone hasn''t told you this lately, you are a totally class act.

Nicely said.

one thing that''s not usually on the packing list that I found invaluable....

a coffee mug

Have fun!

"a good ole owl"

"Except, the adults did have cell phones - and they didn''t work because the weren''t in range of a cell phone tower - and that''s as it should be in the woods."

The other thing I''ve noticed lately is a tendancy of some folks to think that cell phone possession is an adequate substitute for knowing basic life saving procedures and first aid and having a first aid kit available (not in Scouts per se, but more in the general public). This is a good example of why relying on your cell phone alone in an emergency situation is always a bad idea.

"Color me naive, but the idea that "lawsuits are used to to establish that (the law)" means that judges write the laws"

Actually, I believe the antecendent that "that" was refering to was "following the law", not "making the law". At least, that''s the way I interpreted Merlyn''s statement, that lawsuits are used to enforce laws, not make them.

"The ''great'' flood of the bible is a myth, same as many of the other stories (miracles, mostly). But ''terrible'' floods happen with surprising frequency."

Yes, well, *you* think that, and *I* think that, be there are quite a number of biblical literalists (on this forum even) who would disagree with that.

If you want some fascinating reading, check out the fairly recent research of the Burkle crater in the Indian Ocean and theories on it''s role in the development of the "Great Flood Myth", which is present in just about every culture globally.

well, the banner ad at the top of this page is right now for an online Pagan store.

I guess my work here is done....

snap, Trev. I must have been typing while you posted.

"If it''''s a manufactured fairy tale, unrooted in any facts, then it''''s "reality" is PRECISELY what I can, and do, deny. Such a ''''foundation'''' is just exactly -- by definition! -- nothing more than fiction."

Except that what Trev and Merlyn are trying to say, if I may interpret for them, is that one religion''s fairy tale IS another religion''s facts. The "foundation" of ANY religion cannot be proven or disproven by objective means (at least, in the absence of a time machine). All we have are the "stories" of our respective holy books that tell us what our own particular "facts" are. Some people may consider the Bible to be a "manufactured fairy tale", and have been unimpressed by the "facts" presented to try to convince them otherwise.

Some of those "facts" can be *supported* by physical evidence, but there can always be an interpretation of that evidence that contradicts the religious doctrine. Here''s an example: there is physical evidence from a number of sources that there was, in fact, a "great flood" something like 4000 years ago. However, given that many religions have a "great flood story", saying that the flood is attributable to any one god is an interpretation which is not supported by the evidence, not to mention, there is also an interpretation of those events which include no gods at all, but natural events at work (a mid-ocean comet or meteor strike being in the lead right now).

So is the great flood story a fact, or a fairy tale?

I also think we are not using the term "knowledge" in the same way. When I speak of having "knowledge" of something spiritual, I mean first-hand knowledge, personal knowledge, either as a primary witness or as a personal gnosis (i.e. epiphany or similar term). If you (generic you, not personal you) are a Christian, and claim to "know" that the resurrection is a "fact", then either you are over 2000 years old and witnessed the event for yourself, or you have a personal gnosis about it, which is by its very nature unverifiable and unproveable. If you do not have either of those things, then by my definition, you don''t have "knowledge"-- instead, you have a belief based on faith that the story represented in the Bible is true and accurate. If the "facts" of any religion were proveable and verifiable, then there would be no debate about what was the "true religion".

What an agnostic is saying is that it is impossible to have that kind of knowledge about gods. That unless you''ve had a personal encounter (even in a spiritual or metaphysical sense) with a god, then you don''t have "knowledge" of that god, and they believe that such a thing happening is impossible. Therefore it is impossible to "know" any god.

Plenty of people believe in a religion without having first-hand witness or personal gnosis of everything they are asked to believe by their religion. They may believe that such knowledge IS possible (i.e., they are NOT agnostic), but they still don''t have that kind of knowledge themselves. An agnostic in that religion would take it one step further and say "I don''t have this kind of personal knowledge, and I don''t believe it''s possible to get it, but I''m going to believe in this religion anyway because I have faith." You call that "play-acting"; I call it having faith.

Is such a spirituality as rich and life-altering as it is to someone who has a more personal relationship with their god? Possibly not. But is it any less valid or "real" to them? I don''t believe so. It''s just another way that some people experience the divine universe.

I can see that there may be religious sects out there where if you haven''t HAD that personal gnosis, you can''t truly be considered a believer of that religion. However, Wicca is not one of them, and neither was the flavor of Christianity I was raised in. Maybe your experience with your religious sect differs.

But unless a religion has such a requirement of a personal gnosis, I see no conflict in someone calling themselves a believer in that religion AND an agnostic.

As far as who may or may not have faith in a false religion, well, I think there is only one way that each of us will know the answer to that in the end. All we can do is keep the faith in our own way until that mystery is revealed to us.

"What I did say was that I couldn''t see any fundamental difference between a child''s, or teen''s imaginary play-reality, and a knowledge-free religion, like the version of Wiccan DanKroh described."

Just to clarify, Wicca (that''s the name of the religion, btw, a Wiccan is one who follows it) is NOT an agnostic religion. The vast majority of Wiccans that I know (myself included) claim a personal gnosis of their gods, and feel that they were "called" by the gods, and are not just doing it "because it feels good". I was, however, positing that it *could be possible* for someone of ANY religion to claim belief without gnosis, without that being an irrational position.

This is only my personal opinion, but I think there are many adherents to many religions who do not, in fact, have personal knowledge of the god they worship. Doesn''t mean they are agnostic, of course, but from what GaHillBilly is saying, it does make their religious experience "play-acting" (and please correct me if I''ve misinterpreted your position). Personally, I think this discounts the value of faith, though. I think you can have faith in the "facts" of your religion, even if you have not experienced that knowledge in a personal way.

eisely, pansexual is a term that acknowledges that some consider gender a "spectrum" rather than a binary system. While bisexual means that one is attracted to *both* genders, pansexual indicates that one is attracted to *all* genders.

Edited to add: Another definition of pansexual is used to indicate that one is attracted to someone else without regard for their gender.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"Just to be accurate, if you are a male wearing a kilt, you had better not be wearin'''' panties nor any other hint of an undergarment if you know whats good for you (and you want to be historically accurate)"

Funny you should mention that, OGE. I just came back from a weekend camping with medieval recreationists. You can tell the gents wearing their kilts in a historically accurate fashion because they are the ones walking rather gingerly by Sunday due to the chafing.

Me, I spent the weekend in knee length tunics and tights.

So, GaHillBilly, by extension then, any person who professes belief in any religion while claiming to also be agnostic is also quite irrational?

Interesting. I can''t say I agree, but thank you for the clarification.

GaHillBilly,

You''ve presented an interesting thesis.

However, I do think that it fails to take into account the true variability of both agnosticism and Wicca (or general Paganism), which you do mention, but don''t fully expound upon.

First, I take it that you primarily have experience with "new-age, touchy-feely" Wiccans/Pagans. We are not all such. In fact, among my more hard-core co-religionists, such IRAB (I Read A Book) or "fluffy" Pagans are treated with much derision. Also, she may not be truly a "Wiccan", but some other flavor of Pagan. Many Pagans realize that Wicca is the largest, and most recognizable of the Pagan religions to most people, and say that they are "Wiccan" as a shorthand because they feel it will be better understood than saying they are "Pagan". In any case, not all Wiccans or Pagans assert that they have "knowledge". They do assert that they have "a cohesive set of beliefs", which is not the same as having "knowledge".

Second, while you have accurately portrayed the tenents of agnosticism (as opposed to the common misconception that they are "just unsure about God"), I think you have portrayed it with more rigidity than many have in their beliefs. I know many people of spiritual beliefs who consider themselves "something" AND an agnostic (including my own pastor, a UU minister), because they recognize that their belief in "something" is just that, a belief that can never be proven, that is based solely on faith, about which they can never have real knowledge.

Personally, I don''t find the idea of a Wiccan Agnostic to automatically be a self-contradiction. Perhaps the way it was presented by this particular person was, but, especially after extensive conversations with my pastor about his Agnosticism, I don''t find the idea to be "intrinsically irrational".

Hunt asks: "I''''m curious about whether it''''s thought that the brain of a transgendered person is somehow physically or chemically different, or it the sense of being the "wrong" sex psychological? If there''''s a physical difference in the brain, then it''''s really not so different from the "intersexed" baby who has physical characteristics of both sexes. If it''''s psychological, then the issue gives me more pause."

Although there have not been many studies done, those that have do show a difference in some section of the brains of transgendered people that resemble more closely that of their "internal" gender. However, it is not known whether those differences are the cause, or a result of their transgenderism.

The current theory is that probable maternal hormonal influences in utero affect the development of the brain, so that it develops similar to the gender opposite that of the body.

The idea that transgenderism is psychological has, of course, been and continues to be held by some. However, these theories have never been proven for even a minority of TG people. Given that TG people have to go through rather extensive psychological screening before transition can begin, it would become fairly quickly obvious if that were the case.

"We''''ve both gotten chuckles about the intrinsic irrationality of being "a Wiccan and an agnostic", as his first college literature teacher described herself."

I''m curious as to why you believe that being "a Wiccan and an agnostic" is intrisically irrational....

I was unavailable for a while, so I''m going to hit several issues in one reply, if you will bear with me.

acco40 writes: "What is the legal definition of male or female? Does it just involve reproductive organs? Does it just involve chromosome patterns? From my definition, the vast majority of "transgender" surgeries occurs within days of birth and parents have to make a determination of what sex they want their newborn to take. This makes me squirm, but it is much easier to "lop off" than to "add on" so to speak."

Acco, like John, I believe what you are referencing are actually "intersexed" people, not transgendered. Intersexed people have (often due to chromosomal abnormalities, but not always) genitalia of both genders, and yes, the determination of which gender they will be is usually, but not always, made early in infancy.

However, that is NOT what transgendered is. TGs are chromosomally, physiologically normal males or females who feel that their body does not correctly express their correct gender (i.e., the gender that they feel they are in their brain).

Aquila writes: "Justify it all you want, they''''re still spitting in the face of the Almighty."

I, too, would like a clarification of this. The usually feeling I have found among those with transphobia based on their religious beliefs is that transgendered people are "changing God''s design". But I think that if you feel that correcting something that endangers a person''s health is "going against God''s design" because it changes their body from the way they were born, then you also have to be against surgeries for the intersexed, surgeries for people born with any other birth defect (including my son and his life-saving heart surgery), and any medical treatments for any condition that is congenital (present at birth).

I have much less problem with extreme religious views if they are at least consistant. But again, this has been my personal (and professional) experience, and may not be where you are coming from. So, please, do clarify.

John-in-KC, I also think it would probably be much more of an issue if someone wanted to join scouting mid-transition or transition while active as a leader. But what about someone who has transitioned years ago, but may not have had surgery on their genitalia (commonly called "bottom surgery" as opposed to "top surgery" to either add or remove breasts) as part of their transition? While most transitioning involves top surgery, a much smaller percentage have bottom surgery. Does continuing to have parts of what is now the opposite gender (which they may have no intention of ever changing) still present a problem? Or is the fact that those parts should be under wraps (so to speak) at all times anyway alleviate that?

Packsaddle, again, I think you found the head of the nail first. I would think that the biggest part of the problem is sexuality (which is completely separate from gender, but definitely related). Most, if not all, TGs are faced with being labeled "homosexual" at some point. Either they start out "straight" but then are perceived as "gay" after transition, or they are "gay" pre-transition, but are then perceived as "straight" after transition. And I won''t even get into the ones who are bisexual or pansexual, so nothing really changes for them in that regard.

In case all that is confusing, here is an example: a lesbian who transitions to male, but is still attracted to females is now a "straight man". But a "straight woman" who transitions to male is now a "gay man, assuming he still is only attracted to men. Which one would be verboten, the one who was gay before transition, or the one who is gay after transition? Or both?

Interestingly, while the usually quoted percentage of homosexuals in the general population is about 10%, the percentage of those identifying as not-heterosexual among the TG community is more like 50%. Which is one of the reasons why "trans issues" usually get lumped in with "gay issues", at least in my experience.

Also pack, I''m looking forward to checking out the articles you provided, just haven''t had a chance yet.

eisely writes: "Coming to the question if a known transgendered person wanted to volunteer, I do not see any harm in that. One of the operative words here is "known" since I doubt that any volunteer presenting themselves as either a male or a female would say, "Oh by the way, last year I was something different." I don''''t know how this would be picked up as a discrepancy or anomaly (sp?) in a criminal background check. Since these are done at BSA national, I have no idea how they would deal with something like that."

Thank you for your thoughts.

It is very difficult for TG''s, especially if they are parents, to NOT have it know about their TG status. Some try to go "stealth" (meaning, not revealing to anyone their status), but it''s hard if they are parents with young children. A FTM may still have his children call him "Mom", for instance, because nothing changes the biological fact that he gave birth to them before transitioning.

As far as the CORI, I''m not real familiar with what all they check, but I assumed it would pick up a change of name, and if the previous name was obviously a gender-specific name of the opposite gender, eyebrows would shoot up. Even having to submit a license for a CORI could let the cat out of the bag, since not everyone is able to change their license to show their new gender.

John, I''ll try here:

"Are we talking about children who are geneticallymales, and have female functions? Equally, are we talking about geneticallyfemales, and have male functions? Both of those to me sound like birth defects. How and when you deal with the corrective surgery is a big ??? to me."

Depends on what you mean by "functions". A transgendered person may have, for example, a normally functioning male body (a genetic male), but a brain that developed to believe that person is female. This is a male-to-female transgender, and if her gender disphoria is strong enough, she may decide to transition, which would involve taking female hormones and have surgeries to make her body female as well. Now, transitioning can only happen after evaluation and diagnosis of "gender identifity disorder/disphoria" by a mental health professional, which usually happens after a minimum of 3-6 months of therapy. Approval for surgery often require the person to have lived in their correct gender for a specified amount of time. Not everyone who transitions has surgery. Some people even transition without hormones (but that''s very difficult for most people to do because they often don''t "pass" well as their correct gender).

This type of medical intervention is not undertaken lightly, and evaluation and diagnosis is even more intense for minors. Many therapists will not even consider transition for someone before puberty, but that wall is being broken down in extreme cases such as Riley Grant. If you want to read more about Riley, I believe google will help you out there.

"Are we talking about genetically correct boys and girls whose parents decide to change them?"

No, this would be criminal abuse, if the child is not truly a transgendered person and does not fit the diagnostic criteria.

Just to complete our terminology, I believe what you are describing in your first paragraph is someone who is born with a body that has both male and female characteristics/physical function, which is called "intersexed". That is very different from being transgendered, although the treatment is often very similar, and intersexed people often feel comfortable as part of the transgender "community". A simple way to put transgenderism is that the brain believes that person to be a different gender than their body.

"Setting aside for a moment the issue of the transgendered, what I (as an uneducated layman) take away from the Reimer case is that boys are boys and girls are girls -- those who think males and females are essentially the same and attribute any differences between "girlness" and "boyness" as the result of upbringing, culture and socialization need to consider the Reimer case.

He too was in the "wrong" body, and no amount of socialization to the contrary could turn him into something he wasn''''t. Again, to a mere uneducated layman, that tells me gender, like sex, is biological, not social."

Thank you, Fred, for that lead in. Yes, the entire basis of TG treatment is that gender is determined biologically, by both the body and by the brain. Boys and girls think differently, their brains form differently in utero. One is transgendered when the brain develops as one sex that is different from the body''s sex. Since this can cause extreme distress in some, we treat them by changing the body, since we cannot currently change the brain.

Beavah, I''m still curious why you would jail parents and doctors for treating a child for a defect of their birth? Just because the child is young? Or do you somehow imagine parents "forcing" a change on their child because they wanted a girl and got a boy?

I agree that diagnosing transgender (or gender identity disphoria, which is the official diagnosis) in younger people is tricky, but when the diagnosis is clear, and the child is depressed and suicidal because of it, how is it wrong to respect the child''s desire, one may even say need, to express their "true" gender?

Actually, I''m more interested in how scouting would respond to an TG adult who wished to become a leader. Even if they have been living in their correct gender for years, I assume submitting to the manditory CORI would reveal that they had a previous name and gender. Would that send up any red flags on that adults application? Would you still be willing to have Joe as a leader knowing he was once Jane? Or can Jane be a den leader, when she was once Joe?