eisely

Because they're secretly wiccans.

Many moons ago I started a thread regarding agnosticism. The question is, would an agnostic position be acceptable compliance with the scout oath, etc? What about a deist position? Is it necessary to affiliate with any organized religion at all to do one's duty to god?

It appears that some people have done what has often been suggested in this forum, namely start their own youth organization. Anybody hear of this group? This comes from a web site operated by "Concerned Women for America," a conservative group. _________________ Wiccans Press on With Scouting Alternative Meanwhile, a Seattle-based Wiccan group, denied recognition by the Boy Scouts, is promoting its own youth organization, the SpiralScouts, according to www.CNSNEWS.com. The group accommodates children ages 4 and up, and includes pagans, Wiccans, homosexuals and atheists. The Scouts declined a bid by the Wiccans to incorporate their symbols and beliefs into Scout materials, and also rejected a Wiccan badge that was designed by a Wiccan priestess. Pete "Pathfinder" Davis, archpriest at the Wiccan Aquarian Tabernacle Church, who founded the SpiralScouts in 1999, told CNSNEWS.com that 50 SpiralScouts units operate in the United States, Canada and Switzerland. Scouts spokesman Gregg Shields said that unlike the National Catholic Council on Scouting and the National Jewish Committee on Scouting, the Wiccans have no national organization. He said, however, that any Wiccan group that would like to charter a troop could submit an application to the local Boy Scout council. The SpiralScouts' handbook says that the group provides "an unmistakable impact on Pagan children growing up in this era of Christian extreme-right domination of our culture," said CNSNEWS.com.

This guy doesn't give up. Has anybody asked him if he was ever a boy scout? I would think that we should hire one chaplain per senator and representative if that level of chaperoning would help keep them honest. 'Under God' Critic Goes After Congress Constitutionality Of Congressional Chaplains Questioned Posted: 2:34 p.m. PDT August 30, 2002 Updated: 2:47 p.m. PDT August 30, 2002 SAN DIEGO -- The California atheist who challenged the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is now going after taxpayer-funded chaplains in Congress. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Is Ruling Appropriate? Changes To Pledge U.S. Flag Through History Text Of Pledge Of Allegiance Senate Resolution On Pledge Read The Decision "If they want a pep talk, then go get a football coach, but stop getting chaplains and religious folks to come in. It's forbidden," Michael Newdow, a Sacramento-based lawyer and physician, said in an interview Friday. In a suit filed in U.S. District Court here this week, Newdow said House and Senate chaplain positions compromise a constitutional ban on government-sponsored religion and religious requirements for public servants. The suit names as defendants the Congress and other administrators. Newdow's suit seeks to abolish the jobs, but makes no specific request for damages. "It's a civil rights case, atheists are second-class citizens in this society," Newdow said in the telephone interview. "Even if (the chaplains) weren't getting paid, it's wrong for government to be saying that there's a God. These are religious ideals and the government's not supposed to be weighing in." Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said most people are "comforted by the fact that our chaplains lead us in seeking guidance from a superior power." All House and Senate chaplains since 1789 have been Christians, the lawsuit notes. The House chaplain now earns $148,500, and Senate chaplain makes $130,000. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sided with Newdow in June, finding unconstitutional the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That decision drew an onslaught of criticism from Capitol Hill, and the Justice Department has since asked the full 9th Circuit court to review it.

It should be up to the PLC to decide eligibility rules. Most units do have rules that allow sufficient rotation of the senior positions. If your PLC is to deliberate this, then your son and you ought to leave the room while that is discussed and decided. You may wish to ask one of your disinterested ASMs to sit in on that discussion.

Actually we do have some information about the beliefs of the bear. Regrettably the bear forgot to pay his ISP last month and so was not able to participate in the more recent threads on this forum on atheism vs the scout oath, etc. Nevertheless, sources report that, with his dying breath the bear spoke, "Tell Rooster I am with him...." Experts say this was a reference to the Rooster totem sacred to all bears of that neck of the woods.

Apparently they tried a lottery system a few years ago based on mailed in paper entries. I understand that many units submitted multiple entries to increase their chances, and for this reason Philmont reverted back to the current system.

Atheist Vows to Fight Boy Scout Ouster By Chris Stetkiewicz SEATTLE (Reuters) - Ten years as a Boy Scout taught Darrell Lambert to be honest, strong and inquisitive; to respect his parents, his country and nature; to help people and of course to always be prepared. He learned those lessons well, and ironically has drawn on several of them in his fight against the Boy Scouts of America, which banished him from the group for failing to learn another mandatory lesson: belief in God. "I could have stayed in if I had just said that I believe in God, but I would be lying, and I don't lie," Lambert told Reuters. The defining "Scout Oath" begins with a pledge to "do my duty to God and my country," but the first tenet of a related 12-point "Scout Law" calls for honesty. The 19-year-old Lambert earned nearly 40 merit badges and rose to the rank of Eagle Scout, the group's highest, before becoming an assistant Scout master at his troop in Port Orchard, Washington, about 20 miles from Seattle. But earlier this month, after telling a review board he was an atheist, Lambert got a letter from the local governing council stating that, since he refused several requests to change his stance, his membership had been revoked. "They said an atheist can't be a good citizen, that an atheist wouldn't turn in a wallet if he found it on the street," Lambert said. "They said that to be a first-class citizen you have to believe in a god." "I told my Eagle board that I didn't believe in God when I went for my review and if anyone said that I wasn't a good citizen, then they could kiss my butt," he said. BOY SCOUTS SEND REGRETS The Boy Scouts Seattle-area council said it regretted that Lambert felt his beliefs had been compromised, but that its 5 million U.S. members valued its moral principles and they could not make an exception. "For 92 years we've held duty to God as one of our core principles and one of our core values. We ask all our leaders to subscribe to that," said Mark Hunter, spokesman for the council. The group does not specify how members should worship God, saying it welcomed "everyone from Methodists and Catholics to Hindus." But the oath clearly calls for a belief in God, Scouts national spokesman Gregg Shields said, and atheists or agnostics, regardless of their other qualities, can not honor the oath and therefore do not belong. "I would challenge (Lambert) to think about the first line of the oath," Shields said. "If he didn't believe in a god, it would be very difficult for him to take that Scout oath." SCOUT VOWS TO FIGHT Lambert argued that Scouts had violated its own charter, which prohibits rules inconsistent with U.S. laws. "If you look at anti-discrimination laws, civil rights, freedom of religion, this is pretty inconsistent with those rules," Lambert said, vowing to pursue his case through the courts if necessary. He plans to appeal to a regional Scouts board in Tempe, Arizona. But first he wants to gather letters of support pouring in from as far away as Japan and Australia. "If that doesn't work I will go to national BSA and as far as I need to go after that," Lambert said. "If they want to be a private religious organization, under the laws of the United States and Washington state, they are not supposed to receive any government funding. But they are." Many of the 1,400 chapters of the United Way, a nationwide public-private service group, stopped funding the Scouts in 2000, after the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled it was a private group that could determine standards for membership including sexual or religious orientation. That decision upheld the group's expulsion of a gay troop leader and overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court finding. The United Way charter prohibits the charity from funding groups that discriminate based on race, sex or religion. The Boy Scouts, a venerated American institution with members including astronauts, former U.S. presidents and sports heroes, also hold a rare congressional charter granting a range of privileges at state and local levels. The group can solicit members in public schools and receive special access to public lands and funds from fire and police departments. CHOOSING ROLE MODELS The Scouts successfully defeated several challenges over atheism and homosexuality in the 1980s and 1990s, including a lawsuit by California twins who refused to take an oath to God. Courts continue to agree with the group. Earlier this month a Washington, D.C., appeals court ruled the Scouts could reject two gay men as troop leaders, overturning a lower court ruling and citing the precedent of the Supreme Court's New Jersey decision. Several more legal challenges of the group's policies on gays and atheists are under way, and protest groups such as Scouting For All have formed in an effort to pressure the Boy Scouts to change their policies. Rejection from the Scouts was devastating for Lambert, who thrives in Washington state's ample woodlands and enjoys teaching camping skills to younger Scouts. "I love doing (Scouting), so this is heartbreaking," he says. "It's sort of a slap in the face."

Here's a different boy scout story for you. Boy shoots grizzly in self defense, wildlife officials say shooting was justified Thu Nov 14, 8:53 AM ET KALISPELL, Montana - A father's advice paid off when a 15-year-old Eagle Scout obediently grabbed a firearm before going to look for his dog and ended up shooting a charging grizzly bear behind the family chicken coop. Daniel Pickar said he thought his dog Bessie was chasing varmints into the dark when he grabbed his .20-gauge shotgun and followed. As he rounded the corner of the shed, Bessie was running back toward him with a large bear not far behind. "I just saw a big, furry thing running at me, so I shot twice," said Pickar, who fired from about 20 yards (meters). "After I shot, it kind of grunted and that was the only indication that I might have hit it. "I've never been more scared in my life." Wildlife officials said the shooting was perfectly justified. "As much as we regret the loss of a bear, we're glad we're not grieving the loss of a 15-year-old boy," said County Attorney Tom Esch, who helped investigate the Oct. 27 shooting. Grizzly bears are on the Endangered Species List, making it illegal to shoot them except in self defense. In the 12 years they've lived at the foot of the Swan Mountain Range, the Pickars have had continuous conflicts with skunks, foxes, weasels, mountain lions and black bears. But grizzlies are rare. Still, Daniel's father instructed his sons to carry a firearm when chasing after their 12-year-old mutt. "It paid off, or I might not be standing here telling you about this," Daniel said.

If I am not mistaken, there is yet more to this story than I have had time to relate. My facts are fuzzy because some of this history predates the time that we moved to this area. Apparently the scouts provided free rip rap (large rocks) from a quarry on land owned by the scouts for the construction of the breakwater that shelters the Berkeley marina decades ago. The deal was that the scouts would have free access to the marina in perpetuity in exchange. I believe this was litigated initially on a breach of contract claim, and some judge tore up the original agreement. I do know that there is an urban scout camp in El Cerrito north of Berkeley where there is an old quarry. This camp is called Camp Herms and still owned and operated by the Mount Diable Silverado Council. It no longer functions as a full residential summer camp, but we do a lot of training events there and it is used for cub day camps. Local units also meet there. I suppose this is the site from which the rock was extracted originally.

City and Scouts square off over gay rights By David Scharfenberg Daily Planet Staff (11-21-02) Lawyers for the city of Berkeley and leaders of the Berkeley Sea Scouts will square off in a San Francisco courthouse today over gay rights and berths at the Berkeley Marina. The Sea Scouts organization, affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, paid nothing to dock its boats at the Marina for more than 50 years, until the city began charging the group a fee in 1998 because it failed to disown the Boy Scouts anti-gay policies. Sea Scouts leaders filed suit against the city in 1999, alleging a violation of the groups free speech rights. But the Alameda County Superior Court rejected the claim in June 2001 and turned down a similar, amended complaint five months later. Superior Court Judge James Richman ruled, at the time, that public entities may condition public subsidies...upon the recipients compliance with state and local laws that prohibit discriminatory membership policies. The plaintiffs have appealed Richmans decision and both sides will make arguments today in the California Court of Appeal in San Francisco. Harold Johnson, a lawyer with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation arguing on behalf of the Sea Scouts, said the group submitted a letter to the city in 1998 stating that it would abide by Berkeleys non-discrimination policy. Deputy City Attorney Laura McKinney called the argument extremely disingenuous. She said the Sea Scouts April 8, 1998 letter stated that the group would not discriminate on the basis of factors like race and gender, but excluded sexual orientation a category included in the Berkeley anti-discrimination ordinance. The letter also stated that the Sea Scouts never inquire about members sexual orientation. But McKinney said a dont ask, dont tell policy is in violation of the city ordinance. Johnson also said the city wanted the Sea Scouts to lobby the Boy Scouts to change its anti-gay policies, in effect compelling a specific kind of speech. Johnson said Berkeley cannot require the group to be proselytizers and crusaders for a certain city-appointed message. McKinney dismissed the charge. She said the Waterfront Commission, an advisory group to the City Council, recommended that the Sea Scouts keep the free berths and suggested that the group engage in a dialogue with the Boy Scouts about their anti-gay policies. She said the recommendations of the Waterfront Commission do not amount to the actions of the city government which rejected the call for free berths and suggested that requesting dialogue is not the same thing as compelling speech. McKinney said nothing is a sure bet in the courts, but expressed confidence in a victory. I do feel our case is very strong, she said. McKinney expects a decision from the appellate court within 60 days. The Sea Scouts currently dock one boat in the Marina for $516 per month, according to the city.

The following editorial appeared on line today. _________________ Scouting out nihilism By JAY AMBROSE Scripps Howard News Service November 18, 2002 - Tradition? Ha! In America today, traditions are as disposable as old razor blades, even if they've been around for virtually a century. Standards? You must be kidding me. There's just one standard modernity cares for - tolerance, my friend - and as for all the others, well, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Know what I mean? And so it is that all the right-thinking, politically correct, up-to-date moralists among us just cannot believe it that the Boy Scouts of America would be so outrageous, so contemptible, so egregiously narrow and shallow as to think the code it has used for nine decades and better actually matters and that its leaders ought to subscribe to it, and, if they don't, should leave the organization. It's even worse than that, in the eyes of these critics, because this standard was about - you can almost see the smirk as they say the word - God. For Pete's sake, the critics ask, you really, truly think that a young man of 19 ought to profess belief in God if he wants to direct young people in your organization? In the writings of some of the critics, the condescension is explicit. For them, God clearly is a hallucination of the past, an unsustainable idea in our own enlightened times, at least among those who are, ahem, intelligent. You would think it might occur to some of these intelligent people that there is something ill-considered in their harangue. It seems their enthusiasm for pluralism goes so far and no further. It certainly does not go so far as allowing that a private organization might legitimately hold to a worldview different from the one they embrace. Might they themselves be intolerant? They are, of course, and I would like to suggest that theirs is a particularly insidious kind of intolerance that endlessly nicks away at much that is precious to our civilization. That may sound like a stretch, because, hey, we're just talking about critics of the Boy Scouts here, right? Well, yes we are, but in defense of my suggestion, I would like to call to the stand Friedrich Nietzsche, the brilliant 19th-century German philosopher. Nietzsche famously proclaimed - or rather, had one of the characters in his writings proclaim - that God was dead. His meaning was that God was dead or dying in the hearts of believers. In the face of science and rationalism, faith was receding. There could be frightening consequences, the philosopher believed, because without a holy absolute, there is no foundation for objective morality or meaningfulness as was once known. Truth becomes strictly relative, strictly subjective. He himself had some proposals of what a rescue might entail, but he was not so sure mankind would take his advice, I have recently read. He saw a crisis-ridden future - the 20th century, he imagined, would be consumed by wars on a scale never before seen. And he was right. The issue is nihilism. Many believe the incredibly complicated Nietzsche himself contributed to nihilism, but as a philosopher friend of mine said to me years ago, Nietzsche at least had the honesty to face up to what the consequences could be. The friend did not think many of those who would usher God offstage have any idea of the dangers or would confess as much if they did. Certainly, the critics of the Boy Scouts do not seem to get it that there might be highly important, eminently justifiable reasons to require boys to pledge to do their duty to God in an oath. The organization thereby puts its heft behind a conviction that can serve as a personal stay against moral chaos. But you should not suppose the critics would concede any merit to this grounding of ideals in something unshakably supreme and real. Well, the critics can believe what they choose, and they can stay as far away from the scouts as they like. What is perplexing about them is their insistence that scouts officials conform to their own moral vision, which they think of as very large, but which does not seem to me large enough to accommodate much more than their prejudices. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Jay Ambrose is director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers. Email him at AmbroseJ(at)shns.com)

So you seem to be saying that these federal holidays in the current form should be abolished. Is that correct?

This ought to be good for a few hundred posts. Merlyn, This may have already come up in different threads. I tend to tune out of some of these discussions, but I thought I would pose a question directly to you. If federal government entanglement with the Boy Scouts of America violates the establishment clause, what is the story on the federal holiday of Thanksgiving? It seems to me that calling a halt to the government on Thanksgiving, and Christmas too for that matter, is a much more serious breach of the idea that the feds should be totally neutral, if not hostile, to any possibility of religious observance. What about it? Let's abolish both holidays right now.

Certainly you can and should wear the ribbon. If you are not affiliated with you local lodge yet, you should do so. When you use the phrase "temporary insignia," I do not think of the little ribbon dangly thing. I think of patches for summer camp or other activities. If you have patches you were awarded as a youth for an OA event or other activity, in my mind you are entitled to wear one of these as "temporary insignia" just like anybody else.

LauraT7, One additional clarification. Your last post states that you observed boys doing their ordeals at summer camp. When I did my ordeal as a youth in 1955, I did it at a summer camp. The calling out was done at a midweek campfire, and the ordeal began immediately, and last through Thursday evening. I get the impression that most lodges do not conduct their ordeals during summer camp sessions these days. Your lodge appears to be an exception. The weekend schedule I described is what happens normally when ordeals are not conducted at summer camp.

LauraT7, Once you become a candidate your name, address, and other pertinent information goes onto a roster maintained by the lodge registrar, normally an adult volunteer member. The lodge calendars ordeals, usually on an annual basis. About two weeks prior to an ordeal, an invitation goes out in the mail to all candidates who have not yet completed an ordeal, and whose candidacy has not expired. It is possible to learn about these ordeal dates ahead of time, and I suggest doing so. That way one can plan one's life. Normally a lodge will have at least two ordeals each calendar year. A well managed lodge will inquire about disabilities or health issues of candidates. Work can be assigned that is compatible with one's condition. I have seen folks in wheel chairs for example, assigned to work in the kitchen during the ordeal weekend. Any adult or scout who has a health issue, such as diabetes, back problems, asthma, or anything else that can affect them, should take the initiative to inform the adults in charge of the event about this. The last thing anybody wants is an injury or illness arising because of ignorance. You have identified the components of the ordeal correctly and they are the same for both adults and youth, subject to health limitations. Ordeals normally take place over weekends. People come together at the designated site on Friday evening. There is an opening ceremony, the activities of the next day that you described, and a final ceremony. People are released on Sunday.

To further clarify: "Boy" should read "youth." A co-ed venture crew can elect youth candidates to OA, and female youth members count for quorum purposes and for determining the number of adults a venture crew may nominate or elect. One of the ironies of all this is that youth female venture crew members cannot be elected to OA because of the rank requirement. For a boy to be eligible he must be at least a first class scout. First class is not a venture rank and female youth venture crew members never have a chance to earn first class. Therefore, while a venture crew can elect qualified boys to OA, and elect adults of both sexes, it cannot elect female youth members. At least that was where matters stood about a year and a half ago. In my mind this is an inequity that somebody at the OA national level needs to rectify, unless they have already done so.

LauraT7, In an earlier post to this thread I described how adults are elected to OA. One way to think about this is (1) a person becomes eligible, (2) a person is elected by the their unit and becomes a "candidate", and (3) a person goes through an ordeal and becomes a member. At the unit level, for an adult to be elected requires (1) the unit must elect at least one youth candidate during the 12 month election cycle, (2) the adult must meet the same "nights camping" requirement as required for youth to be eligible, and (3) the adult election, or nomination, must be approved by the OA leadership. Once elected and approved an adult candidate must complete an ordeal just the same as a youth candidate. This ordeal must be completed within twelve months of being elected, or the candidacy expires. This last requirement also applies to youth. As an aside, your advancement coordinator should be keeping track of nights camping for everybody, both youth and adult, in the unit. The actual election of adult candidates is the responsibility of the unit committee. While there are fairly detailed procedures for holding the election for youth candidates, I have never seen a prescribed procedure for electing adult candidates. I think that one reason for this is that units seldom have more than one non-member adult who becomes eligible during and election cycle. Few adults who become members maintain a high level of activity in OA. It is not required and nobody is keeping track. Adults are elected and approved based on the expectation that they are committed to scouting generally. I have never seen an adult nomination turned down. As you are aware, there is another layer of adult volunteers at the district level. For many of these adults, this is their only current involvment with OA. District committees can also nominate adult candidates from among the district volunteer staff, but I am not familiar with the the requirements and procedures for doing this.

My concern is the ability of the pack to grow along with the boy. I think external frames are better at this. It also depends on what type of backpacking you are doing, as alluded to in an earlier post. If you are doing mostly rugged steep trails, or no trails at all, an internal frame is going to perform better. Since you are probably not going to be taking the younger boys into difficult terrain it makes more sense to me to encourage them to start with an external frame. If you are dealing with older boys who have achieved most of their growth, the issue of having a pack that grows more easily with them becomes less important.

Dan, Your experience is pretty typical. Every time I have been involved in this we had multiple people in the same room dialing in over multiple lines. Even so, the shortest time to get in was 45 minutes.

There are two separate and distinct issues here. What is right for a fully grown adult and what is best for a growing boy? I happen to own an external frame pack for myself. It is nearing the end of its useful life and I will seriously look at an internal frame pack at that time. I still go with Mike Long's recommendation to discourage the boys from getting internal frame packs.

All of the above is excellent advice. I particularly like the idea of having some senior signatory from the chartered organization on the account. I have run into the problem described by Eagle74 when we had a sudden and complete turnover in pack leadership. I had to track some people down to get signatures on the proper documents to satisfy the bank that the change in signatories was legitimate. Banks are important fiduciaries and have to follow the rules that are there to protect all depositors. Having dual signature control is an option, and one that I personally recommend. If you are going to do this, you need at least three names on the signature card. In other threads in this forum various posters have described problems with control of money. One common aspect of all these complaints was the fact that only one person was on the bank account, or there was no unit bank account at all. One thing that was not mentioned was having a receipt book available. When I was a pack treasurer, people would come up to me at pack meetings and hand me cash, not checks, for various things. I bought a receipt book that made copies just so I could keep track of what all the money was for.

Concerning tax ID numbers, using the chartered organization's ID number is probably the correct answer. To tell the truth I don't know what we currently use in our troop. When we lived in Southern California we were directed by the council to use the council's number for everything. Go figure. It may be that your sponsoring local congregation or church may not have its own ID number, if it is part of a larger organization. For example, I have never inquired, but I suspect that local Roman Catholic parishes do not have their own numbers, but use the number of their diocese. If you are confronted with this kind of situation and the local church does not have the authority to provide than kind of information, then the council should be more cooperative. Can you provide some more information about the nature of your chartered organization?

Abraiu, Tell your reluctant scouters to follow Barry Bonds' example. He goes to batting practice all the time. If any major league player could claim that he doesn't need batting practice it is Bonds, but he doesnt' do that does he?