firstpusk

Hey Pack, great idea! We could turn this into a pioneering activity with each contructing their own horse-pucky balista. I'll bring the rope and the poles. You get to score and OGE is the ref. I knew this topic would get back to program eventually.

"firstpusk beat me to it. Dang! Anyway, evolution and creationism can both be taught but in separate classes. Evolution would be in a science class and creationism in a class along with all the other myths. And I thought there are BSA documents in which BSA claims to be a religious organization. Have I misread something? And when the government gives exclusive access to a religious organization that does not allow gay people to enter the government facility, then gay people (or any other excluded people) do not have equal access." Kneejerk reaction on my part I assure you. If we were sitting around a real campfire you would have seen my lips smacking just before jumping in. I agree with you that creationism (in its many varied forms) could be discussed in a philosophy or comparative religion class. That is not what the folks supporting creationism want. They need creationism in science classes to confuse students.

"If public schools teach the theory of evolution they should be allowed to teach creationism, too. But that isn't the case because of the supposed separation of church & state." Evolution is science. Creationism is not science. Creationism is not even good theology. If you want your child taught creationism, do it at home or at your church.

tortdog,I think if you take some time to look at the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Ammendment, you will have part of the answer. It seems that state and local government agencies used the same dodge in the south during reconstruction. They didn't want to have to respect the rights of the newly freed slaves. Take some time to look up the Lemon Test from Lemon v Kurtzman and you will have the rest of the answer. The case dealt with state laws in PA an RI that provided government support to parochial schools. The Lemon test has three separate parts. 1)the statute must have a secular legislative purpose 2)its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion 3)the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion" Since the scouts require all members both adult and youth to agree to the religious principles it has established, we are asking a public institution to endorse such an exclusionary position. If that does not establish religion, nothing will pass that test. One note is that the courts have been especially sensitive to such cases that involve the schools because children are a captive, compliant audience.

OneHour, I can understand the frustration of trying to find a charter partner. It is not always an easy task. However, you do have options. The pack my youngest son was in had been chartered to the elementary school and because of a change in school district policy, we had to find a new charter partner. We went to the PTO in that instance. That served well until declining enrollments forced the school to close. The PTO that had served the school disolved. The charter then moved to a local church that had a troop but no pack. We have had good luck with local service orgnaizations like the Lions or American Legion and have also used groups of concerned citizens to form units. The scouts require a declaration of religious belief for membership. The government can not entangle itself with such a requirement by sponsoring units. The ACLU is acting on behalf of local citizens that complain about these arrangements. If scouting in the US is going to continue on this path of religious tests for membership, we as scouters need to find other ways to deliver the program. This will require energy and commitment not misdirected anger at the ACLU. The ACLU is simply acting on their core values as is the BSA.

I agree with Bob that this is indeed a YP issue. On the other issue, I am sorry to say, you couldn't be more wrong. This is troop business and the money should follow the boys to the other troop. There is no reason that that the boys should not be aware and involved in the finances of the troop. Making sure that the treasurer is aware of the contact information was the right thing to do. I have done the same as an adult leader myself. I would not tolerate a dressing down from an adult when I am simply making it easier for the troop's officer to follow the troop's own policy. We talk endlessly about boy run troops. If a boy steps up to provide information to help it run like it should we should not cut him down for it. It is possible that bringing the subject up caused some friction among the adults and maybe even a row between the treasurer and the SM. They should be adult enough to not let such animosity be taken out on an innocent scout. We at this forum should not be piling on after the fact.

Ed, I think that Sen. Moynihan once said, "You're entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts." You may not think that the public schools are government agencies but your unfounded opinion will not change the fact that they are.

Ed, are you seriously trying to argue that the public schools are not government agencies. The districts are set up by the state to cover every corner of territory. They are given authority to tax the property owners in that district to raise funds. The residents elect members of the school board who have the authority to set policy and hire and fire employees. They mandate attendance at their schools or other educational institutions or arrangements for every child qualified. Throughout this nation every child has the right to a free appropriate public education mandated by federal law and the decisions of the courts. Don't you think that you are being just a tad foolish on this one?

OK Ed. The clarification is helpful. I have no problem with the ACLU collecting those fees. If these governments don't want to pay these fees and settlements all they have to do is stop violating the law. In fact, the ACLU will usually inform the parties of their concerns before filing any action. This shot across the bow should be sufficient warning to look into the matter and deal with it. San Diego bet their case was strong and found out otherwise.

Okay Ed. If there is a menorah out in front of city hall, call the ACLU. They might just take the case. Can you give me a figure on the legal fees that the ACLU has collected from the BSA? There may be some, but I don't know of any myself. Can you site any specific cases or are you just blowing smoke?

"That should probably be a question on the Adult Leader application...'Are you smart enough to be a Scout Leader (Y/N)'" Catch 22. If you say yes, you are probably not. ;^)

molscouter, It is pretty obvious from just a little googling that the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation perform different functions. One is tax exempt as a 501©3 (the Foundation). They are the ones that receive the settlements/awards from the result of the litigation in which they engage. That is the organization that gets the roughly 3.5% of its income from such settlements. The ACLU is more of an educational/public policy organization. They are not tax exempt because of their political involvement. They do not get income from the settlements/awards that the Foundation does. It is clear that you did not understand this distinction from my earlier post. Each would have some kind of legal document that would outline their roles. Such agreements in your mind might be, "the type of legal nitpicking that makes people suspicious of attorneys in general." However, these documents are the basis for the legal operation of each organization. Not keeping the roles separate and clearly defined has the potential for profound legal and tax consequences not only for both organizations but for their donors as well. In terms of an audit, reputable organizations - charities included - generally will submit to a yearly audit of their financial statements. Such an audit would want to clarify these entities are indeed separate. I do not know who audits the statement of the ACLU or the ACLU Foundation. I am sure that if you were to contact them, they would be willing to tell you. I have been employed over the years as an internal auditor for two different non-profits in my state. Each engaged an external auditor annually. As a matter of fact, our external auditor just left our office last Friday. I only know of one non-profit in my state that does not engage an outside auditor. Needless to say it would ever receive a contribution from me regardless of how wonderful the work they do might be. You may be suspicous, but are your suspicions well-informed? I think not.

molscouter, By looking at the 2004 annual report, it seems clear that the entity referred to as the ACLU has expenses for Public Education & Mobilization, Affiliate Distribution, Fundraising & Management and Lobbying & Public Policy Formation. It is a 501©4. It is a membership, outreach and lobbying organization and does not conduct litigation. The ACLU Foundation on the other hand had 34% of its expenses going to litigation. Net legal awards amounts to a little less than 3.5% of the ACLU foundation income. It seems obvious that the money garnered from attorney fees and other awards would largely offset expenses incurred by the foundation. The foundation is a 501©3 tax deductible organization. It seems you are mixing apples and oranges. The two organizations are set up to deal with separate issues and have different methods of funding as a result. I am not sure where you get the notion that the ACLU would not be audited. However, I have noted that many scouters here like to assume the worst about the organization because they don't like some of the cases that they have taken on and often won. Do you have information indicating that either organization refuses to have an audit done or are you just casting aspersions like a few of my other fellow scouters.

"I can imagine that some COs might object to any occult practices--ie, Ouija boards, seances, or Magic Cards. Some parents might also have concerns." If they view it that way, that is their prerogative. However, I think that viewing Magic cards as the same as a sance is more than a bit of a stretch. In fact, I would say it is irrational in the extreme. However, if that is the deeply held religious belief of the CO, they are welcome to it. Respect for the religious beliefs of others is part of the Scout Law and I am willing to give my CO their due. If I am not required to act in a petty or irrational manner toward my scouts by the CO, they need a new SM. On a final note, if a new SM comes in and immediately makes such a decision without explanation, without discussion and without participation of the scouts in the process, how does this model the concepts of a boy run troop and shared leadership to my scouts? The example given by scionofscouting, the SM provided no explanation for HIS decision nor could he even give a POSSIBLE reason for banning the games in question. If it is prompted by the fear of the occult or any other reason, it should be explained to the scout and discussed with the scouts especially the boy leadership. You may feel that this is the appropriate way to run a troop. I feel that the manner that this situation was handled was unacceptable.

"I can tell you as SM that we forbid these types of card for all the reasons that Hunt has said. Once they start playing they don't want to quit..." I was SM a few years back we had concerns about Magic cards interfering with program and chores. Some of the SAs wanted me to take the step you did. I sat down with the SPL and we had a talk about how we could deal with the situation. He bounced a couple ideas. I told him to see what he could do. He called a quick PLC. The game was limited - by the boys to time after program was completed up till lights out. I think that the boys are very capable of making the correct decision if we let them see the lay of the land and allow them to decide how to handle the situation. On the issue of the CO putting their foot down on Magic cards, I havent seen a case of this happening. Perhaps if these cards are allowed to overwhelm the entire program, the CO might tell the troop no Magic cards allowed. In that case, I know that I have failed to guide the boys in proper use of time. I told my SPL at the time of my story that I didnt take time off work or give up my weekends to have the boys play Magic instead of doing the scout stuff we had on the agenda. I felt that scout skills were important. He saw my point and dealt with the boys and the Magic cards effectively. I know that I wouldnt SM for a troop that wouldnt do anything other than Magic. I also wouldn't SM for a CO that stepped in to ban the game. They aren't letting the program do its magic.

Prairie_Scouter, I think that it is commendable that you have noted a possible problem here. I think that it is important to move toward a greater understanding across cultures. I am no expert, but I have worked a number of scouts whose parents came from either India or Pakistan. I always start by trying to get to know a bit about the family. Where do they come from? What is it like there? What are their religious traditions? Some of this can be gathered in the SM conference with the boy. Although I agree that there is a tendancy for the mothers to stay at home, they may have significant professional training. It is not unusual to find mothers that are engineers, doctors or college professors. Find out what the parents do for a living. Once you know a bit about them, it is the job of the Scouter to sell the program like they would to any other parent. The folks that I know from the Indian sub-continent tend to be very traditional and family oriented. Make sure they understand that the scouts want to reinforce their values and that we respect them. Look for a chance for them to contribute like you would any other family. Just like the parents of any other scout, they might be hard to sell at first. You need to help them to understand that their personal involvement shows that they value their son's participation in the troop. I have had success a couple of different ways. One is that often the family may travel back home. I have asked if they would be willing to share something of their homeland with the troop. Just 10 or 15 minutes. It could be a regular meeting or a court of honor. We had one of our boys talk about going to India for the first time since he was a toddler. Another is to talk to the parents about a religious emblem. You have to know their faith and the requirements, but that information is easily discovered through PRAY or your local relationships committee (if they are on the ball). They may not pursue the emblem. However, the fact that you have shown an interest in their son and provided some resources with regard to their own beliefs often breaks down barriers. The merit badge program has hooked several parents. I know of one who became an SA after his work with the boys on merit badges. I have worked with three Indian sub-continent Eagles in my old troop and have worked with a couple of others through the district. Like anyone else, these parents want the best for their boys. Play to that desire with honesty and mutual respect and I think you will find the results are very rewarding for everyone involved.

"Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms." Ed, can you explain how your response to Merlyn relates to that verse you have chosen?

"In short, if ever the pot called the kettle blackthis is it!" God's love if I've ever heard it. Have you no shame?

"Firstpusk, Through this forum, you know some of my thoughts. You may or may not agree with them. What qualifies you, to infer anything about my character? Why do you feel compelled to do so?" I happened to be criticizing the words and tone of your posts. If you want to take it to heart and address the issue of your character, more power to you. I find it fascinating that the first person I always expect to impugn the integrity of fellow scouter - that is most certainly you, Rooster - is the quickest draw at the martyrdom card. If you had an introspective nature at all, you would understand why this thread was started in the first place. Yes, sometimes one has no choice to offend another. I will not argue that your point is absolutely false. However, when one does it with the frequency and apparent relish you exhibit, it might be time for a bit of introspection. Cheers!

Humility and compassion is what drips off of yours. And if anyone buys that Rooster, I have a bridge for sale.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

Pack, Your initial post was quite clear and further explanation was not required. For showing such charity you are to be commended. Rooster, You shoudl apologize either for misunderstanding or for twisting Pack's words. Your choice. Personally, I would lay odds against a sincere apology. Make my day and prove me wrong.

Pack, you hit the nail on the head. Religious motivations are supposed to flow from charity. If we have to compare our actions to Saddam or Stalin in order to feel good about ourselves, more than a little reflection is in order.

Pack, Seeker friendly is an internal debate among some evangelicals. Some argue that the traditional evangelical church is too unwelcoming to the "unchurched" and that adjustments have to be made to be more accomodating. Traditionalist view these changes with suspicion and insist that such an approach will love these folks straight to hell. They will want to put heavy emphasis on the fire and brimstone at every opportunity to every visitor. The more liberal want to get to know the perspective church member before laying the fire and brimstone on them.

anarchist, I also thought that the Muslim woman in EagleInKy's story had not been intolerant. Like the others she simply stated her view. Often it is hard to break away from notions that we have grown up with. Another point that I noticed in the story was the characterizaton of some of the leaders as Catholic and others as Christian. I have heard a number of evangelicals define others Catholic and themselves as Christian without recognizing that the Catholics present consider themselves Christians and will likely be offended by such statements. Scouting calls us to recognize and respect the beliefs of others. Theological discussions could be appropriate even with scouts if they are simply curious and the leaders are fair and sensitive in their explanations. I have had opportunities to talk with scouts about respecting the faith of a fellow scout. The scouts did not understand why their friend was upset with comments they made. Getting the scouts to share something of their beliefs can be fruitful if all of the parties are open and respectful. Debate is another thing altogether. No good can come within the unit by trying to prove that the other fellow is practicing a false religion. Parents of differing faiths are very concerned that leaders not take advantage of their role as SM to promote a faith other than the family's. It seems like such a simple concept, yet is beyond the capacity of a few scouters to comprehend.

Hunt, in scouting I don't think it is appropriate to prostilitize in a scout setting. You may disagree with someone else's belief but trying to convince them is showing a lack of respect for the beliefs of others.