LongHaul

Briantshore, First I agree with the advice given, don't scare them off before they have a chance to have fun. You don't say where you are from geographically so I can't comment on "dangers". Poison Ivy is a danger at one of our camps, you have to look when you get out of your car because it's everywhere. Precautions must be taken. Adults could, in this case, view the area first and eliminate or identify plants before youth arrive. Snakes can also be a problem in some areas, because they can seek out the warmth of the tent, which are indigenous to your area? Side note Snakes are not poisonous (with one or two exceptions) they are venomous. If you bite it and it makes you sick it's poisonous if it bites you and makes you sick it's venomous. Could be used as a means to diffuse the initial "ARE THERE SNAKES HERE?" No food in tents if you have a critter population, danger or precaution depends on the size and make up of the critter population. What I'm getting at is identify your dangers which must be addressed up front and separate them from your precautions, fire safety, sanitation, water safety and things which can be addressed incrementally. My suggestion is to have a parents meeting at which you address proper equipment and clothing, sunscreen, sun block, insect repellant, sanitation, and what dangers are inherent to this outing, this being done without the girls. Explaining to the parents that poison ivy is present in large amounts and the girls need long pants and extra changes so possibly contaminated clothing can be isolated and not reworn means that all you need do with the girls is reinforce precautions. Carefully removing all outer clothing, carefully turning each piece inside out after a hike can be done without having everyone so scared before and on the hike that they look nowhere except their feet and legs as they walk right past the reasons we are hiking. LongHaul

Rooster7, Does the belief in a Holy and Righteous God demand that that God also be a vengeful God? Is it possible to believe in a Holy and Righteous God who loves all his children and will forgive all their transgressions no matter what. Parental love kinda thing. LongHaul

Packsaddle, Your four questions are exactly why I think it is necessary for society to decide when protection under the law begins. Ive tried different phraseologies but it comes down to protection under the law, when does it start. Yes we should consider how we would apply the rule once its made but should how we are going to apply it dictate whether we should create the law in the first place? Yes the wealthy could circumvent the law and the poor couldnt should we then not make it a law? Addressing your questions individually is hard unless we first draw a line of protection. Roman Catholic Doctrine forbids all forms of birth control, Thou shalt not waste the seed of a child some think the rhythm method is wrong because those people would still be seeking to waste the seed of a child sexual intercourse without the specific intent of procreation being sinful. This would address all your questions in one view point. There is no need here to draw a line because everything is forbidden that seek to prevent a birth. RCD does not however address fetal abuse by drinking, smoking, physically overactive child bearing women. Drawing a line could. My ethical problem with a lot of the pro and anti abortion arguments is that they focus on the act of abortion. Performing a partial birth abortion being worse than a D&C abortion. Murder is murder I dont care how you slice it! The question needs to be is it murder. As for the different methods of birth control I find I am misinformed on some fronts. I always thought the Pill prevented pregnancy by not allowing the fertilized egg to be implanted same as the IUD. Now Im reading that the release of an egg may be prevented and that no fertilization takes place. Without specific information deciding on whether birth control should be legal is impossible for me. The fact that the rich could circumvent is a fairness issue with me but not an ethical one. Im not going to advocate the legalization of murder because of the O.J. trial. Ive had the unfortunate civil privilege to sit on two juries hearing testimony on the charge of murder 1. In one of those cases two young girls ages 4 and 6 were beaten one dying of a ruptured spleen and lacerated liver the other surviving. Two adults were present at the time of the beatings. The States Attorneys office decided to give one immunity to testify against the other and then had the audacity to ask for the death sentence. The evidence in the case was he said, she said the crime scene evidence was ZERO. No pictures, no nothing. We had autopsy pictures of the deceased and pictures taken of the survivor two days later. The States Attorney felt we needed to kill someone for this crime and because they didnt think a jury would kill both adults they though wed kill him rather than her. They waved the pictures in front of us for days. No one was disputing that a grievous crime had been committed but evidence of a crime does not constitute evidence of guilt under the law. I will admit that I calculated the distance between the jury box and the defense table more than once, trying to decide how many shots I could get in before the Deputy Sheriff subdued me. Given my age and physical condition and the age and condition of the defendant the Sheriff would have been doing me the favor but I would have felt a lot better. Killing of the unborn is a terrible thing but unless we decide that the unborn are entitled to protection under the law and all that entails, all we can do is argue view points. LongHaul

Packsaddle responded to my post while I was writing this so I'm going to post this and go address packsaddle's last post. Packsaddle asked for our views on the difference between ideology and religion. Define terms; religion can be defined as Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Ideology can be defined as The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. Where I might be able to separate the two when examining my own personal beliefs and view points, I have a hard time doing it with respect to society. Our country was started by people who were so committed to religious freedom and the right to practice those religions as a community that they were willing to travel across the Atlantic Ocean to a place very few had been and even few had returned. Once here they congregated in small communities according to religious beliefs. Those types of strong convictions are not soon lost in the decedents of those original settlers. The framers of the Constitution set out a frame work for the new government and immediately addressed certain concerns with respect to how that frame work should be implemented. Here is the Constitution describing how this government shall function, now here are the exceptions to the rule, Amendment 1, part 1, KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF MY RELIGION. Kinda makes one think that religion was important to these people. It would follow therefore that religion played a part in deciding what the laws were to be and how they would be enforced. The Constitution from what I can see is pretty non religious. Its like a technical manual for Federal Government and therefore does not need to touch on local guidelines and thereby the religious views of those localities. LongHaul

fgoodwin, Presented Baloo training yeaterday and was able to speak with the person who has the Webelos Leader Specific materials. I was told all the loose sheets have been thrown out (including the handout originals *&^%$)and all that remains is the Webelos Leader section of the sylabus. So I can't substanciate my claim sorry. LongHaul

Welcome Laure, Even though the GTSS has been rewritten and is at the printers as I write we are still using the "old" version until the new one is available. Under the heading Youth Protection & Adult Leadership subsection Leadership Requirements for Trips and Outings; "#4. Male and female leaders must have separate sleeping facilities. Married couples may share the same quarters if appropriate facilities are available." LongHaul

Packsaddle, Yes my day was rewarding and the participants left with a feeling that it was time well spent. Thank you for your response and clarification on the continuum thing I totally missed the point, I hope it was the lateness of the hour and not that I am slowing down mentally. I must admit when I wrote my original post I was of the mind that the terms fertilization and conception were interchangeable for the sake of this discussion. You have pointed out that they indeed are not. I must also admit that when I wrote my original post in this thread I was indeed thinking in terms of conception not fertilization but was trying to present my argument from the stand point of fertilization. By that I mean I was thinking in terms of the life in question as already having a soul but trying to talk about the biological blastulae. I think society needs to decide on and define that legal line. We should legislate for the protection of the citizenry not in relation to an act. You mention the tough questions in another thread which thread is that? I usually avoid the religious threads because there is no way to convince anyone of anything if they join a discussion with the resolution that they will not be swayed from their views. Unless we are just trying to discuss view points, beliefs, and clarify positions they are fruitless IMO so I pass them by. Id like to read the thread to which you refer. LongHaul

Been busy running Baloo training and haven't had a chance to check in till now, Loooong Day. nldcout, I wasn't aware that the SCOTUS had ruled one way or another as to when life began specifically. They have been asked to rule on related matters but the specific question of when life begins on it's own merit? When might that have been, I ask for edification. packsaddle, Why that reaction to an attempt to legally define for the purpose of common and criminal law when life begins? Why must we bring religion or ideology in to this? What about science, Darwin, how do the atheist feel about this? Merlyn I believe, no offence intended if I'm wrong, but I believe you are an atheist when do you believe life begins. Trevorum same question. Yes religion dictates a lot of what we think and how we feel but what is wrong with setting a specific point for legal purposes? Would you say the laws against murder are purely religious in origin? Packsaddle Part 2, Beyond that, I disagree with the concept of life beginning at conception. It clearly is a continuum and to think that haploid life is non-living merely because it's haploid is, well, ignorant. It's late and I'm tired but I can't seem to understand what you are saying here, you say you disagree with the concept of life beginning at conception but say it is clearly a continuum. Should I have worded my original post to have read "......begins at conception and is entitled to the full protection of the law from that point forward."? Rooster7 & Trevorum, Yes I'm headed to abortion but I'm only at the when does life begin state. Are we ready to strike down a law because it may be used to defend a different issue we feel strongly about? How about the child who needs special medical attention in utero but the mom has been killed in a car accident and is on life support while the baby develops and either the insurance or the family says pull the plug it's not legally entitled to life? Or the husband says keep my wifes body on life support as long as possible and let's see how much further the fetus can develop. It may reach viability but the insurance and the hospital say too much money. Why must when life begins and when it is entitled to protection be decided at the abortion level? LongHaul (This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Question for one and all. If, instead of trying to legislate abortion, the State of South Dakota were to pass a law stating For purposes of common and civil law the State of South Dakota holds that life begins at conception. Do you think it would pass judicial review? LongHaul

Gernblansten, Ive been turning your hats and rocks thing over in my mind trying to find a way to explain what I see as the difference between legislating from the bench and interpreting existing law. When a law is passed and the intent of that law is established thru court precedent and public acceptance and 50 years later some court reinterprets the law to say something totally different from what has always been accepted as its meaning that is legislating from the bench. The current separation of church and state being an example, as I have droned on about, the writers of the Constitution never intended it to mean what todays court says it does and the actions of the founders speaks to that. When a law such as the Texas abortion law is in effect for a period and the court is asked to rule on whether it violates the Constitution that becomes and interpretation of the law. Everyone knew what the law was in Texas but Roe v. Wade was the first time someone asked the SCOTUS to look at it from the stand point that it violated a womens right to privacy. There was no precedent no prior conduct by the writers of the Constitution to say that they didnt think it was a violation of privacy. Interpretation of existing law. Now lets look at Miranda. The founders never intended the guarantee of counsel before questioning. If they had they would have worded it that way. The founders were very clear on what they wanted protection from. They wanted the guarantee that everyone had counsel when brought in front of the court and said that, but before questioning? That was never a practice in those times. Legislating from the bench. Do I approve of Miranda most definitely! Do I think it was beyond the scope of the court yes I do, that was not what the law was meant to read when it was written. You want to change the law then change the law. If a law was passed that said marriage shall be the union of one man and one woman and everyone at the time accepted what that meant then 100 years later some one said Well man could be viewed to mean the species in general and woman means from man so any product of the species is therefore woman so same sex marriage is now alright under the original law. Thats legislating from the bench. LongHaul

I started a thread on this subject before the hearing and we started talking about alternate ideas to using A.P.Hill but the thread has gone the way this one is headed into a discussion of the 1St. Amendment. Wile both topics are worthy of debate they need seperate threads (IMO) I purpose if you want to discuss 1St. Amendment rights or wording we use the other thread and use this one to continue a discussion on alternate choices to A.P.Hill. My dad went in 1960 and said Colorado Springs was fabulous. I liked Valley Forge but thought Idaho was better though low impact took a huge hit with there being little top soil. WHere else folks? LongHaul

Region 7 Voyageur, My original post has been kidnapped but lives on in another thread as they say(-: Merlyn, What happens to the 49%? The same thing that happened when we had to get BSA out of schools, your favorite food, the same thing that happen when religious displays had to be taken down from public buildings, the same thing that happened to the handguns people owned when handguns were out outlawed. The same thing that happens to the people who own homes on land that someone wants to build a strip mall on and the city condemns it. You sound like this is some kind of radical thinking yet you support the very notion of forcing established precedent to be changed. Why the difficulty in making the comparison? Wyomingi brought up an excellent example of the majority being required to respect the rights of the minority. Disability act, thousands of dollars was spent creating access to buildings for a very small percentage of the population. New buildings must address the problem or they can't be built. The minority is forcing the majority to do something the majority would otherwise not do. Do I think it is right? YES! The handicap access does not prevent me from using the building and even though my tax dollars are being spent for something I have no use for, or need of, I think it is the proper thing to do. Having a manger in the lobby of a government building does not stop anyone from using it. The use of tax dollars for the Jamboree is no different than the use of tax dollars for handicap elevators, I can't use them but I have to pay for them. I can't park in certain spaces on government land because I am not handicapped but I have to pay for those spaces and the sign that tells me I can't park there. I don't get an extra break on my income tax. Why no marches for equal rights for the totally able? I keep quoting the Constitution but some just dont want to accept that the document does not say what they think it says, never did. Read the SCOTUS decisions on the fourteenth amendment which started all this and then you tell me that no school prayer, no religious displays on public property, is what the SCOTUS had in mind when they made that ruling. Christmas became a State holiday in Alabama in 1836 and in the District of Columbia in 1870 right around the time of the decision we are discussing. Does anyone actually think the SCOTUS was saying that government celebrating religious holidays was unconstitutional? LongHaul

Trevorum, How does your blue school analogy address my South Holland example? Everything was closed because of religious beliefs. They were opened not because having them closed offended someones religion but because someone could make a buck. The vast majority of the community was offended and had to live with that offense. Why not the few rather than the many? wyomingi, If we lived in the society that LongHaul advocates it wouldnt be long before some demagogue, wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, would whip up 51% of a community and get them to declare a native born, white, fundamentalist Christian, republican only area. Yes! Yes! Yes! How many times must I say it? You wouldn't have to come within a thousand miles of the place if you didn't want to and they could live happily in their own little bigoted world. So What? The first answer I hear coming is because then someone would be forced to move or submit. To which I answer GUN CONTROL you want one? move out of Evanston cause we will arrest you! Want to carry one around with you? Move out of Illinois cause we will arrest you! Want to smoke in public move out of Chicago cause we will arrest you! It happens all the time and we call it democracy. Why do you have such a problem with the concept that some where in this country there would be a place where people could live in peace and not agree with your sense of freedom? You could live in your town and not pay taxes for what you don't want and I could live in my town and not be told what I can spend my taxes on. LongHaul

Perceptions gentleman. Its all perceptions. You perceive that as the minority forcing its views, I see it as the majority thwarted in forcing its views. Oh! You mean like the 2000 Presidential elections. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of your arguments, you call that interpreting the law. If they rule against your arguments, you call that legistlating from the bench. I can understand that. Because in our minds, our positions are well reasoned and based on our own understanding of the law. If someone, a judge, comes to a different conclusion, they aren't following the law, they are making new law. At least in our minds. Oh! You mean like the 2000 Presidential elections. Lets use the example I have presented about the community of South Holland. A group of similarly minded people built a community. They established laws which reflected the views of the community. In a republic we elect representatives to make our laws and do not rely on a popular vote for normal legislation so not everyone was able to express a view on every law enacted. One of the laws said that all businesses would remain closed on Sunday. There was no mass out cry, no call for repeal, no impeachment of elected officials; this was a very religious and commonly minded community. It was a immigrant by that I mean someone who did not share the views common to the community who moved into the community well after its establishment, that sought to have this law repealed. This is the minority dictating to the majority. The writer of the Constitution wanted to guarantee that the Federal Government could not take certain rights away from the people; these are the first 8 amendments. The 9th goes to what we call past practice which means we dont lose rights just because we didnt list them here as being rights. The 10th says anything not specifically granted the Federal Government or specifically denied the States are reserved to the States respectively, or the people. They set up checks and balances to see that small groups could not seize control. They set up avenues to change the document or amend it which they did in 1794 and in 1803. Its a very effective document IMO. Not until the end of the Civil War (#13 in 1865, #14 in 1866, #15 in 1869) did the original document come under fire (IMO). The original framers sought to insure that the rights granted under the first 8 amendments were not taken away by the Federal Government. As I have said before, the State of Connecticut had a State religion until 1818 which should indicate that the original intent was to allow that freedom to the States. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Its when we get to the second amendment that the problem starts, those in power, after the Civil War, needed a way to disarm specific groups. So now 9 men, the SCOTUS were asked to interpret the document to make that possible, which they did. Now instead of being protected by the first 8 amendments we only get 4 ; 2, 3, & 7 being gone and we only get half of 8. The point Im trying to make is that this country was founded as a democracy, the definition of which includes majority rule. Its when a powerful minority group is able to manipulate the system that it falls down. Again I say that ours is the oldest established government on the planet. It has stood this long because of what it is based on, when we mess with the foundation things crumble. Allowing similarly minded people to group into States and communities of similarly minded people to be formed within those States is what the writers of the Constitution intended. Preventing the Federal Government from micro managing is what the 10th amendment was supposed to address. Problem is the founders never envisioned professional politicians or a political system where retaining office was paramount to establishing sound government. The question today isnt freedom or the rights of the people its what is the Politically Correct course and which view will keep me in office. It's power not service. LongHaul

GernBlansten, Do you honestly believe that 51% of Americans would actually vote to stop religious displays at Christmas if they were asked? If we had a popular vote do you think 51% would vote to stop prayer in school? If they were allowed to vote do think 51% would vote to stop the military from supporting the Jamboree? How is it a freedom that a Christian community can't celebrate Christmas in the buildings their tax dollars built. Why the need to catagorize me? Why must I be Libertarian or Anarchist, or what ever? Does that make it easier to discount my views? If the religious right were to gain political control and the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution did not forbid state religon would you feel that it was an example of the majority dictating to the minority? LongHaul

Maybe it is I who is dense, are you saying that it is an American value that the minority should dictate to the majority? No wonder the election process fails sometimes too many people voted!

What about the guy who moves next to the airport and then wants the air port shut down because it is too noisy? What about the guy who moves into South Holland and then files suit to be allowed to open a store on Sunday? What you see as giving my liberties over to local government is what I see as you wanting me to give my liberties over to the Federal Government. I'd rather keep it local where I have more of a voice. My problem is in existing communities where the majority decide they want to change the rules and expel all those who are already there. Sounds like Chicago circa 1965, they were called "Blockbuster" usually Black police officers, who could somewhat protect themselves, moving in to established all white communities. When scared whites ran more would come and the originals would leave. They had no intention of staying or becoming part of the community they only wanted to force their views on the majority. We stayed, my parents finally moved when a home became available on the block my mom was born on across the alley from three of her sisters. That area is 90% black today, only one sister left, shes 98. The point I want to make is that it should be up to the community. Eventually like minded people will group together and live in peace. Some people just can't stand it if others are doing something they don't like even if it's three thousand miles away. LongHaul

Read what I wrote not what you want to see. I'm not in favor of telling anyone how to live I'm in favor of people being able to decide for them selves and form communities of similarly minded people. The state of Illinois is not telling me how to live my life it is telling me if I want to live my life in the state of Illinois I must comply with certain regulations. You don't like it here MOVE or get a majority of the citizens to change the law not an EXTREMELY small group to interpret existing law to your liking. Moving into an established community and telling everyone there that they need to respect your rights while you ingnore there's is wrong. Allowing the Community of South Holland to require businesses to remain closed on Sunday IMO is not failing to respect the views of those who want to have businesses open, it is a reflection of the majority of the citizens of the community. I respect your views I just don't agree with them and I am in the majority. Allowing one person to dictate community policy because that one person is supported by 5 out of 9 other people who don't even live here is not what the Constitution was supposed to guarantee. Lets talk for a minute about the community featured in the link GernBlansten posted. Would I want to live there No and Im Catholic. Do I think a person should be allowed to choose to live there in order to disrupt Tom Monaghans vison again No. Dont tell me I have to live by your ideals if you are not ready to live by mine. People who choose to move to Monaghans town know what they are getting up front. People who moved into South Holland knew what the law was when they moved there. Also, just how local do you think this should go? Should it be constrained at a state level or flow down to local governments? Could a home owners association be able to exclude blacks from their neighborhood? A county that accepts only Mormons as residents. A city that requires regular church attendance to serve on the council. To the extent that it already does now. The City of Chicago is a Smoke free zone, the State of Illinois is not nor is the USA. The city of Evanston is a handgun free zone, the State of Illinois is not nor is the USA. Every municipality in the state has a different set of rules concerning housing regulations, how tall, how wide, do you need a permit to paint. The city of Evergreen park requires a permit to replace your hot water heater. If you get caught without one you can be fined, though if you ask politely you can get one for free. Its a way to protect the elderly from disreputable workmen. The city of Wilmette just passed a law that says not only cant you talk on a cell phone while driving, you cant eat or drink anything, or engage in any activity which may impair your concentration while driving. Do I believe Wilmette should not be allowed to adopt such laws No what I do believe is that the people of Wilmette should find out who drafted this law and who voted for it and impeach them for being to stupid to govern. I dont believe the law is a violation of some persons right to have a car full of screaming kids while driving down a street filled with kids getting out of school. I do think it is poorly concieved and places too much autority in the arresting officers hands. LongHaul (This message has been edited by LongHaul)

GernBlansten, Would your utopia of states rights also allow states to say that black people cannot live there (or alternatively, only over there)? Or homosexuals? Or invalids? or Non-Christians? Actually Yes, personally that is exactly what I think the writers of the Constitution intended. Connecticut had a State Established Religion until 1818. In 1818 the State of Connecticut drafted a State Constitution which dropped the state religion, their choice. It was the SCOTUS interpretation of the 14th Amendment which took that right away from the States not the Constitution itself. What the Constitution says is that "Congress" shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress does not say that religious symbols can not be displayed on public buildings nor does the Constitution itself say that, the SCOTUS says that it is according to how it (SCOTUS) interprets the 14th. Amendment to the Constitution. The drafters of the Constitution were very clear on States rights and clearly said that any power not expressly given Congress shall be reserved to the States. It has Articles defining what rights are denied the States and Denied Congress. The fact that the whole document can be reapplied by the SCOTUS is why discussion of Supreme Court appointments is so important. If the SCOTUS over turned Roe v Wade it would not change what the Constitution actually says only how it is applied. What would be the purpose of the US Constitution if each state can operate as its sovereign nation? The US Constitution provides all Americans with certain rights and protections that cannot be infringed on by the states. Currently, states rights or local laws cannot supersede the protections of the Constitution. States rights do not constitute sovereign nation status the Constitution is clear on that. The rights the Constitution provides each citizen are always subject to the current SCOTUS which means the document itself guarantees little. Getting back to the first section, do I think that a state should be able to declare itself White, AngloSaxon, and Protestant yes. If you aint you cant live here. Do I think that there will EVER be a time that enough people with that view are able to mass together to form a body large enough to petition statehood? No. Most of us are not that bigoted and would not want to live with people who were. Do I think that a Community of Amish should be able to outlaw motor vehicles and Flashy dress yes. You aint in Black then dont even think about stopping for more than gas or directions. Wait ! are there gas stations in all Amish communities? If a group of Orthodox Jews wanted all work to be stopped from sundown to sunrise on a particular day of the week then fine. There is a suburb of Chicago called South Holland, big surprise it was originally a group of Dutch. No business was conducted on Sunday, none, not even gas stations or fast food. Its what the people wanted. It got over ruled eventually because someone wanted to live in this peaceful community and change it. If the state of SD wants to outlaw abortion fine, if the state of Illinois wants to outlaw death penalty fine, if the state of Texas wants to allow the execution of mentally handicapped criminals that should be up to the citizens of the state of Texas not Rhode Island. What I do personally and how I choose live my life does not dictate how others should be forced to live theirs. I should respect their views as I would have them respect mine. LongHaul

Fgoodwin, Was not offended in any way by what you posted, I apologize if my post made you feel that. I don't take offense to what is posted even if it is directed at me, I figure it's the posters right to have an opinion. I agree with you however that too much "gospel" that turns out to be either false or simply outdated information. is being spread. When it is being spread by me then it's doubly wrong I and I want to be corrected. As a trainer I have a responsibility to deliver accurate and up to date information, on this issue I was out of date at best inaccurate at least. Every youth deserves a trained leader, every leader deserves quality training when they seek it. LongHaul

I've been all over he U.S. in a scout uniform and would like to see the Jamboree back on the road. A "pro" part of using A.P. Hill is that we know today where the next Jambo will be held. We can develope itineraries, and travel options. There is equiptment which is stored at A.P. Hill, some of which was not discovered until it came time to pack up and it was realized that the stuff being sought was in fact in the third trailer from the left which everyone thought someone had looked in but that's a hourse of a different color. The issue here is legality, Is it legal for BSA to use this facility. What I would like to see happen is that the SCOTUS revisit the Bill of Rights issue and return States rights to the States. Allow people of similar views to live together and share those views. If a community wants to display religious symblos on public buildings find, you don't like it move. Eventually we will group according to common views. We used to have the phrase "melting pot" where the concept was that people would embrace common views and become Americans. Now we have the phrase "salad bowl" where each individual element retains it's original uniquness and we become X-Americans. If we are going to remain seperate then let's allow seperation. This will never happen because it would relinquish central control by the Federal Government. LongHaul

Thanks for the link Scoutnut, I searched the National site last night but couldn't find this info. After you gave me the location I can see, by what is highlighted, that I failed to access Uniforms thru the Adult Leader link. Sometimes it's like a maze. Fgoodwin, the info relating to the two different books and who could still use the old book and when the cut offs were AND the reference to the Tan shirt becoming the official Webelos uniform and that the diamond patch was to be discontinued were on a printed sheet that was an addition to the training materials we obtained from National. There was a binder with training syllabus' and several loose sheets, this was one of them. I am trying to get my copy back from the trainer who has the packet. I remember the comments of our training team that this was just an attempt to force families to buy new shirts for Webelos. The loss rate Nationally at that time was reportedly 40% (Webelos that dropped from Scouting) and we all said National was just trying to get one more dip into the parents pockets. All said I stand corrected, based on the National Web site info that the Blue uniform is still acceptable as a choice. Can anyone tell me where the reference to which to wear is a family choice rather than a den decision? Again I was under the impression that the den was supposed to all be alike. Using the Webelos Colors to display activity pins as opposed to displaying them on the hat. I was told this was a den decision to help form den identity. Whether to wear the hat or not again den decision. These last things about colors/hats were verbal so I'm asking if anyone has a solid source for this info. Training is only as good as the material you are given, as a trainer I'd rather give no info than wrong info. LongHaul

Welcome Capnwhizz, I is always benifical to any discussion to have both sides of an issue represented. In reading your post I had the same question DougD asks, that being "Who does lowering the value of property by millions cause serious damage to Scouting in the Southwest Florida Council?" If the land is not for sale it's value is intrinsic not material. It's still the same camp it was before the suit. Please explain. LongHaul

My information came from the instructions in the training material we got from National two years ago. When there were two books in use and there was a cut off date to still use the old book. The mention that the Blue uniform for Webelos and the diamond shaped badge were being phased out was made at that time. I've turned these over to the new trainer but will try and locate publication numbers. The 2005 insignia Guide does still show the diamond shaped badge. Scoutnut, where on the National site did you find the information you quoted? LongHaul

The Tan Shirt is the only offical Webelos shirt. The option of Blue or Tan has passed. The square Webelos patch is no longer in production though There are probably still some around which are being sold. When it was an option it was supposed to be a den decision. Everyone wears blue or tan but no patchwork dens. Webelos is supposed to be a transition program between Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. The boys are suppposed to be forming a group identity which is tough if there are two different color uniforms. Once again no one is going to show a boy wearing a Blue shirt the door but no matter what the justification to keep the Blue shirt it's no longer the proper uniform. LongHaul