AZMike

"These people are not. Is that fair? So, anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay? That must be something that is being spread by talk radio heads somewhere." Or just common sense. One can oppose gay-bashing, believe that gay people should be treated with compassion, accept the idea of a civil union - but still think that the idea of a man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman is ridiculous, and not what marriage is. It is also common-sense to presume that American's constitutional right to the free practice of their religions, including condemning such practices in public, does not end when LGBT people insist on their right to marry people of the same gender. It is also common-sense, and just plain American, to insist that public officials cannot and should not threaten to use their office to punish people for their 1st Amendment rights to free speech and the free practice of religion. "Mr. Boyce - so, women past child bearing age should not be allowed to be married? Neither should infertile men or women?" Women past child bearing age are still known to have children, as have supposedly infertile men and women. Can you tell me one case where a man has knocked up another man? Marriage is and has always been based on the idea of union between a man and a woman, for the ultimate purpose of creating children and nurturing them, whether that is likely or not. Even the marriage of an infertile or elderly couple celebrates the creation of new life. "Yes, marriage is a social structure and thus, by definition society should define what the accepted structure is about. We have age limits, "who" limits (I can't marry my mom for instance) and in most states gender limits. I don't think I should be able to marry a 12 year old girl, my sister, my cat nor the foxy married lady next door. As for gay marriage? I'm actually somewhat conflicted about that. I have no issue with "civil unions" - i.e. treating a gay couple as a business enterprise wrt insurance, health decisions, etc. " In truth, I don't have a problem with a "civil union" concept as a secular social arrangement, with the rights attendant on any business relationship. You can call a relationship a marriage and deluded people can agree with you if you and they want to so so. Heck, you can stick a Mercedes emblem on a Ford pick-up and tell people it's a Mercedes, just don't expect me to agree with you. Also don't expect me to agree with LGBT activists that gay adoption is desirable for children. For one thing, there is conflicting research on this. And for another thing, under the 1st Amendment, I don't have to compromise my religious beliefs just because the government tells me to. And don't expect me to agree that religious-based organizations have to agree to cowtow to the new party line that gay couples should have the same rights to adopt as a married couple. The city of Chicago (where else?) ended 40 years of financial support for Catholic Charities' adoption services because Catholic Charities could not violate their conscience, and the city political machine insisted that any organization with state contracts now had to be willing to place children in gay households. Catholic Charities lost the appeal, lots of children suffered, all in the name of LGBT votes and political contributions to Chicago machine politics. As you say, we place all kinds of restrictions on who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry, such as incest and polygamy. But why, if not for religious/moral reasons? One could argue that the restrictions against incestuous marriages are to prevent genetic problems, but then why would most people agree that two brothers should not be allowed to get married? Or a father and his (adult) son? Or a mother and an adult son, if one is sterile? There's no problem with possible births, is there? If they are all consenting adults, why not, based on the same arguments as used for gay marriages? Why shouldn't any of those hypothetical couples be allowed to adopt? Or a polygamous family, if they are all adult and none were married under duress? (I'm aware that some of you may actually agree that such people should be allowed to adopt children. There is a reason you feel that way, but unless some of you are crazy enough to admit you do, we can save that debate for another time.) The idea that gay marriage and gay adoptions MUST be supported is a very recent phenomenon in American politics - Obama himself did not accept it (famously saying that he believed marriage was only between a man and a woman during the presidential debates), and only "evolved" in his thinking after his vice-president forced his hand. Support for gay marriage is now de rigueur for all Democratic candidates, and has been quickly incorporated into the party platform for the Democratic Party Convention - the one where Bill Clinton will nominate Obama, and not the vice-president (ahem), as is normally the case. That would be the same Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act ("I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position"), whose repeal is now called for in the Democratic Convention Party Platform... So were Obama and Clinton neanderthal anti-gay bigots in the minute before they opposed gay marriage, and suddenly were no longer bigots in the minute after they decided they no longer opposed gay marriage?(This message has been edited by AZMike)

And don't forget Russell, the Wilderness Explorer in "Up!" He may have been a Wilderness Explorer, but he would be a dang fine Scout, too.

This summer, I was driving out of a department store parking lot after we had stopped to use the restrooms en route to summer camp, when a man noticed my scouter uniform and flagged me down. He said he had a tattered flag in front of his home and knew something should be done with it and asked if Scout troops accepted them for proper disposal. A lot of people want to do the right thing with an old flag but don't know what it is. I like SSScout's idea of approaching them with a scout business card and offering to dispose of it properly or to use it for training. If a troop is looking to do a good deed, help the community, and get some good publicity for their troop, maybe it would be a good idea to call the metro editor of your local paper and ask if they would be interested in an interview on how to properly care for and dispose of old flags, and offer to accept old flags. Get some photos of the scouts folding a flag. A couple of weeks before Independence Day, Flag Day, or Memorial Day would be a good time to make such a pitch to the local editor.

The whole thing reminds me of the young John Kerry throwing his Navy medals on the front steps of the capital to show his hatred of the military. A few decades later, he was trumpeting his military service when it became politically expedient to do so. (He also displayed those medals he supposedly threw away, so who knows if he really disposed of them.) I would agree that if someone renounces their status as an Eagle Scout, their names should be removed from the rolls.

This new organization y'all are licking your chops over - a Boy Scouts with girls and atheists and no reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and openly gay Scouters and kids announcing their sexual preference, and no pesky Mormons or Evangelicals or orthodox Jews or orthodox Catholics (or Orthodox Catholics, for that matter), or boys who want to be in a group that is just male for just a few times a month - sounds pretty interesting. Since it is so different from the BSA, why not start your own organization ("Scouting USA" or whatever, since they won't be the "Boy" Scouts anymore)? If it will be as popular with mass American society as you say, people will vote with their kids and put them in SUSA instead of the BSA, and you will get all these grants from the celebrities and pop stars and bloggers who post tweets about the big bad BSA. You know they're just itching to throw some big bucks your way to support the new, politically correct scouting organization. The traditional BSA will whither on the vine, and as their grants and scout fees and corporate contributions quickly dry up when Americans are faced with a choice between the two groups, you will be able to snatch up the camp properties and such at a low price when the BSA goes kaput. Or is that not the way you see things going?

The miniseries "Stephen King's 'IT'", about a group of boys in the 1950s who confront an ancient evil and who have to return to their home town and face it again as adults, has a character who in the 1950s flashback was a Boy Scout and who wears his (period-era) uniform even when he's not in a troop meeting (not that uncommon back then, probably). He is attacked by "It" when he is out in the woods working on his birdwatching merit badge.

moosetracker:" SR540Beaver - I am sorry that that happened to you, and I can understand your personal bias, but I you can not convince me." Obviously. "Even with AZMike chiming in "Yes, Yes! They are all pedophiles..! " Nope.. " A Scout is honest, moosetracker. Don't lie. You know I did not say that. I would be interested to see if you can find the study you cite, as statistically, religious clergy are less likely to be child molesters than you are, if you are a parent. They also are less likely to be child molesters than educators (the single largest percentage by profession of molesters), medical professionals, or civil youth leaders (ahem). The Catholic church abuse scandal clearly happened because of the actions of evil men who acted in violation of the teachings of the Church. The John Jay College Study on the abuse scandal, which is the definitive study with the best research base, shows that the vast majority of offenders came out of the seminaries during the period from 1950 to 1979 - a period when those with an admitted same-sex attraction were admitted with the proviso that they remain celibate, and the faith-formation (both tehologically and in matters of sexuality) in most American seminaries was predominated by a very liberal ethos. This short-sighted policy, as shown by the fact that the vast majority of victims were male, was responsible for the abuse. In response, Pope Benedict ordered that no individuals with an admitted same-sex attraction could be admitted to a seminary, and other youth protection issues (mandatory training for all lay and clerical personnel, mandatory reporting policies, etc.,) has caused a dramatic drop in the number of recent cases. The cases that are reported largely are the residue of cases from 10 to 20 years ago. The Pope has taken flack from the gay lobby and the left wing of his Church for banning gays from active ministry. The liberal Protestant denominations are actively ordaining gays as ministers and bishops, and not unsurprisingly, the number of abuse cases there are rising even as they are falling in Catholic churches. The Associated Press reported that that the three major insurance companies for Protestant Churches in America say they receive approximately 260 reports each year of minors who were sexually abused by Protestant clergy, staff, or other church-related relationships. The Catholic Church has reported that since 1950, 13,000 credible accusations have been brought against Catholic clerics (about 228 per year.) The fact that this number includes all credible accusations, not just those that have involved insurance companies, and still is less than the number of cases in Protestant churches reported by just three insurance companies, is shocking, especially as many Protestant churches are store-front or home churches that aren't insured and so aren't included in the stats. The fact that sexual abuse cases are skyrocketing in Protestant churches (as shown by insurance company payouts in civil cases, which now exceeds that of Catholic churches ) is a tragedy, but not surprising. The number of reported cases in Catholic churches has dropped dramatically as a result of the new policies. This is not to argue that Catholics are more or less moral, nor that they contain any more or less abusers than any other Christian denomination. It is about the safety measures that must be put in place in any youth group to protect children from the wolves in the fold. What the Catholics are doing now (which parallels current BSA policies in many respects) works, including the current exclusion of homosexuals as youth leaders, works. Why should the BSA change this? Again, this is not to say, as with moosetracker's strawman argument, that "all gays are pedophiles." Most gay men and women do not have a sexual interest in children. Neither do most heterosexual men or women, and it is a calumny to say otherwise for either group. But we place appropriate safeguards in place to prevent access to children, especially in the particular environment of the Scouts. It is about placing appropriate safeguards in place for children, based on the lessons we have learned, and respecting the rights of parents who wish to place their children in an environment with such safeguards. Those parents who are comfortable with placing their children in an environment without such safeguards can easily find other options for youth programs, and if such programs will be as popular as backers of gay leaders claim, will quickly outstrip the popularity of the BSA among parents.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

SR540Beaver speaks the truth. Many men who self-identify as heterosexual have sex with female minors aged 14, 15, 16, or 17 who are sexually mature (physically, at least) without considering themselves as "pedophiles" or "child molesters" or even "ephebophiles," if they even know what that means. That is why we have rules limiting contact between adult males and teenage females within other youth programs, schools, sporting programs, and religious ministries. It doesn't always work, of course (read the newspaper of any mid-sized town for a week), but we have to take the precautions we can. The same risks are present in men who self-identify as "gay," as SR540Beaver has noted. Many will and do take risks to have sex with teen-age boys. The research certainly shows that a substantial number of men who identify as gay report having a significant number of sexual acts with adult males when they were minors. Are we to to believe that all these contacts were with the people described as "pedophiles" (or even "heterosexual pedophiles," as one poster claimed), or were they with males who self-identify as gay? The literature within the gay community, which often describes adult/teenage sexual contact as "coming out" is not always as disapproving of such sexual contacts as it should be. The Center for Disease Control's research on risky behaviors among LGBT youths shows a highly disproportionate level of such behaviors in gay and bisexual youths in almost every category, and a proportional lack of healthy behaviors in almost every category: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6007a1.htm?s_cid=ss6007a1_w It's a lengthy but extremely well-researched meta-study, and if you work with youths, you owe it to yourself and them to read it. If you have been posting on any of the threads relating to the BSA and gays, you really need to read it. It raises the questions of whether LGBT youths indulge in so many risk-seeking behaviors out of feelings of lowered self-esteem due to societal disapproval; whether the feelings of low self-worth derive instead from the culture and lifestyle, and the lack of unitive contact with the opposite sex, which I would argue is essential for feelings of self-worth; or whether the homosexual or bisexual behavior is yet another form of risk-taking in what is a globally dysfunctional and self-destructive personality in many (probably not all) cases? As youths who describe themselves as gay are four times more likely to report having sex as a pre-teen, and as a substantial proportion of those contacts are with adult males, it needs to be asked, as the writer of this article did: "When a child begins acting out with age-inappropriate heterosexual behavior, the first suspicion is molestation. When a youth begins calling him or herself "gay" and reveals early sexual experience, why are we not asking that same question?" Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/boy_assault_is_a_crime_not_a_sexual_debut.html#ixzz21tHs0yYD Out of compassion, I would like to see better programs for society to help such children; whether societal affirmation of such behavior is ultimately positive or negative remains to be seen and is probably more influenced by political considerations than actual concern for the individual boy. There may well be many boys who self-identify strongly as gay from an early age; others, especially those who are unsure of their orientation and prone to risky behavior, may be forced into a premature self-identification by society that is inappropriate for a developing, pre-teen personality. Whether Scouting is the appropriate program to reduce the incidence of the identified self-destructive behaviors associated with gay and bisexual youth; whether the involvement and association with self-identified "gay" scout leaders promotes greater or lesser safety to the youths involved; and whether the risks of association of boys with a much higher reported level of risky, unhealthy, and dangerous behaviors is appropriate and fair to the heterosexual children in scouting, are questions BSA and scouters have to face. Again, I would argue that before any considerations of "fairness" or "diversity" or inclusion, before any desire to appease the chattering classes of popular culture or Hollywood or the media, before any desires to avoid loss of memberships or funding or societal disapproval or worrying that an Eagle Scout award may be less advantageous on your child's college application than it once was, the first and most important question we have to ask, is whether this contemplated change in the policy will make scouts more or less safe than before? Nothing else matters.(This message has been edited by AZMike)(This message has been edited by AZMike)

I'm not sure on the stats, but at least a fair number of COs in Catholic churches are actually under the Knights of Columbus, who tend to be very orthodox in their support of the teachings of the Pope. Yes, yes, yes, some Catholics use contraception, some Catholics have sex before marriage, some Catholic have abortions. Some Catholics also steal, some Catholics also lie, some Catholics also commit murder. The Church on Earth is a health club for sinners, not a museum for Saints. The Church doesn't alter its teachings based on a popularity poll or what "some" or "most" of its members do. As many commentators have noted, the older generation of priests and deacons and religious sisters and nuns, who came up in the 1960s and 1970s and tend to be more socially liberal, are getting older and being replaced by the new generation, who are overwhelmingly orthodox and obedient to the traditional teachings of the Church. They (already) are emphasizing the Church's views on issues like same-sex attraction and contraception as they assume leadership and teaching roles in catechesis and parochial schools and Catholic universities. We are seeing a strong trend in the reversal to orthodoxy from the young, so I wouldn't count on support for a gay-friendly BSA in the next 10 years from Catholic COs.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

"Yet your morality and religious doctrine outweighs my morality and religious doctrine. How is that right? " Why, because I was born this way. If I am as discriminatory and shortsighted as you say, it couldn't be because I chose to be that way. Who would willingly choose to be as big a jerk as you say I am? So obviously, my puritanical nature is innate, and you have to just accept it. Moreover, you should probably celebrate it. My sheer nastiness is an integral thread in the diverse and wonderful tapestry of our American society, and it should not be reviled, but my a-holish behavior should instead be considered just one more lovely trait that goes to make up the wonderful creation that is Me.

How long before acceptance of polygamy?

Agreed. I think the two best parts of summer camp are 1) being completely unplugged for 2 weeks from videogames, computers, cell phones, text messaging, iPads, iPods, etc., and 2) The free time where kids just do what they enjoy without being scheduled. With all the emphasis on patrol activities, advancement, merit badges, etc., sometimes I think we need more time just for unstructured "fun," which boys seem quite capable of doing on their own.

Horizon - sorry you had a hard night. If you don't mind discussing this, who wanted to leave the troop over this? Was it the parent, the scout, or both?

"Remember they are not kicking them out, they are only not allowing them in.. So lets turn this around, chik-fil-A will not hire a gay.. So is it ok for chik-fil-A to destroy this person and his livelihood?.. Answer "neither is destroying anyones livelihood, because at this point chik-fil-A doesn't have a buisness there, and no one is working for chik-fil-A.. But.. "Neither is right for no allowing equal opportunity." Now go futher "If a gay is found working at chik-fil-A, they will be fired.. Now let us ask the question. Is it ok for chik-fil-A to destroy this person and his livelihood?.. Answer "No, it is not".. If chik-fil-A was being booted out of their established place of buisness, then that would be wrong also. Getting a little taste of what the gay person constantly gets and not liking it one bit, are we Beavah? One of your own, got a door shut on their nose. Sorry the fact Chick-fil-a will take a homosexuals money but not hire them is not treating them equally.. BSA will take contribution money from a homosexual also." Except that Chik-Fil-A does not discriminate against hiring gay employees. The Boston Mayor wants to punish Chik-Fil-A because the CEO, Dan Cathy, had the effrontery to state his opinion that marriage had a biblical basis, and has used his status as a private citizen to contribute to what he considers pro-family causes. Freedom of speech doesn't fly in Boston, so Mayor Quimby decided it was his right to use city ordinances to enforce his political beliefs: Chick-fil-A doesnt belong in Boston. You cant have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. Were an open city, were a city thats at the forefront of inclusion...Thats the Freedom Trail. Thats where it all started right here. And were not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail. Ironic, no? Boston is all about inclusion, unless you disagree with the new secular consensus. Boston is all about diversity, except for diversity of belief or opinion or religious belief. How does the elected mayor of a city using his political power to punish someone for exercising his First Amendment rights relate to the elected heads of a private organization electing to restrict membership as they see fit? KInd of a tortured analogy, really.

Here's an article about the original Master at Arms merit badge and a picture of it: http://www.bartitsu.org/index.php/2010/07/always-prepared-the-boy-scouts-and-self-defence/ A 1912 quote from Baden-Powell, after watching Japanese Scouts training in martial arts: "I went and saw a lot of them at their daily practice of fencing with bamboo sticks and practicing jiu-jitsu to make themselves strong and active and good-tempered. I say good-tempered because it is very much like boxing; you have to take a good many hard knocks and take them smiling. If a fellow lost his temper at it, everybody would laugh at him and think him a fool. In jiu-jitsu they learn how to exercise and how to develop their muscles, how to catch hold of an enemy in many different ways so as to overpower him, how to throw him and, what is very important, how to fall easily if they get thrown themselves. I expect the Scouts of Japan, if they visit England later on, will be able to show us a thing or two in this line." According to the article (which also expounds a little on current BSA policy), the British Scouts still have a Master at Arms badge, but only for fencing, shooting, and archery 1. Attend regular training sessions in a chosen activity (fencing, shooting or archery) and demonstrate an improvement in skill. Training should be for at least five sessions. 2. Know the safety rules associated with the activity and demonstrate their use. 3. Take part in the chosen activity at an officially supervised contest and discuss performance with the instructor. (Here are the requirements: https://members.scouts.org.uk/supportresources/576). The traditionalist Baden-Powell Scouts Association still issues the Master at Arms badge in something close to its original form: Requirements: 1. Demonstrate proficiency in 1 of the following: Single stick, Quarterstaff, Fencing, Boxing, Judo, Wrestling, Archery or any recognised Martial art. 2. In all the contest events, Scout must have taken part in an encounter under proper ring conditions and be able to demonstrate the correct methods of attack and defence. 3. Give evidence of being in training for the scheduled item for a period of not less than 3 months. (http://www.traditionalscouting.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=156:master-at-arms&catid=48:scout-proficiency-badges) Back when Judo was first popular in the U.S. (it's becoming moreso again), many Judo schools had short programs to cover the requirements of the Sports merit badge, which specifically mentioned Judo as an activity. They were often free, in the hopes that the Scout would like the activity and continue to become a regular dues-paying member of the dojo. Many did.

Kids were almost unimaginably tougher back then. But seriously, they also use to teach jiu-jitsu as an activity at the camps under Baden-Powell. At about the same time, Theodore Roosevelt built a dojo in the White House and hosted MMA bouts between judoka and wrestlers and boxers. His letters are full of descriptions of his bouts, and one of his letters describes practicing Dog Brothers-style full-contact stick-fighting with General Leonard Wood on Christmas day and getting a shiner. Full-contact stick-fighting, boxing, wrestling, judo, jiu-jitsu, and fencing were fairly common activities for Americans back then. You can still use Judo (or even Tai Ch'i Chuan) as an activity for the BSA sport merit badge, I think, but BSA doesn't want striking arts to be used, probably for liability issues. (Funny, because I saw way more injuries when I trained in Judo and BJJ than I ever did when I was a boxer...)

BSA also has the new STEM and Nova Award for achievements in science, technology, engineering, and math that looks interesting. http://www.scouting.org/stem/AboutSTEM.aspx?SRC=ET&ET_CID=ET_nova_2_07162012&Page=http%3a%2f%2fwww.scouting.org%2fstem%2fAboutSTEM.aspx&ET_RID=

SeattlePioneer, if you decide to go with the AHG program, please let us know how it works out.

"The Cowboys" with John Wayne would be a good leadership movie that boys would probably like. He creates a boy-led "troop" that survives the loss of their "Scoutmaster."

"Gays???... I have heard in recent news preists giving sermans about "slapping your sons if he shows any feminine signs.. Or taking all gays to someplace and fencing them in, so they can not reproduce and will die off.."(as if gays begetting gays is where homosexuality comes from)." Moosetracker, can I ask you for a source on this story? A priest is one who offers a sacrifice in a sacred ritual, and so generally is used only by Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Anglicans. Most Protestants who don't claim to celebrate a form of the Eucharist use the terms Minister, Pastor, Reverend, Preacher, etc. It sounds unlikely that a Catholic priest would say such a thing, as they teach in the Catechism that the individual should be loved and treated with compassion while the sin itself is abjured. The Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Anglicans now welcome gay members and tend to support gay marriage (at least in Europe and North America) so this story sounds a little unlikely.

"Doing nothing, means continual drops in numbers as the country goes to 80% being afraid on homosexuals in the 1990 to today it being 50/50, to tomorrow it swinging to 80% in favor of equal rights.. Even Republican politician are starting to acknowledge they picked the wrong side of the fight, some have voiced it, others don't want to discuss the issue." Maybe so, maybe no. Traditional church denominations that have changed their orthodox teachings to allow for gay marriage and gay ordination have not experienced a sudden rise in membership due to public appreciation for their new doctrine. In fact, quite the opposite, as members vote with their feet. Some churches are closing down because of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinion/sunday/douthat-can-liberal-christianity-be-saved.html?_r=2&hp http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_20975779/pastor-whose-congregation-dwindled-after-supporting-gay-marriage Although these are religious denominations, the lessons these churches are learning probably would be applicable to a gay/atheist friendly BSA. Before we go making radical changes in the BSA program and identity to accommodate the fewer than 5% of Americans who self-identify as gay or the 8% who don't believe in God or a universal spirit (of whom an even smaller number of each group can be considered likely to have a driving desire to have their son join scouts, or to volunteer as a scout leader), we might choose to consider whether the detrimental effects on membership and recruitment would be worth the result.

Oh, yeah! I forgot about that one! I remember that scene where he points out the young lieutenant who is checking on the condition of his soldier's feet in training. There are some issues with the language used, I agree. In the context of teaching a class on leadership, would it be appropriate to show and excerpt of that scene (and maybe other scenes from movies) to illustrate leadership principles? I'm not sure of the legalities, but I understand that there is a legal exception to copyright law that allows the use of short sections of copyrighted films for non-profit educational purposes. If not whole movies, does anyone have favorite particular sections of films that illustrate key leadership issues?

I've wanted to try a Platypus gravity-fed filter for a long time, as they apparently process a large volume of water quickly and you don't need to pump the water. From user reviews on Amazon, the water is clear, clean, and tastes good. Scoutstuff.org just began selling them on clearance for about half-off (about $50), so I ordered one for the troop backpacking trips. We'll see how it works.

Any other recommendations for good movies about leadership for youths?

Perhaps emphasizing to parents the very real dangers of sugary snacks attracting megafauna into their child's tent (and the tents of other children) is the best way to discourage parents packing snacks for their kids.