nugent725

Hey, I'd rather pick up expired items than some of the things we've gotten...for the past few years, we've had people decide to fill the SFF bag with dog poop. Obviously, we just leave these bags right where their owner left them...

Old OX, I completely agree with the argument you've made. Furthermore, when I was a scout, I was interested in becoming a member of the OA because of the mystery and exclusivity of it all. However, your last statement that anyone who isn't a parent/guardian shouldn't be in attendance, did prompt a hypothetical question. Suppose a parent is wondering if anything in the OA conflicts with their personal religious beliefs, so they ask a trusted cleric to attend; this enables them to rest assured that everything is in congruence with their faith, without encroaching on their son's special experience. In this scenario, what is your opinion? As far as the whole "secret organizations" concept, I think that a guy I used to work with put it best, when I asked him about Freemasonry, "It's not a secret society, rather it's a society with secrets". We, as a Brotherhood, are not a secret society that operates in a clandestine manner, but we do have secrets, such as the admonition, handclasp, etc.

I saw this on Yahoo, and figured I would throw it up here for all of you to take a look at. Even in a small blurb of an article, which I presume was intended to be humorous, Yahoo still had to have a couple snide comments, and factual errors which display a lack of proper research. Nevertheless, the picture is pretty funny though... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boy-scouts-preparing-young-men-music-festivals-tomorrow-144553596.html P.S. - This went in the I&P section, because I didn't think it fit into the other categories.

I still have to swear by the metal GI Mess Kits, which can be found dirt cheap in any Army/Navy store. As others have said about the metal kits, I prefer them due to the ease of cleaning, and the ability to sanitize better/easier. I have been using my set since I was a Scout in the late 90s, along with the GI Canteen/Cup combo set...and I don't foresee replacing them anytime soon.

Ea, Excellent post...spot on. On a side note (and unrelated to Ea's post) I was surprised that it took 4 pages worth of posts until we encountered Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law).

Beavah, I think you misconstrued what I was trying to say...and I realize I wasn't as clear as I could have been, I think packsaddle did a better job of expressing it. I didn't mean to imply that hatred comes from policies, because it is an emotion that will exist regardless of policies. However, what I did mean to convey was that environments with discriminatory policies produce a breeding ground for those feelings foster. Think of it this way, how many people do you know that sit there and make derogatory comments about gays at trips, meetings, etc. when the adults are talking amongst themselves. These comments typically present themselves because the speaker feels they are in an environment where anti-gay sentiment is acceptable. What compounds this is when an impressionable youth overhears these kinds of comments, and you see where I'm going with this. To quote Dropkick Murphys song The Torch "Ignorance is something you can't overcome, but you've passed it on down, and that's something much worse". And before anyone gets rattled, I'm not saying you are ignorant...its just a lyric. On the gay marriage thing - yes you can "civil unions", which are the same thing as marriage, except in name. However, the struggle there (on why marriage is preferred to civil unions), is that by creating a different name, it is equivalent to saying to the gay community "You get something different, because you're different". This is the same as separate but equal...to which Thurgood Marshall said "Once you have separate, you no longer have equal".

Ok Folks, First, and foremost, allow me to say that I was not "flaming" anyone, or attacking anyone's personal religious beliefs. I firmly believe that this is America, so you may believe whatever you like, whether it be God, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What I was trying to express when I said that I was appalled, was the fact that we strive to instill in the youth the qualities exemplified by the Scout Oath and Laws...yet some people feel that blanket discrimination is still within those guidelines. Once Eagle - You missed my point, in which you would see that the black/gay substitution does work, in order to make a feasible comparison. It is not only my belief, but the belief of others (including the LGBT community) that homosexuality is not a choice, it is simply a way you are born (much like you are born black, white, asian, etc.). I know that I didn't decide to prefer women, I just do, it's the way I was born. Here is the question I pose to you - How can you state that something is immoral, if there is no decision involved? That is tantamount to saying that it is immoral to be a redhead. Additionally, the "morally straight" argument doesn't wash with me for several reasons, including the above. Morally straight is a subjective term, since we all have a different idea of what constitutes morality/immorality. Therefore, it seems rather odd for one person to arbitrarily dictate to me what I should see as moral, regardless of whether or not I agree (or society, for that matter, as can be seen by the modern view of indifference toward homosexuality). Beavah - I never said hateful, and I agree with packsaddle 100%. The intent of the policy is not to produce hatred; however, it is a natural by-product of a discriminatory policy. BS87 - I never said that it was acceptable to oppress people for their beliefs, in fact I strongly oppose doing so. However, your post did give rise to an interesting question. People claim that those who support an all-inclusive policy are forcing their ideas of morality upon them, yet isn't that the same as those same people stating that others accept the idea that homosexuality is immoral? Moose and Blanc - Thanks for the backup I just want to reiterate that this post is not meant to be a specific "attack" or "flame" upon anybody. I just wanted to address each person's reply individually, so it didn't come across as some passive aggressive sounding nonsense.

I am actually kind of appalled by some of the responses here. Can anyone honestly tell me how discrimination fits into the Scout Law? For those who do not see how ridiculous these arguments are, replace the word gay/homosexual with the word black/African-American. I know some people will read this and say that that argument doesn't hold water, but bear in mind that the issue of non-segregation in troops was a highly debated topic until the end of the civil rights movement. In fact, the Church of LDS didn't allow black Scouts to be SPL until 1974, when they and the BSA came under pressure from the NAACP. Also, for those making the "role model" argument...that is a load of hogwash. I didn't end up being a straight married man because that's what my SM was when I was a youth. I'm straight because that is the way I was born, not because of some external social influence. While I will admit the extreme merit of the Differential Association theory (http://criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/sutherland.html), it doesn't apply to this situation. Additionally, the Scouting movement is to be asexual. In my opinion, this should apply to both adults and youth. Just because a SM is heterosexual does not make it any more acceptable for them to display their sexuality to/in front of youth. Finally, just because someone is homosexual does not automatically mean that they are either a pedophile, or an individual with uncontrollable lust that will make a pass at any individual of the same gender. For the argument of "I wouldn't want my son camping alone with a homosexual man", then I have to ask - Would you want your son camping alone with a heterosexual man? Aren't we forgetting that there is a reason why two deep leadership exists? One more nugget to ponder is that our YP training exists because of the bad actions of a few Scouters in the past, who were not gay, but rather heterosexual pedophiles who prey upon young boys. Well, that's my two cents...

Hey everybody, While cruising the internet, I found a site called popvox.com, where you can read pending legislation, and submit your vote to your Congressman/woman. Since we typically have a half decent amount of political threads on this forum, I thought some of you might find it interesting. YIS, Ryan

From the OP, it sounds like this is an issue that the SM should have been handling, instead of trying to blame the camp structure. However, this does remind me of a poem called "A Poem About Responsibility" by Charles Osgood. Some of you may know it as "The story of Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody". There was a most important job that needed to be done, And no reason not to do it, there was absolutely none. But in vital matters such as this, the thing you have to ask Is who exactly will it be who'll carry out the task? Anybody could have told you that everybody knew That this was something somebody would surely have to do. Nobody was unwilling; anybody had the ability. But nobody believed that it was their responsibility. It seemed to be a job that anybody could have done, If anybody thought he was supposed to be the one. But since everybody recognised that anybody could, Everybody took for granted that somebody would. But nobody told anybody that we are aware of, That he would be in charge of seeing it was taken care of. And nobody took it on himself to follow through, And do what everybody thought that somebody would do. When what everybody needed so did not get done at all, Everybody was complaining that somebody dropped the ball. Anybody then could see it was an awful crying shame, And everybody looked around for somebody to blame. Somebody should have done the job And Everybody should have, But in the end Nobody did What Anybody could have.

Shortridge, First, I want to say you have posed an excellent, thought provoking question. Second, we are faced with quite a paradox, especially under the guise of "morally straight character", as in OGE's post. How many times in this forum has it been stated that we must follow the requirements "exactly as written, without addition or subtraction". Yet, we are expected to discriminate against people under the presumption of "following policy", which is not written. Makes you think, doesn't it?

I was a scout from 96-02, then went off to college and work until last year when I got back involved as a leader. I knew that scouting had changed, as the times do, but I didn't think I would've been this pleasantly surprised. In my day, the teenagers usually complained about service...but the teens have now love doing service, just so they can say they did something good and helped someone out. The younger scouts don't get it yet, but I figure its because their young and haven't fully grasped the concept and logic. Back in March, we were at a district service weekend, and one of the 12 year olds was complaining that he paid to work for a weekend. Before I could say a word, one of the older scouts said "no, you paid so you can eat this weekend...the service you're doing for free, just to help someone else out". At that moment, I truly realized that this kid knows what it means to be a scout, and I had an ear to ear grin.

I have to say, contrary to some on here, that I love popcorn...my wife and I are junkies for it. However, with that said, I absolutely hate selling the Trails End, because it is entirely too expensive, and theres a relatively low ROI (return on investment). As the program is set now, the troop and the council each receive 30%, as opposed to an original fundraiser which yields 100% for the troop. Typically, from what I have seen, this isn't really an issue for packs...it's a lot easier to say no to a 17 year old than a 7 year old. Additionally, I hate how hard council pushes the popcorn issue...almost as if it were the Popcorn Scouts of America, which is another reason our troop has only done it twice in the past 16 years. For another alternative, check out thegivingbean.com, which sells coffee and tea for scout fundraisers. This also works great for those who hate the kernels stuck in their teeth...

Buffalo, National must have heard you...I just checked the scoutstuff website, under hats and caps, and here's what they have: Campaign Hat Centennial Cap Centennial Webelos Cap Tiger, Wolf, and Bear Caps Cub Leader Bush Hat Venturing UltraShield Cap

Skeptic, On that note, I wouldn't mind if girls in the program took on a good amount of PORs. If the boys at that age are genuinely disinterested in leadership, and the girls are, then why not have somebody take the job that wants it. If anyone tries to raise the argument of "Well then the boys won't be able to advance because the girls have all the leadership roles", it doesn't hold water because there are plenty of PORs to go around. How would that situation be any different than a large, all-boy troop? I think that girls in PORs is a good thing because it teaches young girls that they can do any job that a man can do. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that only girls/young women should be in leadership roles; I'm just saying that everything should be equal across the board. Speaking of equality, doesn't that tie in with Good Citizenship and Morality, which are 2/3 of the Aims of Scouting? During the course of this thread, I have read people say things like "School and structured things are feminine", which doesn't make any sense to me. Structure is there in certain situations because it is necessary. In fact, the working/business world is structured, and is still considered a male dominated area of life. I'm not trying to sound like some kind of uber-women's lib, anti-male kind of guy...just someone who is interested in equality for all, which is a concept that we teach the Scouts - but don't practice ourselves as an organization. Also, I'm just being a realist that it's a matter of time before the rest of the program goes co-ed. Call me naive if you want, but I just fail to see a major downside to opening the program to more youth...and I feel it would breathe new life into the program. YIS, Ryan