Pack212Scouter

1.) So a youth may be agnostic/atheist? A youth may no be a declared atheist. Being a declaired agnostic is where about 15% of the population lies and could possibly be acceptable on a short term basis. Agnostic is where most people land who are questioning their fath. It can be a state of not knowing what you believe or it can be a state of declaring that it is unknowable. It's a really grey area what "short term" can mean. It basically comes down to...is any damage being done to the unit, and is this person still growing in their exploration of faith. 2.) "Once an Eagle, always an Eagle." Is that true for an atheist? (Is it something that can be revoked?) Yes, it is true for an atheist, Eagle is an award that I am not sure has ever been revoked. I am not sure if it even could be revoked. But being an Eagle does not grant someone life long membership priviledges in the BSA. They still have to register as adults after their 21st birthday.

Now onto you Merlyn....I'll try to be civil though "But, by the way, I have every right to try and change the BSA's membership requirements. Freedom of speech and all that." Nice try, but since BSA is a private organization and you are not a member...well connect the dots. You can also try to keep the sun from rising, but you'll have about the same effect As for freedom of speech...You are free to speak all you like in a public forum (which this is not, but we like to hear you anyway!). You can speak until you run out of air. Freedom of speech does not imply requirement to listen.(This message has been edited by pack212scouter)

Michael, I hope your 4th turned out better than you expected. Ours here was rainy and dreary! You have hit on one of the core precepts of Scouting, as such, individuals are bound to get passionate. We do still need to be civil to one another though! On the subject of atheists, declaired atheists may not be members of the BSA for the reasons that have been stated. Merlyn, as usual, has chosen to attempt to get his beliefs presented by stirring the water into a muddy mess that is difficult to see through. Merlyn has attempted to merge the concept of "declared atheist" with the concept of "doubt about faith." He would like us to believe and state that if one questions the concept of God, then one is an atheist. Well, that is not true, which is why Scouts can and often do express questions about their faith and God (even adults do sometimes at times of great difficulty), yet remain Scouts. It is part of growing into a mature adult. An atheist is not someone that has questions; an atheist has decided that they believe that there is no such thing as "God." As such, this belief is not in accordance with the Scout Law, or BSA policy, and this person cannot be involved in Scouting for the reasons that the Beaver so eloquently stated.

Before certain others reply, I'd just like to correct those figures a little. The closest estimates for the US religious beliefs are about 80% Christian (the largest groups are Catholic 26% and Bapist 17%); 5% other religions (the largest being Jewish at 1.4%); and 15% declaring no religion (of which only about .5% each claim Athiest and Agnostic, the rest simply state they have no religion). Basically, of the US population, roughly 85% fall into BSA's statement on religion; 14.5% are not sure about what they believe (and therefore probably couldn't care less); and about .5% do not.

"Its the other way around Ed. Think about it. Unless you have the freedom to NOT engage in religion first, can you truly have the freedom to engage in any religion you wish, to any extent you wish." Actually, you are mistaken Gern. Communism, is one glaring example of freedom from religion not allowing freedom of religion. You cannot have a true concept of freedom OF religion without allowing for athiesm (which is of itself a form of religion as defined by one's beliefs), while the concept of freedom FROM religion does not include guarantees of religious freedom. Ed's premise does not assume that you must believe in God before being athiestic. Very generally interpreted, Freedom OF religion guarantees all religious (belief) rights, the rights to practice them, and the right not to have other religius beliefs interfere with your own. While Freedom FROM religion only guarantee's one's right to not believe, and not to be forced to abide by other's beliefs. As a sidenote, freedom of religion is different from BSA's diversity of beliefs premise. BSA's premise is that one must believe in "GOD", but allows for a very broad interpretation of this (basically a belief in a higher power than one's self), including non-theistic beliefs which acknowledge a higher universal power.(This message has been edited by pack212scouter)

While hops makes a good point, I think that it can be isolated down to the Katrina storm alone. All the news was New Orleans....flood....Take a look at the Gulf coast. I used to live down there. New Orleans got wet from Katrina. The Mississippi Gulf Coast pretty much didn't exist after it. Yet we never heard much about that did we? All the news could talk about was New Orleans flood!

Ok...can't resist....have to bite again! Remember we have "Freedom of religion" not freedom from religion the First Ammendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The founding fathers never established that religion, or non-religion would be out of bounds anywhere. The entire purpose of this part of the document is to prevent the establishment of a national religion, and the restrictions on practicing one's faith, or even NOT practicing one's faith. Any subsequent decisions on this is interpretation which is why(This message has been edited by pack212scouter)

Pack15Nissan, Interesting on the Ultimate belt loop requirements. We must have an older printed issue, as it lists only Ultimate and not Disk Golf. I'll have to investigate and make sure that we have the most recent printing. Thanks!

If you look closly at the photo you can see that they thought of this. There is a button sewn on the underside of the pocket flap to attach temporary patches.

Pack15Nissan, I am pleased that you take this seriously to inquire about it. Part of our issue here is probably that BSA leaves SO much to interpretation, especially at the Cub Scout levels. I understand what you are saying about seeing them as examples, and I tend to lean that way too. The only reason that I question that is because every sports belt loop is listed there except Archery and BB. Also, you frisbee golf idea. It is kinda funny because last night I was just discussing disk golf not being there (my father-in-law is an avid disk golfer) Disk golf is actually closer to regular golf than it is to ultimate which is a team sport and akin to football or soccer. I'm not sure how I feel about adjusting requirements like that, I considered it myself and decided against it. Once the program is varied from, you have to decide where to draw the line. Alterations have been made by BSA in the past. Skating was broken into ice and roller skating. Skiing was changed to ski and board sports. Of course, after all that is said, even though they are preparing for Boy Scouts with solid merit badge requirements, the final decision is did they "do their best?" In your situation, I would lean towards the answer of yes (I'm a great fence sitter, aren't I?). They were told that they completed a requirement and to change it now would be akin to removing an award.

"(by, for example, chartering BSA units that exclude atheists to public schools for decades)" I believe currently all charter organizations "in schools" are PTAs. PTAs are private organizations dedicated to their school in their community. Allowing a BSA unit access to property for meetings is no different than allowing GLT groups or ethnic groups to meet there. "and hardly a "friend to all scouts" when they exclude scouts that other countries accept with no problems." While Scouting is a worldwide movement, each country's Scouting organization sets it's own policies for the most part. Just because "they" do it doesn't mean BSA has to. And you can still be a friend without accepting them into your organization. I could even be your friend without accepting you into my family. "However, if the BSA is going to insist that it's a private, discriminatory organization, I'm going to insist that my government not support it, as private organizations support themselves." Interesting, in view of the things that our government DOES support. But moving on, I agree that BSA should support itself. Government wastes too much of our money on redistribution of wealth as it is. In respose to your other arguments, I'll give just one glaring example. The National Endowment for the Arts. Nearly $100 million a year spent to fund various arts, based on "artistic merit" when many of them represent a political, religious or other view one way or another. Here is a prime example of government funding of religious, non-religious, and personal views that liberals are all for.

Said in the most loving manner...I just want to be short and succinct this morning. "Is it okay for the DL and/or the CM to change or modify a requirement toward rank?" Short answer is no. Requirements may not be added nor taken away. (It's kind of curious that those two are not in there, just because it's only offered at council events doesn't mean it shouldn't count...sheesh, marbles is in there!) Realistic answer is that it was an honest mistake. You could a) call everyone and explain it, I am sure that they would understand. Or b) let it go...odds are that most of them will qualify for two of those belt loops this year. My legalistic side would go with a, but that is me.

"Many religious organizations have the resources and local integration to best deliver social services. They should be leveraged for that. " Hmmm..."leveraged"...must be today's PC term for "used."

"I'm also an idealist, and I don't consider the BSA to be for the common good." Actually, since Merlyn does not believe in Scouting, I am actually curious about why they are in these forums, unless it is just to stir the pot.

Yea! What else can change for the 2008 year and still not get information on it until August when the year starts!

I am a big supported of staying away from funding with strings. Your statement is not quite true though..."The public means all of the public. Not just the part of it an organization chooses to serve" The government quite often chooses which part of the public gets served by something, and where it deems funding will do the most good. In general, food stamps are not given to the wealthy; housing assistance goes mostly to low income areas, not everyone; community development programs may go to one area of a city or country and not another. FEMA offers coverage to areas of flood disaster, but not the individual that was the sole victum of a creek. The list goes on and on, but the jist is that the government is ALWAYS making a decision on which part of the population a program is aimed at.

"Wrong. Loving v. Virigina (1967) said that marriage was a civil right, and states could not prohibit interracial marriage." Quite right. Nice catch, states do have the right to regulate marriage as long as it does not conflict with Federal rights. That example was not a good one.

Sounds like the requirements are pretty good to me. Most anyone that can carry on a real 5 minute conversation and especially anyone that can translate two minutes of speech is pretty well versed in the language.

Ok....once again...instances where the ACLU brought or supported a case. I will avoid mentioning any cases which I have not seen evidence of ACLU participation, however I am not looking that hard. I was hoping to not have to spend the time on this, but knew better..... ">>How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU to for them to accept homosexuals?

""If 3/4 of the states decide that you should have to wear purple to vote on election day....then that is the way it would be." Good luck getting the constitution amended to allow that. The difficulty in amending our constitution was designed to stop such frivolous acts. Even worthwhile amendments have been stymied. Think ERA." Good grief...that was MEANT to be an absurd example. Stating the case that IF something that outlandish did happen, it would be the law. "But what if it were a local jurisdiction that had a 99.9% majority that decided to deny blacks to marry whites. If the ACLU stepped in to stop that, would that be a travesty of justice?" Interesting example. First of all, I would not personally approve of it. Secondly, it is established that until and unless there is an actual ammendment to the federal constitution, marriage laws reside withing state rights. Thirdly, there is not any part of the constitution guaranteeing anything be not based on race, other than voting. All other equal rights guarantees are laws, not constitutional gurantees. Fourthly, your question is like asking if Hitler supported equal marriage would that be a travisty of justice? No, I am NOT compairing the ACLU to Hitler (this is another outlandish example). What I AM saying is that because an organization does something good, that does not mean I have to be for it if much of what it does is not in line with my thinking. Keep in mind, that even though I do not like the ACLU. And even though I do not like the majority of what the ACLU does. I believe in the right of the ACLU to exist and will defend the ACLU's "right" to be all the annoyance it can be.

Hmmm...focusing like a laser beam here to keep it simple...concentrating on BSA...let's see.... How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU to for them to accept homosexuals? How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU to remove various rights because they call BSA a "religious organization"? How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU trying to make the BSA accept female youth memebers into Boy Scouts & Cub Scouts? How many lawsuits have there been against the BSA by the ACLU to prevent them from using or leasing public land, even though leases and use are also being granted to religious organizations, and groups that restrict services or membership based on ethnic or sexual orientation? And how many times has the ACLU defended any harrassment against the BSA...that one is really easy...not once.

"Cub field uniform" What is that? Another uniform name that is not used by National. There is the official "Uniform", and the pretty much official "activity uniform," but what is a Cub field uniform?

Both you Merlyn, and you Gern are very mistaken. Read up on constitutional law. Our government serves at the pleasure of the people. And legal rights granted to anyone are via the government, ultimately through the majority. While it is true that a simple majority cannot always exhert their will on the minority, a supermajority can a does. EVERY ammendment to the constitution that gives rights to individuals (or in one ammendments case specifically leaves them to the people and the states if they are NOT enummerated) has been passed by a majority of 3/4 of the state legislatures. In that case, neither the courts nor the ACLU could do a thing about it, except try to get it repealed, as in the 18th ammendment. When reading "majority," you need to get the idea of 51/49 out of your head and realize that "majority" can mean anywhere from 50.00001% to 99.99999%, depending on where it is being used. A law can be passed by a simple majority. A constitutional amendment must be passed by a supermajority. Yet majority still rules. And majority (yes judeo-christian whether someone like it or not, it is a fact) is what passed the constitution and all of it's ammendments which convey and gurantee's rights to individuals.

How is this "adding to the requirements"? The act of having this bag is not being used as part of an advancement requirement that I can see. It is being used as a requirement to be ready. No different that many troops that require a full uniform at all meetings. Boys shouldn't be punished for it, but expectations should be discussed with them. It in no way affects advancement that I can see with the exception that some boys may be prepared to work on a MB at the last moment while others may not be. Now then, if a MB session was planned intentionally without informing the other boys and they miss out because they didn't "come prepared". There could be an issue in this area.

"And, as made clear from what you wrote earlier, the ACLU doesn't do this; they argue their position in court, and judges and juries make decisions. You are free to bring your own lawsuits, argue your own view in court, and try to change laws you disagree with." And there in is the error of so many. It is not the place of the judicial system to "change laws." The job of the judicial system is to decide if laws have been violated or if they conflict with laws that overrule them. Only the legislative branch of our government can "change laws." In our nation the majority rules. The minorities have rights because the majority (judeo-christians) decided that it was right under God that they should! If 3/4 of the states decide that you should have to wear purple to vote on election day....then that is the way it would be.(This message has been edited by pack212scouter)