packsaddle

Hello again newly disillusioned one, Since I am not paid for my involvement with the boys, I guess that should give me a little higher status in your view so I'll try to share what little I know and understand. I also no longer have a family member in a unit so I think I may be a little more detached than some others in my view of the organization. First, if you are searching for something that comes closer to the ideal that you describe, you can find an alternative worth considering by searching through the messages in these forums that have been communicated by Kudu. The Baden Powell scouts may well meet the worthy qualities that you seek. I am, myself, tempted to take a go at it. My temptation is borne from similar disillusionment. BSA probably does not have specific policies or guidelines to address precisely instances such as you have written. Given that they are an 'our way, or the highway' kind of organization, it would be to their disadvantage to have such specific policies as it would remove the complete discretion they have at present to dispose of us as they see fit. To reflect what Beavah just wrote in part, it is most likely that you are not going to get satisfaction in this fight because you are in a losing position by virtue of the way BSA is organized, if nothing else. Because a crime was involved, you will not be given the time of day by the news media and, worse, the most you could probably do is tarnish the unit, not BSA, in the eyes of the public. You have no legal grounds for action and even if BSA DID have specific policies that apply to this situation, they could ignore them or change them to their liking because BSA is a private club. You might think that as members we have a say in its decisions but the reality is that, for the most part, we don't. BSA probably started out as an organization that met your goals. Somewhere along the line it grew to a large organization. I have never seen a large organization where the people at the top were not heavily invested in issues regarding money. BSA is no exception. As Rush Limbaugh says, it is all about money - but money is not the problem. The policies of BSA have also changed over the years and there have been long arguments over the factors contributing to those changes as well as to the merits of the changes, or lack thereof. In your case you have an immediate problem in that, according to your account, a boy has been unfairly ejected. The ultimate problem for you is that you are powerless to address this injustice. Regardless of the status of the immediate problem, the second one is absolutely true, as I understand it. You're done. The money you contributed is gone. If you feel it was wasted, there's nothing to be done. The illusion will never return and life, for you or the boy, will never be the same. My advice is to try to use the experience to grow. Look on the bright side. You are no longer living in an illusion. You have unmasked the organization and learned far more about it than the average person. You are now free to say anything you like because they can't touch your lives further. You are now free to contribute to an alternative, more worthy, charity if you see fit, where you had contributed erroneously to one that you unknowingly disagreed with. The boy is completely free to discover other activities from a myriad of alternatives. Life is good. The best way to react to jerks who have tried to hurt you...is to live well. So live well. It is time to collect your thoughts and your notes. Carefully create a file. Study the options. Try to find an alternative that meets your needs. Bide your time, if you want, to join the feeding frenzy if an opportunity arises for you to exact revenge. But above all, I wish you and the boy the best of futures. And those good futures are out there for you. Good luck.

Welcome to the forums Rikki12. Unless I've misunderstood the circumstances you described, I share your disappointment. However, as I have been informed on many occasions, BSA can kick any of us out for any reason or no reason at all. They don't have to explain their decision to anyone nor do they have to justify it. Legally, BSA is a private religious organization and just because anyone meets the requirements for membership does not mean we are allowed or entitled to be members. BSA established this status in a legal battle in order to be able to legally discriminate. The Supreme Court agreed with BSA's arguments. The sword that cut out that particular individual (party to the legal battle) also cuts the other way. In both directions persons who might make either contributions or mistakes in their lives are cut by the policy...arbitrarily, if BSA so chooses. However, they are still free to make those contributions or mistakes outside BSA. This is the law of the land as determined by our highest court. The only choice we have if we find this intolerable - is not to join. Many don't. I don't support it. I do adhere to it because I want, for the time being, to avoid that cutting edge...not exactly a positive motivational force, is it? I am sorry for this boy if this is not a hypothetical situation. I hope he can use this setback, learn from it, grow stronger for it, and, perhaps, work in the future for more inclusive opportunities for himself and others. Or, having been ejected by BSA, if he wants to exact some payback, the greatest pain will be felt through loss of funding. It seems to be the only source of pain they feel. I could be wrong.

I too was once 'immune' to poison ivy. That changed with repeated exposure and age. In my thirties, while cutting and hauling firewood, I paid the price. There was, however, a hidden dividend...a silver lining to the itchy cloud. My forearms were absolutely wretched with the rash. But I would adjust the tap water until the temperature was so hot that on unaffected skin I could barely stand it. Then I would expose the rash to the hot water. For long minutes, the sensation was, let us say, diabolically good. Mmmmmmmmm. It was indescribably pleasant, indescribable at least without resorting to language that would be inappropriate for this thread. Anyway, once the 'pleasure' subsided and it started to burn, I would stop the treatment. The itch would be gone for many hours. I would actually look forward to the next treatment. There is a well-known neurophysiological explanation for this but suffice to say, when I get poison ivy on that rare occasion now, I just look forward to the hot water and smile.

adc294, I hope you don't consider the members of the forum to be fools. I think most of us sincerely try to ask and answer honest questions and find solutions to real problems. Besides, I remind you of Matthew 5:22. I will attempt to sincerly answer your questions. You wrote, "I am glad that my question has stirred such debate, but the question stil remains: "Under One God...but Whose God"? From my perspective, many here have no clue. Most wouldn't recognize him if he (or she) stood right in front of them. I guess we will know at some point in time...or will we? Religion is a man-made thing. Many of our beliefs have been twisted from day one, and still are. How can any of you say you know God? How arrogant!" 'Religion' may well be concocted through complex social, economic, and political processes. 'Faith', on the other hand, is unique to each individual and may well be the outcome of some very interesting and unexplained human qualities. Nevertheless it is personal and absolutely unknowable by any other person or group. Moreover, while the personal belief of one person may be misrepresented by another, the unknowable nature of one person's belief by another makes such misrepresentation inevitable to some extent. To the extent that such 'twisting' is intentional, again that is a social or political action that may be fueled by fear, greed, or prejudice. It does not change the personal belief one bit. In this sense, I agree with you. People are indeed clueless as to the beliefs of others. A person may claim to know a god but it is not possible to confirm this on an independent basis. To ask the question as to who can 'know' any particular god is actually just as pointless...how would anyone else 'know' anyway? This is the basis of my contempt for the DRP. It is idiotic. Not only can no person (certainly not BSA) truly 'know' what is in anyone else's mind, the DRP and the membership policy that follows with it cannot possibly exclude precisely the persons that it purports to intend to exclude - namely, insincere liars who would join for dishonorable reasons. The DRP and the membership signature is merely a feel-good checkoff that is unnecessary for honorable persons and meaningless to the others. If your argument is that the DRP and religious membership requirement is a foolish exercise, I quite agree. Have a nice day.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Trev, I think that's why BSA bans it. When I was a boy, I was fascinated by men who chewed tobacco. That was a time when chewing tobacco was purchased in a form that resembled the black rubber heel of a boot. During my days of experimentation I can attest that it had a similar consistency and, perhaps, taste. But on one rainy night some of those guys were standing around under a porch roof. There were a few frogs up near the porch in the rain. One of the men spit on one of the frogs. It died almost instantaneously. I never tried chewing again. The men, as we know today, were hooked. They all died too, probably earlier in life than they would have... but most of them died of cancer. As an anthropologist, you may be able to confirm the accounts I've read of Siberians recycling the psychoactive agent of Amanita mushrooms by drinking each other's urine while eating the fungi. Our culture just seems to have adopted a different favored poison. By the way, have you ever read "The Sotweed Factor" by John Barth? I sure wish it would be produced as a film sometime. There's a scene involving Pocahontas, John Smith, and an eggplant...wow. ASM59, I hope you are aware of how many plants there are that have three leaflets. Blackberries, strawberries, clover, kudzu, for that matter most of the members of the pea family. Hundreds of plants. That rule could be problematic. You need to combine some other characteristics as well. But, best of all, the method employed by the SM in the original message is optimal. A person needs to have a 'feeling' for the plant that allows identification in all its morphs. That takes time and practice.

I'm glad someone mentioned the wild parsnip. It is a member of the Apiaceae (carrot family) and there are several species that are quite poisonous. The most famous is "poison hemlock" (NOT the tree!) which was the source of the poison that Socrates drank, causing his death. The following link is useful: http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/poison/plants/pppoiso.htm and the web site is really good for a large number of other poisonous plants. In the South we have a common flowering plant, "Yellow Jessamine", genus Gelsimium, which is extremely poisonous. And don't forget foxglove (genus Digitalis, same as the heart drug derived from the plant), mountain laurel, Rhododendron, the list goes on and on. This is why I encourage information that goes way beyond the poison ivy group of plants that mostly just make us itch. The rule of thumb that I tell the boys is, "If you don't KNOW it is safe to eat, DON'T EAT IT!" Bon Apptit!

On the contrary, while I tend to agree with you regarding the personal nature of religion, I give LongHaul more credit than that. I think he has a good idea of the difference between 'god' and 'religion'. And even if we sometimes disagree, I think he asks a fair question. The fact that so many of us answer that question so differently is the essence of the problem. To illustrate this I refer to a statement by John-in-KC, "I also ask that at a Summer Camp, faith communities outside Christendom provide for their Scouts on the Sabbath." This statement is makes no sense whatever...I'm being generous. What is clear to me is that John-in-KC would like to be inclusive - but his personal view is obscured to the fact that the concept of the "Sabbath" ONLY applies to certain religions, including his. And, according to his statement, if any of those OTHER faiths want to provide for their Scouts, they can just wait until the day HIS religion has set aside for such providence. The fact that John-in-KC's gesture of generosity (and I believe this to be genuine) is predicated on the foundation of his own religion is WHY this topic is so sensitive and difficult. In situations like this, it might be better to just keep our pie holes shut about religion and allow the boys and their families decide for themselves. But what I think is clearly objectionable (and I think you and LongHaul and most of the rest of us would agree) is the idea that leaders should proselytize for one specific faith rather than to encourage boys to pursue whatever ideas of faith the boys and their families may choose. Parents around here would tend to take a dim view of that as well. The problem is how to avoid that situation while meeting the BSA requirement. And that is what I think LongHaul's question is about.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I agree, I wouldn't exactly call that adding to the requirements. I add, however, that we should not forget that 'poisonous' includes things that make us sick or dead if we eat them as well. I would include the poisonous mushrooms, mistletoe, members of the Euphorbiaceae, etc. There are a huge number of poisonous plants out there and few of them cause a rash on contact. IMHO.

OK, Acco40! That's allright by me, I think I have the choice of weapons. It's just me and you...horse turds at 20 paces.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

For me, I don't mind those occasions when a couple of people get locked in verbal combat. I support the free access to information and the freedom to express ideas, even the really bad ones. To me it is far better to hurl words at each other than to hurl bullets. Sometimes the words can be used to resolve differences instead of solidifying them although sometimes that seems a remote possibility. And...sometimes it is just fun.

Trevorum, you have a wicked mind. I like that.

Hey everyone! I just remembered this from a while back: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3887493.stm Especially check out the photos. What a great way to turn this scam into profit! Bring on an element of faith and people will believe ANYTHING, even the Holy Church of the Order of the Red Breast! Gotta love it. Me thinks we may have an opportunity to get some funding for the next jambo.....

There are several ways to view the Jamborees and their future. Viewed strictly as a market activity (the best way to view it), if they were not subsidized by whatever sources, these events would tend to happen where there was the most demand at the least cost. A robust market assessment would take into account investments and costs of time, energy, environmental impact, and all other such factors. However, all of those factors are in question if these events are funded by the event itself, not through the subsidies, because the factors vary with time and location. This is the real dilemma and it would have been expressed for earlier jamborees if the participants had had to bear the full cost of the event in the past. They didn't. Now it looks like the jamboree will experience a little more of the magic of the free market. It is possible that circumstances such as energy costs will make the idea of a single centralized jamboree too expensive. It is possible that under those circumstances, regional events would be more cost effective. I would find it very interesting to see a careful study of these costs and benefits comparatively across a variety of scales, from the national or international level down even to the council level (such as camporees). I wonder if any such study has ever been performed. Anyone know?

Uh...have you ever seeeeen South Dakota? Well...yeah! I90 goes right through all of that and you can fly into Sioux Falls or Rapid City and all it takes is some trucks and the funding to get the infrastructure. All I was thinking about was the space itself. I mean every unit could have its own square mile to camp in. All the rest is just a matter of money. If I wanted to put it really in the boondocks I would have suggested Abilene, TX or Bismark, ND or something. That would pretty much kill the movement. Seriously, I like the central location because it does offer fairly equal access to most everyone. The east coast location is really convenient for, well, the east coast. Kind of tough stuff for the Mormons though, and a few others.

Oooooooh, pick me, pick me....it's going to be worth - millions! Just like when I consider doing some kind of instructional video, I look in the mirror and say to myself....nope, not yet.

This continues an old discussion. I still like South Dakota for the new site. I suggested Sturgis but Rapid City is also a good alternative. Someone else mentioned Mitchell and, having visited it a few times now, I really like Mitchell. Space will never be an obstacle there! For that matter Gillette, WY or Cody, WY would also be great places. Or almost anywhere in Montana. There's probably a few places in Nebraska or Kansas that would work as well. How about the Frank Philips ranch, 'Woolaroc' in OK? I don't see what's so great about some military base on the East Coast when there are so many other great options in the wide open spaces of the midwest. And I haven't even started on the Southwest. So many possibilities...

Great suggestions, mtm25653. Personally, I would not include 'Enders Game' for literary reasons as well. Just a personal dislike IMHO. The rest are great. In fact, I may just pick up one or two and do it again.

Local1400, I'll offer you your original asking price in Zimbabwe dollars or the equivalent in US dollars (let's see now, that's maybe 3 US dollars in the current market). Interested? Remember, you didn't specify a quarter million of what!

Wow, this unit must be populated by goodie-goodies. No problem at all, except by a former ASM who was subseqently expelled with cold wet sleeves. Seriously, hypothetically speaking, I agree with Hunt on the moving target idea. And OGE's idea is as good as any. But if a garbage mouth joins the unit the effect could be infectious so some means of addressing the problem is needed - if you can actually identify the target. Where do we draw the line? On one end of the spectrum is a loud expression of pain (Ow!) that progresses to the air turned blue at the other end of the spectrum. The boys are quite inventive so the substitutions are inevitable. They are inevitably going to pick this stuff up from the media or from school. Efforts to do anything about it (other than to make them understand the effect) could, in fact, backfire. The first step is for us do decide for ourselves what is acceptable...hard enough, some of the time. For me it is what I would be willing to see in print in a public forum. Others (Bush/Cheney, for example) might have a different limit (we should also listen to the Nixon tapes sometime to add to our perspective. I suspect Lyndon Johnson wasn't any different - I suspect that most of the Presidents, for that matter, put their pants on one leg at a time...maybe not Ford and probably not Carter;) but we didn't think much of those guys did we?). But then, after we decide the standard, I like OGE's idea best. Set the standard and live it ourselves. And...as I've mentioned in another thread...it would be nice to apply this principle to the personal fitness aspects of the program as well.

Heh, heh, or to paraphrase Aunt Polly at the end of the movie, "Tom Sawyer": ...or they might even become President some day - if they don't hang 'em first. I still like that movie, especially the part where the boys fall through the church ceiling...I'd still like to do that myself sometime.

Yes Eamonn, I agree. The tragic fact of suicide is unavoidable in the news and probably in conversations among some of the teens. And I especially agree with your comment about listening to them. I think we always need to listen, and I mean really listen...in the deepest possible sense...to their thoughts - regardless of the topic. They can sense this and having someone they look up to listen to them, really listen, makes a huge difference. It makes them know they matter and that, in itself, could help prevent these tragedies.

I think I have a 'Pat Paulson for President' pin somewhere. Does that count for anything?

Eamonn, I understand your comment was not directed to me but I do have some concerns regarding this topic, based on personal experiences. We all share an interest in preventing tragedies like this. My concern is that a poorly crafted interaction with the boys on this topic could very well draw their curiosity and attention to it more strongly, if only to discuss among themselves the best ways to do the deed. My advice is extreme care in the manner in which we engage in such conversations with boys. While we may be clear in our own mind regarding thoughts on this topic, it is extremely unlikely that we will understand what is happening in the mind of a boy, much less during conversations on this topic. I'm not advocating silence but rather to engage the boys very carefully, supporting and maintaining parental priority. If Acco40 or anyone else is uncomfortable with such conversations, or if they are not confident of their ability to engage the boys, then they probably shouldn't. Rather, talk to the parents first and see what the parents think need to be said.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

If a boy asks a question, I try to respond...if only to admit I don't know the answer. In this case, however, 'knowledge' is something that might be elusive. I also would refer the boys to their parents if it gets into very sensitive topics. But if I was going to discuss these things with the boys, I'd try it out with a group of adults first. If I was successful with the adults then there's a chance I could navigate the minds of the boys. However, if I had difficulty with the adults, no way would I bring it to the boys. Same with new drugs and recipes. Try them on adults first. If they survive then they're possibly safe for younger persons. If the adults don't survive, then oh well, look on the bright side...fewer geezers and the children are safe. Have a nice day.