packsaddle

Ouch! There's that pesky memory again. Gonzo1, I repeat an old anecdote regarding community standards. This happened back in the late '70s to a personal friend and his family. The school his two boys attended is located in a small rural town nearby. When they moved here, he and his family were the only Jewish persons in the area and few people in the area had any experience with Judaism. They became active in the local Lion's Club, local government, VFD, etc. Everything was fine until his boys started school. The community standard as applied at the school caused the entire school, each morning, to begin the day with a prayer to Jesus. My friend asked the administration if this couldn't be modified some way. The administration mentioned something about conversion and refused. My friend took it up a notch. The boys were then sent into the hallway for the morning devotionals. My friend took it to the school board. Suddenly his sons were off the athletic team and his wife no longer got calls as a substitute teacher. The community standard was maintained. My friend eventually gave up and moved away (Utah, of all places, go figure). I suppose this was a 'win' for community standards but I don't view it as much of a 'win' for anyone, really. The school later changed their policy and now conforms to the standards mandated through the numerous suits elsewhere. The 'community' hardly made a 'peep' during these changes. An alternative way to view your thesis that 'most' of the members support the 'community standard' that you mention is that the declining membership might be an explanation for the maintenance of your majority, assuming that it actually exists. If so, I don't see that as a good thing.

I participate in this forum. It is the only online forum of any kind in which I participate. This is because it has a membership that is, for the most part, sincerely looking for honest and objective answers to real problems. And I haven't found another forum of any kind that compares in its integrity. I attach this high character to the forum members as well as to the forum owner. I think the moderators do an exceptional job and are as good as could be expected although I always side with completely open access and freedom of expression. I support Terry's decision to rid the forum of a personality who evidently was dishonest at multiple levels...although it might have been interesting to actually meet that guy at the campfire. Thanks to everyone involved for making this such a great place to meet.

Hunt, while I might have crafted the message in different terms, I tend to stand right alongside Kudu on this...although 'militant Universalist' seems to be an oxymoron. Perhaps 'militant' in the sense that one would have to defend against hurled counter-arguments? While the phrasing of turning backs on a six-year-old may be nicely turned, it remains, nevertheless, an accurate rendition of the effect (if not the intent) of BSA policy. I differ with Kudu in that fundamentalism also implies an element of absolutism that is absent from BSA (as described by Lisabob) in practice. The DRP, given that many units and members ignore it, is therefore a rather hollow statement - words more than substance - and this makes BSA less of a fundamentalist organization than it is an organization that wants to please (at cost to a six-year-old) some fundamentalists. In that case BSA is, then, as I have said many times, cowardly. I have also applied the term 'hypocritical' in this case, I think. "It seems to me that if BSA dropped the religious requirement for membership, but increased religious program elements, those same parents would either continue to keep their kids out, or would be complaining about the religious program elements." Perhaps. But probably not if BSA didn't add new religious elements to the program. However, the fact that BSA has not and is not likely to increase the religious program elements can similarly be interpreted as BSA's recognition of a liklihood for many of us who ignore the DRP, to take further action and vote with our feet. This is actually a nice little hypothesis. BSA can disprove my contention easily by, in fact, substantially increasing the religious program elements. As I said before, it would be interesting to watch. Alternatively, I have noted that BSA does have a cowardly element to its character. They could disprove that too, by substantially adding religious elements to the program. To quote W, "Bring it on!"

Gwd, Been there, done that. We have had scouts from other troops come along with us and it has been great. Some of the boys from this unit have gone with other troops and that has been great too. I have no problem with the 'summer-camp-bingo' thing as long as it remains fairly organized. I try to remember that every family is completely free to choose any way they wish and I take no offence if they choose another unit. The only time I have objected to something along these lines was when the DE ignored our pleas for help in recruiting...in order to put all the new boys into a new unit (the numbers game again). AND while a person from another unit secretly (at the time) and actively tried to recruit some of our existing boys away to their unit, also passively condoned by the DE. THAT is when I pulled the plug on my last shards of respect for the DE position.

Heh, heh, Hunt, to that I would add: FUBAR, JUMA, FFP (for those living the in the mountains) and 10DCF. This stuff is endless. I guess I kind of like the way SSScout views it, and Hunt. At one extreme, the boy is hacking away using profanity in a vulgar and artless manner. In these cases I go with SSScout. Such use, aside from being offensive to some others, implies that the user is unskilled in language...not exactly a compliment if they would just think about it a little. Words related to reproductive biology have good anatomically-correct counterparts and I am willing to sit calmly and explain to the boy or boys how they can say exactly the same thing using these anatomically-correct terms, and actually impress people. Often when I ask them to actually define what they mean by these words (to find out how much they understand), they seem reluctant or embarrassed. When I offer to let their mother help with the definition, for some reason they get even more reluctant. It usually ends there. At the other extreme are just a few, very few, who have honed this language to a level of art and skill that I almost admire. They are more aware of what they are doing and are in some ways more susceptible to suggestion that in the eyes of others, their use of colorful language may not exactly cover them with glory. They are in sufficient control to restrict its use to the 'proper' times. But I confess, this has really never been much of a problem at any level for this unit. I guess we're just a bunch of goody-goodies. Edited part: I guess I want to say something to those who are offended. Remember, this is a two-way interaction. The word is without effect if YOU don't know the meaning already. In some respects it isn't the word, itself, that is offensive but rather the idea in YOUR mind that you associate with it. When someone uses a word that causes you to react, remember that in so reacting you are allowing that person and that word to exert a little control over you. If your perception is part of the interaction, then you are also part of the solution.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

de4bsa, How typical do you think your schedule is? In other words, is it fair for me to think that the average DE has a similar work day? If anyone else wants to respond I'd welcome that too.

One hour/week. Similar to the cubmaster 'one hour/month' myth. OGE, I would add: Playing in the fire in the evening makes you wet the sleeping bag, aluminum foil burns up if thrown into the campfire, it is possible to eat a bar of Ivory soap without throwing up, and when you DO throw up, you'll blow bubbles instead of lunch, elmer's glue is not as good as snot, tasting, that is, when you swallow a small live fish tied to a string, you can feel it swimming in your stomach, if you leave it there for 10 minutes it comes out a skeleton, a watched pot never boils, they found edible McDonalds french fries in Egyptian tombs (this one is true, I think), a penney saved is a penny earned, Oops, getting sidetracked here.

Thanks Merlyn, that is about as clear a statement of endorsement for the 'local option' approach that I could have hoped for. Brent, the CO for this unit is also Methodist but only two boys belong. For Scout Sunday we attend the morning service in uniform. No other special activity. The minister recognizes the unit, the boys, and the leaders (two of whom also are from the CO). The unit is quite diverse and the CO tries to make infidels as welcome as possible (we only eat the elderly ones). We almost never say grace as a unit, that is left for the boys privately and some of them do. The previous unit I was with originally did something similar but we actually marched in as a unit with a full color guard and both troop and American flags. After the minister banned the American flag from the church (the church/state thing), we terminated Scout Sunday observances altogether. Most of the boys in that unit belonged to the CO and there was very low diversity in the unit. We occasionally held some kind of religious observance as a unit but we were ignorant of the Scout's Own service or the Philmont grace. This was also the CO that strongly objected to both integration and the civil rights movement. Weird. Needless to say, I determined that I was never going to really be a Presbyterian. I think the feeling was mutual.

Well said, Gern. It would be easier if BSA made that the policy rather than the "don't ask, don't tell" practice. The absence of objections to the assertion that 'rock worship' is sufficient is interesting and leads me to more questions. First, I've seen reference to 'rock worship' a number of times and I think I even referred to it once. But did someone actually say that? Did someone actually say that "believing in a rock" was enough to meet the DRP? Just curious because if that is the case, how is someone like Hunt or Trailpounder or Rooster 7 or me, for that matter, supposed to assess belief in rocks. I'd just ask the Lovin' Spoonful question, "Do You Believe in Magic?". If 'yes', approved. If 'no', no scouts for you! Religion, in and of itself, is not a value. It might have a value system as part of its doctrine or it might espouse certain values but religion is means or a way of thinking, not an end - or am I mistaken? BSA seems to treat religion as an end with little regard for the actual beliefs (except, of course for those 'evil' beliefs ). If rock worship (not that there's anything wrong with rock worship ) is ranked along with every other type of religion and belief, what I see is so loosely defined as to apply to just about anything unless someone wants to be more specific and say it has to involve supernatural magic or something. But if the loosest definition is what BSA is allowing, why not allow atheists? Or is someone arguing that atheists have no systems of belief? I don't buy the morality argument because while some people seem to need their values dictated by a rule book, others can reason their way to the same values with no rule book. Living by the oath and law seems to be hung up on one word, 'God'. Since we've already winked at the polytheists and the rock worshipers, by doing so we've already acknowledged that the word, 'God' is not meant to be interpreted literally. OK, reflecting on what I was about to propose and Gern's last message, I guess that quietly doing what we see fit is the way it's going to be. Oh well, interesting thought.

LongHaul, thanks for the clarification. In the cub scout program, as I remember it (and I could very well be wrong, it's been quite a while) matters of faith were left to the individual families of the cubs. I, as cubmaster, certainly did not do anything more than make sure that the paperwork for advancement was filled out correctly by the den leaders. When I was den leader, I never questioned a cub about his religious beliefs. Was I supposed to? I have said it many times that personal beliefs ought to be just that, 'personal'. This puts them out of bounds for examination by anyone else, whether unit leaders or religious zealots. And nearly all of my local scouts and scouters have expressed similar sentiments during our discussions. Only a few think that they have a duty to "bring the good word" or "to witness" to the boys, to quote that minority. That is why such a core component, if required, would have 'interesting' results, IMHO. This may not be a problem for those who, as I said, are in possession of the absolute truth. There are just so many of them...that disagree about what that truth is.

LH, I was a den leader for a few years before I was Cubmaster for a few more. I guess we were working on the 'local option' model. None of the packs I knew of had religion as a core component and neither the district nor the council seemed to promote religion in that manner nor did they seem to care about it. The only encounter we ever had with BSA's policy on this was when a DE gave a fire-and-brimstone speech at our Blue and Gold banquet, excoriating gays and atheists. About 30% of the families quit after that speech, offended. We never allowed the DE to speak to the pack again after that and the complaints to the council eventually sent him packing. But I guess my experience is rather limited. I have to admit, some of what you write is rather confusing. For example, "The fact that so many are voicing dissatisfaction from within, tells me that they really dont have a problem with BSA values." Huh? How does voicing dissatisfaction from within indicate approval of BSA values? That seems to be contradictory. Please explain. But yes, it would be interesting to see BSA attempt something like that explicitly and forcefully across all units. I see no evidence that the result, locally expressed in enrollment, would not be the same as back when I was Cubmaster. Am I off topic? Edited part: Just a fine point: 'interesting' isn't necessarily 'fun'. For example, I find the situation in Iraq very interesting. It is not fun. I could say the same thing for such events as genocide, deadly epidemics, shark attacks, terrorist bombings. I think you have attached an emotion to my idea that is incorrect. The 'fun' that you think you see in my message is your invention, but not what is in my mind.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Heh, heh, just a quick declaration, here, from the Department of Redundancy Department... When Gern asked his question about the benefit of the DRP, Hunt replied, "It, um, declares the religious principles of BSA." Now let's see....the benefit is that the declaration "declares" something. Yes, it is sure clear to me now. Gern's logic is good. The problem is that BSA is afraid to take a stand one way or the other, or else BSA wants to have it both ways. If religion became an explicit core component - a requirement for advancement as well as membership - the execution of this component would be interesting to watch. Which religion? Delivered by which theologians? To which boys? How? The component would nearly have to be fairly specific due to the contradictions between the faiths (I just read yesterday, another claim by some flavor of Christian that Mormonism was "just a cult")...poor Romney. If a unit has boys of different faiths (like this one does) this core component will NOT be a unifying force. I could easily see our unit losing most of the boys as a result, seeing as how only two of them are members of the CO which would undoubtedly assert its place as the appropriate core religious component. If BSA did indeed take this approach, and managed to find volunteer leaders who were competent to address the religious component (try not to laugh), at least there would no longer be any equivocation about membership. I think BSA recognizes the mess this would be. I think they are trying to play the middle ground in some way to placate both sides of the view...so they don't otherwise lose one entire side and some of the middle. And for what benefit, Gern might wonder? To which I (and possibly Trevorum) would reply - the benefit would be the good feeling of being able to exclude those who don't think the same way, of course. I guess those of us who think they possess the absolute truth DO see this as a benefit.

Ed (Palmer), I had the second one. His father was very open about his intention to 'spoil' his kids because he had been so deprived during his poor childhood. He says he has plenty of money now so he'll get vicarious pleasure from giving his everything they want. This took a 180-degree turn, however, when the results started to show in high school. The father now has a new and better perspective and, fortunately, the kids still have a chance at a future, just not as pampered as before. Ynot, I would add to Brent's #1 answer that the parents need to understand that the boy is the one who must earn rank. Sometimes pushy parents just make the boy push back (this might contribute to the #2 problem as well)...the best approach is to make the boy aware that he is the master of his fate. Either success or failure is his alone to earn, whichever way it goes. People can help and encourage, but the rewards are his if he is willing to do the work. I have said something like this before - failure is a powerful teacher and can sometimes provide a stronger lesson than success. The boy who fails to earn Eagle and who later regrets it knows what that failure feels like and also has a chance at understanding that he is the one who can make the difference in the future.

"But I have always been suspicious of insurance coverage that only costs a few pennies." Thanks Beavah, for your explanation, that is a big help. I'm super careful after my family's encounter with big medical, big insurance, and a drunk driver. I'll keep the umbrella policy nevertheless. About 'fruitloops', and I don't mean really bad breakfast, I think the policy you describe would probably cover someone who was not thinking clearly. It probably would exclude someone who caused damage with malice and intent. Perhaps I misunderstood your technical term.

That is great! These are the things that really make it all fun and worthwhile, I'm envious. About the kid who gets teased, I am very sensitive to these things. Even if he appears to be good-natured about it, he could very well be feeling great pain down underneath. Is the teasing malicious or just thoughtless? I suffered this when I was that age and my son did too...for different reasons...we were both easy targets. But I'm curious...how do you address this situation? Not trying to hijack the thread but rather just interested.

I hate myself for leading you to young Mpemba. This is an easy experiment but you have to be careful...as those web sites note. Gern, just a fine point but boiling water in a hat...wouldn't that be 'hot'? Instead, how about toads causing warts? Hoop snakes? Pigeon milk? Frog hairs? Hen's teeth?

Myth: an ice tray filled with hot water will freeze more quickly than an ice tray filled with cold water. This one was popular a long time ago. I have no idea how it was started but I've met persons who were absolutely convinced. Here's another: trees grow in height from the base and not at the tips of the branches. (walk under any fences lately?) I've heard this one before as well. I'm not sure how to bust it for a meeting but there's a great myth about daddy longlegs: They are the most poisonous spider on earth but their fangs are too small to inject their powerful venom. Truth: They aren't spiders (they're a related group called 'harvestmen'). They don't have fangs or poison. This one is fairly common...I've heard it taught in school. In the realm of biting or stinging invertebrates and other animals of many kinds, there are many myths but I'm not sure how you could bust them in a meeting.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Was it something I said, or did I break wind in public? It seems like I go into new situations with an open mind and an expectation of meeting open minds. Then, like the Presbyterian Church, (and many other examples) I encounter a mindset that makes me understand that I am one of 'them' (thanks a whole lot, Beav). My experience with the pros is the same. I asked some questions about how things work and about policy. And then those kind understanding eyes turned fire red. I turned away to the boys, knowing again that I am one of 'them' volunteers and I need to keep my big yap shut if I know what's good for me. So I honor the boys in the unit I serve and flap my yap here.

Ed, me too. Gern, I caught that as well. Several things converge in my mind. For one, after Katrina, the number of people who thought their insurance covered the hurricane damage but whose insurance companies tried not to cover them after all. Then, my own experience with automobile insurance and minimum coverage policies (not mine). And now, BSA. I doubt they are trying to retaliate against scouts, as opposed to shirking responsibility - if that is indeed the case. I would want to know more detail before passing judgment. I am sure the Katrina victims were told by their insurance companies that they were covered...prior to the storm. The auto insurance companies sure play the game well. The BSA twist is very interesting indeed. I hope it is not another story of deception. But I have always been suspicious of insurance coverage that only costs a few pennies. If it looks too good to be true.... And that is the reason I carry a huge personal liability umbrella rider - to subsidize the coverage for anyone I ever come in contact with. It's only money!

Limbaugh, "It's all about money." Yes, pay for performance, merit increases...good ideas. If this doesn't happen, no biggie from my perspective. For years I was PI for projects totalling much more than the councils I see mentioned here and I was paid a small fraction of SE salary. And now, in academia, I'm paid even less. I'm OK with that because I agreed to the pay I got (and get) and I enjoyed what I did (and what I do). These kinds of comparisons are really counter-productive. They get in the way of life and enjoyment of it. Every unit can opt out of the FOS thing if they want. Just politely participate and let people make their own decisions. In our area, most people have figured this out and donations mostly come straight to the CO, earmarked for various things including the unit. FOS never sees a cent of it. I think we could do just fine if the only remnant left of the council was the camp. But I don't worry over this stuff. I try to focus on the boys and the unit.

The committee chair is very important because they are the primary person providing structure and organization to the committee. If the SM is a strong personality, the CC is important to provide some counterbalance in the unit. I have observed SMs who think they are the whole show. A good CC can moderate this and turn that SM energy into something more constructive. Under the CC, I think advancement, treasury, and membership are very important positions.

Returning late, sorry. Hunt, Yes, it sounds very similar to what Gern has advocated for quite a while and I agreed with it. I think he's correct and what you advocate would require elimination of the DRP. I personally have no problem with the free and open discussion of ideas, including religion. I am not certain that some persons of faith would care to engage in such discussion, but anyone should be free to opt out of the discussion. One twist that I think hasn't been added (sorry if I missed something) is that if public schools and fire departments DID start chartering units again, the religious component, if present, would almost certainly be more non-sectarian in application. There would indeed be much greater availability of the program to more boys. There would be many benefits and no downside that I can see. I would like to address one thing about discussion versus proselytization. I would support, as I said, free and open discussion of ideas, including religious ones. I would not support proselytization in which free and open discussion is unavailable. It is one thing to state one's opinion and then listen to criticism and alternatives. It is another quite different thing to present dogma and doctrine, not to be questioned. And while I would welcome the former, I wonder how many faiths are willing to subject their ideas to that type of forum...as opposed to the latter. Which approach would you advocate for your proposed religious content?

Heh, heh, Hunt, I didn't intend for that to be taken as a 'shot'. The analogy of BSA to Elvis worship is yours after all. I think Groucho was in a uniquely better position to see the humor of his status. Perhaps better than the good people who were at the receiving end of the fire hoses. I used the civil rights movement as a real example in which legal exclusion was ended...with positive results (or do you disagree?) My attachment of alleged biblical authority to those who sometimes violently opposed integration may be distasteful in retrospect but it is undeniably factual. My contention in that example is that similar 'opening' of BSA would also have no negative outcome (except, perhaps, to those who really see Trevorum's identified 'benefits' as something positive).

JeffreyH, One upside (downside) to a good long-term memory is the ability to assemble quotes from a variety of sources - in my case from members of my past church (Presbyterian, if you're interested), from council officials and other official sources, and from other scouters some of whom I've read in these forums. (I've often admired this ability in some other forum members as well, my sympathies, you guys) In order to illustrate his ideas, Hunt used an analogy (to Elvis). I was employing a more real-life analogy and attempting to apply reductio ad absurdum to the idea being discussed. This was evidently more accessible to you than Hunt's was. My analogy was not merely between those opposed to civil rights and BSA but also to scouters who interpret BSA policy in a comparable manner. The scouters are the ones who, in the 'local option' system, are most important for implementing policy. It did get your attention, didn't it? If the comparison is invalid, explain how to me, I want to know. If you want to address ideas, address them. Put your best reasoning out on the forum for everyone to examine. I can be persuaded. Your argument loses credibility if you merely dismiss an idea by attaching a label. If you don't agree with the comparison, it is incumbent on you to explain why it is not valid. Merely saying you don't like it is OK and telling me I'm negative is OK, but it doesn't really contain any useful information. Your turn. Edited part: Oops, forgot (so much for memory ). The 'dirty little secret' is a metaphor for something that nearly everyone understands but tries not to discuss openly because, like an STD or something, it is for some reason, unsavory. In the case of BSA, protestations to the contrary, official policy is winked at routinely and the de facto practice is a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to the issues of membership by gays and atheists. This exists at the local level and at other levels although I'm most familiar with it at the local level. But I didn't need to explain this, did I? You probably were already aware and were just asking rhetorically, right? Anway, as such, the reality is a system of deceptions that permeate the organization top to bottom. Lisabob, I think, was implying something like this in the original message and asking for a little more honesty. I could be wrong.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Kudu, "...even then our efforts will continue to be limited by our individual energies and talents" I understand. Which completes the circular system and at least makes it a stable, if disillusioned, system. 1. The policy is there to satisfy the conservative majority. 2. At the same time, BSA needs numbers to get funding. 3. But many local units are resistant to some aspects of the policy 4. Some local units adopt a 'local option' approach, violating policy 5. BSA ignores this with a "don't ask, don't tell" approach 6. The numbers don't decline too badly (especially if BSA...naah!) 7. Everyone is happy.....not. But at least the cash is still flowing. This can actually be modelled using some fairly simple equations into a neat little negative-feedback system. Outside the benefit mentioned by Trevorum (we're better than you), there is no particular problem except for the pesky aspect of honesty with which Lisabob started the thread. But the system is stable as long as nearly everyone involved gets onboard with the 'dirty little secret'. Of course those who think the emperor is naked can be ushered out of the club if they say something publicly, thus protecting the lie. If Kudu and like-minded persons WERE able to complete their "evil mission" and deregulate Scouting, what would become of the system? That experiment has already been performed. It is called the 'civil rights movement'. Is it possible that in the eyes of those who thought that the civil rights movement was an "evil movement", it was just a tragic error? I have to tell you, at that time (and I remember it very well) I was told quite forcefully to the sound of thumping bibles, quoting chapter and verse, that black people and other mud races ('tough luck', Groucho) are inferior and should not be allowed equal rights and opportunities. No club membership for them. There's an analogy for you, Hunt.