packsaddle

This former cubmaster would have no problem with your suggestion but, then, I don't see myself as a member of the faith police. I see no reason why 'Over the Moon' should not qualify for the Webelos requirement. I see nothing in the written requirements that would disallow it.

Dan, If you read the last part of my most recent response to you in this thread, "...I would not confront a boy who wore it (his unrecognized religious medal) anyway. Call it my civil disobedience if you like...if BSA wants to punish children, let THEM do it themselves.", you will see that I agree with Trevorum on this. I know the policy. Trevorum smiles. I wink. The effect is the same and I know of no scout who has been turned away from some event because he was wearing an unrecognized religious medal. However, logically, since the official UU medal is unrecognized by BSA, and since I was told that the knot patch could always be worn, it is reasonable that the same applies to all other religious awards that are not currently recognized by BSA. No problem. I think it is important to remember, here, that BSA took this action not in order to punish or harm children - that is merely the outcome. BSA did this to please a particular constituency...it was a political decision as much as anything. The UUA is a minority faith and BSA chose a path that cost it the least in numbers and funding. Like Rush says, "...it's all about money". When Kudu and Trevorum spar over these awards they and I remember that the real enemy is prejudice, as well as the various hurtful or hateful political and social policies that are spawned from prejudice. BSA may have optimized their funding but they took a real morality hit, in my book, by doing so.

Dan, I asked my council guy and he says that the patch, if purchased from the official BSA supplier, can ALWAYS be worn on the uniform. There is no way for anyone to know which specific religious award it represents. However, BSA does not (and this is important) RECOGNIZE the official UU religious award. Therefore at ceremonial events, the medal may not be worn. As you suggest, though, I would not confront a boy who wore it anyway. Call it my civil disobedience if you like...if BSA wants to punish children, let THEM do it themselves.

Eagledad, I think your hike was fine. The push-ups are not corporal punishment but they do constitute hazing, same as making the boy sing out loud. Once, in an organizational meeting, my colonel didn't give a good answer to my general and the guy with the little stars made the guy with the little bird 'give me 10' in front of the entire audience. This was not corporal punishment, but I think everyone in the room recognized 'hazing' and the humiliation that came with it. Push-ups are great for physical fitness and all the boys need to do more of them. But not for peeing in the wrong place. If stumps need to be removed then the boys should decide who and how to remove them (boy-led, after all).

It seems that this discussion is headed towards a 'logjam' which has little chance of resolution and which does not actually address the problem. Everyone is lining up across some legal/political/ideological void that has little to do with the actual problem. The problem is that a unit needs to recruit more boys. The problem is NOT that some public school won't let them advertise. The problem is that a unit needs to recruit more boys. I confronted a very similar situation years ago. I inherited a CS pack that was nearly dead. We had about 10 boys and three adults...I was both DL and CM. The problem was not the program. Our program was nearly identical to the program of the other CS pack that had over 50 boys and was thriving. The problem was recruiting. And the reason was preferential treatment by the schools and the DE...for the other pack. No one knew we existed, it seemed. The schools sent flyers for the other pack but not ours because parents from the other pack worked in the schools. The DE preferentially sent boys to the other pack because his sons were in that pack. One roundup was such a sham that literally the entire room of families stood and walked over to the other pack to sign up. It had been a done deal long before we gave our presentation. My letters to our local council went unanswered. At this point in the process, many respondents to this thread would cite the new law and complain loudly, "Not Fair!". And it wasn't fair. But you know what?...it was just tough luck for us. Time to get on with business. Instead of quitting or taking legal action or whining all over the place, we took responsibility ourselves. I pre-empted the normal roundup by posting in newspapers, in church newsletters, on radio announcements, etc., and all this just BEFORE the start of school and the normal roundup. When the DE complained I just said, 'sorry, too late'. A stiff note from the council went, well...., unanswered - what a bunch of percentage-parasite slime. Of course I was angry...who wouldn't be? But that was little help to those little guys with those wonderful smiles. So I suppressed my anger and focused on the problem. When people found out about us, the pack came back and is now very strong. The unit (including the troop) is now stronger than any of the other units (a new one was formed recently as well) and we NEVER rely on schools or roundups for our recruiting or our strength. So based on my personal experience... STOP WHINING! Stop whining about what someone else is NOT doing for you. Get off your fat (rarely, bony) butts and DO IT FOR YOURSELVES! Stop trying to blame others for failing to solve a problem that is YOUR responsibility...and that YOU can address if you will just stand up on your hind legs! If 10 boys and three adults can do it, so can you.

Beavah, I am not certain how the wording "equal access" will be interpreted when the courts get involved, but I read 'school-related' in this issue, not 'school-sponsored'. I can easily understand the possibility that such things as sports, science camp, and PTA being school-related. Perhaps I'm wrong and these things have nothing whatsoever to do with public education. If not, I stand corrected. However, IF the soccer club is a private club, IF fall baseball isn't allowed as you say and is a private activity, IF Spanish lessons are not being offered as supplementary lessons by the Spanish teacher but rather by some private entrepreneur, IF science camp is not sponsored by the school district but rather by a business or church (or some other private organization), and IF numerous P.T.O./PTA letters are, as you say, private communications by a parents club...THEN I agree with you and none of them should not be allowed. Happy? I stick with Fuzzy on this, using legal means to force something on an unwilling participant will not be as well-received by either the schools or the public as would be a great program that everyone wants to join because they've heard about it in glowing terms. As I said before, I don't know how the wording of the new law will be interpreted. But if it means that ALL of the above activities, if private, along with BSA recruiting flyers will be shoved down the throat of the schools and the kids' backpacks, I see tax dollars wasted and few people happy about it. And if BSA is the recognized reason for that result, it won't exactly cover BSA with glory. BSA may win that battle, but not much more.

As I read the original post, I saw mention of flyers for "soccer, fall baseball, Spanish lessons, science camp, and numerous P.T.O./PTA letters", not from other private clubs. The announcements for "soccer, fall baseball, Spanish lessons, science camp, and numerous P.T.O./PTA letters" are school-related activities. BSA is not part of any school curriculum of which I am aware. If the policy limits access by outside groups by refusing to send flyers, and if this is applied fairly to all outside groups, I see no legal recourse. If this is important enough to push it politically then by all means, exercise your voting power. However I, as a taxpayer, would not want to support the time and materials to advertise, for example, a recruiting effort by the local garden club, mosque, church (you name the flavor), temple, synagogue, or for that matter the Aryan Nation or the KKK. I, as a taxpayer, demand that every penny of my taxes for public education be expended on public education, not wasted in support of private clubs that ought to be capable of supporting themselves. Sorry, BSA has chosen the private club path and for that I agree with Fuzzy. Build a good program and let that speak for itself. That approach is working just fine for this unit and we haven't had a school recruiting drive in years. We are private clubs competing for membership with other activities. Or...daring to touch a nerve here...is it possible that a poorly-run program might 'blame' a school policy such as this instead of addressing their own failings?

If BSA National isn't up to it, who else will be? Anyway Calico, did you ever notice...that if Beavis was bald, he'd look a lot like Dick Cheney? Heh, heh, I guess we know who Butthead would be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beavis_and_Butt-head

Gonzo1, the only reason that you have actually revealed, for me to leave...is that I disagree with you. As I stated before, I conform completely to the membership requirements, no more, no less. It isn't in my job description to perform the function of 'thought police'. As long as I meet the requirements and conform to G2SS, etc. there is nothing else under my authority. From your military experience, you should understand what that means. However, if you think I have 'outed' myself, then in order for YOU to remain true to YOUR own way of thinking, it is now incumbent on you to take whatever action is necessary to inform my council and have me removed. I'm waiting. Heh, heh, or to use those apocalyptic words of 'W', '...bring it on...";) Edited part: Come to think of it, now that you think you know something and are ready to take action, here's a suggestion as to how. Scouter Terry does have access to all of the information regarding identity, etc. You may be able to persuade him to release that information to you for your quest. And if he doesn't release my personal information, you can then accuse him of the same thing of which you accused me before (not reporting the new info), and ask him to leave. Do you 'get' this yet? If you don't make the attempt, under your reasoning perhaps you should leave.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Eagledad, I see no bad moral behavior. That's simple enough for most people to understand. Regarding role models, I have often observed a tendency for young people to choose their own role models with variable attention to parental or other advice. Each additional year that a young person incrementally integrates into society is more time during which they absorb more from the reality of society. BSA's artificial exclusion is clearly that, once they see the real world. The young are gaining greater and greater freedom and they are making those decisions more and more on their own. This also relates to the following: Gonzo1, thank you for identifying the hypocrisy of the policy employed by the armed forces (don't ask, don't tell). I agree that it is a shameful deception at many levels. It is no less hypocritical when put into practice anywhere else, including BSA. To respond to advice I commonly hear: I am not a member of law enforcement and no law that I know of is being broken by gays in scouting. There is nothing in the membership requirements that says we must 'out' them and nothing to that effect in the training. Perhaps, if you believe that every leader should be vigilant for objectionable behavior by other leaders, you should instead work to have this wording placed explicitly in the rules and training. I'm sure this would meet with great and welcome acceptance among the membership. Finally, as I have stated before in similar discussions, I'm a member with standing equal to yours. I choose to meet the stated requirements, no more, no less. I am staying. There's nothing you can do about it. I hope you have a nice day too.

Well-stated, Trevorum. One of the sad things about an exclusionary rule is that it thoughtlessly allows those who are prejudiced to hide behind it - a facade of faithful obedience to that rule. Persons who have broken those barriers in the past had to rise above both the rule and, more importantly, the personal and institutional prejudices. As I have written in the past to those who fear gays in scouting, they are here already...you just don't know about it. The gay scouters I know personally pose absolutely no threat to the boys whatsoever and you will never detect them, partly BECAUSE of the BSA policy. I hope that homophobes will eventually realize that their fears are in vain and their hate is unscoutlike.

OK usetobeafox, some clarification is needed. Does the council actually require a CHURCH recommendation or this merely the way YOU interpret the requirement on the application? My original response was to the original post in which you said the council has implemented a policy of requiring a CHURCH recommendation, which is a new way of doing this IMHO. If this is merely the way you have interpreted it, then the other responses are correct, a parent or any other individual that the boy considers as a religious advisor can be listed as the reference. gwd-scouter, you make a good point. If equal importance was given to the 'country' part it would be interesting to learn the metric that is used to measure success. That's assuming, of course, that equal importance is given. I could be wrong. Often am.

Even a verbal message over the phone should suffice for him to start...waiting for the signature at a later date. We have done this plenty of times. The email would be more solid evidence of getting this 'approval' but if I was the DAC I'd be willing to admit my approval even in the absence of the emails. Ed, considering that whatever lessons to be learned from this have already been learned by the boy, what is to be gained by denying this advancement? How does this benefit the boy? How does this benefit BSA? And please, please, don't come off sounding like Bob White.

I have never heard of this before, I guess it's tough luck for him. Church is now a requirement for Eagle.

Heh, heh, W is welcome to plant his thin WASP lips on one of my cheeks any ole time. For others I'll offer a different part of my anatomy. But if 'even a liberal is a neighbor', then all I can say in return is...Thanks! Edited part: Trev, I just realized that while all of us are here beating this dead horse...we may just be tenderizing your dinner? As for me, any ol' form of charred mammal flesh is good for barbecue, but it's hard to beat pork the way we do it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Chippewa29, I think that is a great idea. Back when I was a BOY scout, our district did have such competitions but they were disguised as chariot races, canoe races, scouting olympics, etc. We trained hard and came home with the ribbons. I'd like to see it again. And require the leaders to humble their bodies as well. Just have plenty of stretchers ready and waiting.

Eagledad, I'm with you on the name calling thing. Applying terms is a poor substitute for honest understanding. The term, 'religious right' is as worthless as the terms 'conservative' or 'liberal'. The 'conservative' 'religious right' would like to kill us...if we located the persons to which those terms are applied in other countries. Interesting concept though, the idea of different factions of the conservative religious right hating each other...couldn't happen if the terms meant the same thing everywhere. The same problem exists for 'liberal' or 'religious left' which I have never heard used in any kind of popular sense. But the fact that it isn't heard on the street is hardly a source of intellectual evidence for anything. However, it seems that Dan must have touched a nerve. And I'm trying to follow this but I need to clarify....Jesus's second commandment - that would be the one mentioned in Matthew 22:36-40, right? You know, the part about loving thy neighbor as thyself? Anyway, at some time didn't Jesus also say something about turning the other cheek or something to that effect? I think you are correct. This country is dominated by the Christian religion. The Christian right is in the political drivers seat. So why the thin skin? You're in control. You must know that by now. Try to see things through the eyes of the rest of us. Sort of like that golden rule thing. Ahem, there is also that pesky aspect of responsibility, you're responsible when you're in control. Just an additional note: phobia also relates to things that repel (as in hydrophobic), or to hate. I think the term 'homophobia' means many things in addition to fear. It also includes hate and revulsion. That second law could be invoked here as well.

Hey Ed, the way I learned that last line was: Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't very Fuzzy Wuzzy, wuz he?

shirt - L, belt - 34, inseam - 34, sleeve - 35, weight - 190, height - 6'2", I consider myself to be a little overweight and in OK, but not the best, shape. I can still do a couple of 3-minute rounds on the bag without dying. And, as if it matters, I can still outrun most of the boys and all of the other leaders (good thing too). I wouldn't depend on merit badges for fitness. Ultimately it comes from the boys and if you do enough hiking, biking, etc. they will figure it out. However, there was one meeting that seemed doomed for a variety of reasons. I managed to salvage it with a long piece of really heavy rope. I produced it for the boys who immediately began figuring out what they could do. I pointed to a rather high tree branch and bet them they couldn't get it over that branch to make a swing. I let them nearly wear themselves out trying before I showed them how. Then I set up a game in which teams timed each other getting everyone across the 'canyon'. They were completely consumed for the remainder of the meeting and went home exhausted. One of them was a pretty good climber and he showed the others how to climb a rope. Now THAT is a hard task. Anyone over 200# should take it on as a quest and they will quickly understand how hard 5 minutes can be. At the end of the meeting, I took the rope down. Doesn't take much to get their motors running, and learning as well.

I guess for an icon for the present time it might be: "Ditto" or "I'm the decider" I don't remember the one about opening Channel D. What was it? Anyone remember Arthur Smith and the Crackerjacks? I used to love a song they sang about a bird of paradise flying up someone's nose. Go figure. But they were the singers for a southern commercial from a long time ago, "If your snuff's too strong it's wrong, get Tuberose, mild Tuberose..." here's a teaser from: http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2004/winter/smith-tube-rose/ "Sometimes we'd have the radio in the front parlor turned up to listen to "Gospel Jamboree" over the nighthawks and crickets. Some rant-revivalist would be citing scripture or saying, "Repent tonight or pay the fiery price," and they'd pause for her commercial as fireflies Morse-flashed around the abelia. Some twangy studio singers would croon, "If your snuff's too strong it's wrong, get Tube Rose, mild Tube Rose. You'll feel much better all day long with Tube Rose, mild Tube Rose." She'd smile and say, "That's a fact" and bend over to spit a stream of ambeer into the cess of her can. I had to look away." And for a moment, I am a kid again.

Ed, I grew up in tobacco country. LSMFT...let's see...did that mean the same thing everywhere? To us it meant, "Loose Straps Mean Floppy Txxx". What did YOU think it meant? In case some moderator edits the above, sorry.

Not related to the original post but it fits the thread topic...I think the Pope is having an experience regarding theology and politics. Just in case anyone is interested, his entire speech (the one that ticked off so many Muslims) can be found here: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

I'm with Gern on this. But I have assiduously avoided his discussions. I have past observed that sometimes the worst thing that can happen to some people is for them to be quoted accurately. To wit: http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/articles/060807sh_shouts

Buster Brown, Howdy Doody, Captain Midnight, The Lone Ranger, my father's Vitalis, his Harley 74, the '57 Chevy - candy apple red - 3 deuces - full race cam - printed and balanced 327 - 4 on the floor - slicks - headers - moons - hot summer nights - beautiful dates - drive in movies.

"But let's face it, if you don't believe in the supernatural or exclusive claims of any one religion, isn't Practical Christianity and the Religion of the Backwoods (combined with B-P's ten Scout Laws and the brotherhood of Scouting) a sufficient form of religion in itself?" Absolutely! I believe that if the fundamentalists would allow it, BSA would gladly put this into practice. An additional observation: online dictionaries recorded today a surge in searches regarding the term, "lugubrious". I predict that in the near future we will read it often in the more lugubrious threads of this forum. Tonight I will complement my wife on her lugubrious demeanor. After that I will notice that the dictionary has been moved and I will later pay for the remark. Sorry, can't resist.