packsaddle

I don't see agnostic as a problem for either parent or leader. A parent can be anything they want if they are not a registered leader. As for such a leader, the only way I can detect atheism is for the individual to inform me of it in some way. If I learn that one of the adults is an atheist, as I said, I make sure they know the membership requirement and then (not being the CO) I leave it to their conscience. The atheists I know are persons of great conscience. Because they have status equal to mine, I don't consider it part of my duties to enforce such matters on them, I'm fairly certain I don't have the authority anyway. If I have such knowledge of another person, I consider it to be confidential and their personal responsibility to inform others, not mine. Therefore, unless there is some other problem, I continue with my duties.

Do we have to bring the troop?

Hey, if it works in Hawaii it works for me. I defer to KoreaScouter. Better yet, I think we all should head out there for some sleeping bag research. Sound good to anyone?

I'll take a stab at this question-by-question. "What about those members that we slowly realize fall under the title Agnostic or Athiestic but signed the form anyway? How do the leaders/ parents handle these tribulations without affecting the scouting experience?" I think this question assumes that the opportunity to give them prior orientation has passed, or they didn't listen or they ignored the orientation session. It does affect the experience if they are atheists. In that case they do not meet the membership requirements. There is little or no flexibility available. An agnostic, on the other hand, ought still be open to new ideas. I encourage them in the search. "How far should the leader/parent go if they recognize an agnostic or atheistic parent leader or scout (through their own admission)?" Again, the big problem arises with an avowed atheist. I make sure they know what the membership requirement is. With a leader, I am at equal status in the organization and I leave it to their conscience. I do not judge them and I respect their ability to make the best personal decision. I am not a faith Nazi. So far this has not created a problem with anyone. With a boy, I would try to communicate the importance of being honest. I think honesty is important even if that has an effect on his status. So far I haven't had to face this situation with a boy. "What about a leader that has to deal with a religious belief that they are completely unable to understand?" The scout leader isn't required to understand every faith or belief. They are required, as scouts, to respect all faiths. "Where does a leader or parent draw the line when these families or scouts are identified, without creating a "witch" hunt and a negative impact?" This is related to the first question. First, this question only involves the boy and his family, not the rest of the troop. There is no need to negatively impact the troop. If a boy, somewhere along the way, insists that he is an atheist and is firm in this belief, then he cannot advance. There is little, if any, flexibility for this situation. Things change and he may eventually change his views. I would place no burden on him, save for the requirement, but again, I haven't faced this situation. If, hypothetically speaking, a boy approaching Eagle asks about the need to provide a personal reference to a religious leader, but does not attend any church, then there still exists some latitude. Faith does not require church membership or attendance. I asked a boy once from whom he has learned about religious faith. He told me. I informed him that was the person he might consider as his religious leader. On another occasion, a boy may openly question matters of faith. I encourage him to continue to ask such questions but to make sure he is honest with himself and others. And to be sure and give me the answer if he figures it out . I am always heartened to see how much a boy wants to help an old guy who needs a little help in these matters. Some good conversations too, sometimes.

We also have a bank account. I believe we used the church tax ID number. If the CO is a 503© charitable organization, the check can be written to the CO and the donation will be tax-deductible. Non-profit status is fairly easy to attain. However, additional application must be made to attain eleemosynary recognition and 503© status with the IRS. If you make an appropriate arrangement with the CO, the donated funds can be earmarked for use in scouting. It is useful to make this arrangement in advance to avoid potential confusion.

I'm located at nearly the same latitude. 1) get synthetic fiber only, you're going to be wet, possibly a lot. Forget down unless you're going to travel to a much northern location. Better yet, just forget down bags. 2) a 20-degree bag will be miserable in the summer unless they merely sleep ON it and even then it may be too hot. Unless you plan to do some very serious backpacking, I agree with EagleInKY: get something like the inexpensive Slumberjack design. Mummy is more important in really cold situations and where you need to cut down on weight. They usually cost a little more as well, depending on construction. They will grow out of boy-size in a couple of years so unless the troop wants to invest in some communal bags that can be used over generations....consider a full-size bag. More to choose from as well. As Sir_Scoutalot says, Campmoor is a great source but there are others as well. Shop around. And then have a lot of fun camping.

Firstpusk, I agree. I note in addition that it is the nature of any organization that champions the minority view, that somewhere in the majority there will likely exist a feeling of disagreement. The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, and similar organizations all have detractors who are, as Mrs. Carter once characterized them, (I paraphrase here) "comfortable with their prejudices" - or merely comfortable with the status quo. Fairness is something that should not be reserved only for the majority. And I am glad that the ACLU and others are there to try to extend fairness to everyone, including those in the majority.

Acco40, You could add to that list the numerous venues enjoyed by Billy Graham over the decades and, at a much smaller scale, the occasional use of public picnic facilities by my RE class. The example misses the point (although I think you do understand the point). As long as we all have equal access there is no harm done. But when one religious group (BSA in this case) gains exclusive access - or has its access funded by the government in a manner unequal to other groups or citizens, then Merlyn and all Americans have a legitimate concern. I agree with you that BSA should be a public organization. Chartered by Congress and offering the boys instruction in citizenship in the community and nation, it ought to live up to the same ideals of the constitution that it teaches the boys. However, BSA actively sought private status and the right to discriminate. And won it...with knowledge of the eventual consequences. And now those consequences are coming to pass. I suppose, as much as anything, I wonder why so many scouters seem so surprised.

There is a simple way to completely end this source of funding to the ACLU...Stop Breaking the Law!

Proud Eagle, I follow your reasoning for most of the features you mentioned. The last one is a bit of a reach, however, because in the strict sense groups of two or more persons (i.e. families) are private groups and those will probably continue to use the bases for a variety of activities. For example, I can arrange to bring my church youth group (just as an example) onto Ft. Benning for an outing. As long as we were given equal access and were subject to the same rules as anyone else, there would be no legal risk (beyond getting lost or bitten by a cottonmouth ). I think the issue is related to preferential treatment (funding by DOD and discrimination by BSA) on both sides. My youth group would fall under the same situation if 1] we excluded persons from our group (which we don't, BTW) and 2] if special funding in support of our outing (and not in support of others) was allocated by the base.

Eamonn, I'm not sure I understand your last post. Could you elaborate?

Agree with NJ on the ACLU. But aside from the legal battle, has there been any discussion of how such support might affect the readiness of our armed forces or national defence? Or are such discussions off the table?

Also not Catholic, but I acknowledge his tremendous positive influence on the world over decades of service. Although I do not agree with some of the ideas promoted by the Catholic church, many of which were supported by John Paul, I nevertheless admire the clarity and consistency of those ideas. He was an honest man with honest views - who honestly tried to help people and set an example for living to the very end. Who could ask for more?

I have read a few comments from time to time when some reference is made to the job that each of our moderators is doing. I thought about this again recently so at this time I invite anyone to express their view as to how they think things are going for this forum since we attracted moderators. My view was and remains firmly neutral although I was at first concerned that moderators could negatively affect open expression. That, as far as I can tell, hasn't happened and I think these two guys, Old Grey Eagle and hops_scout, have done a superlative job. They don't get paid and I suspect they put up with a lot of, well, nonsense, some of it possibly from yours truly. And I appreciate the service they are doing and want them to know it.

In our area, all the schools issue photo IDs. We use those when the young person doesn't have a DL. A few hundred boy scouts in an airport ought to be, in fact, a few hundred individual young people, no more, no less. And they should be treated using the same procedures as any other private citizen. Unless we're going OCONUS, I prefer not to have to keep up with passports although I don't object if the boy insists (not that many have them anyway). FYI, I produce my official ID when going on base, even if the guard knows me personally. Get used to it. Remember a few years back when there were so many objections to the mere idea of a national ID card? H'mmm? Things have changed...permanently.

(This message has been edited by packsaddle) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Bob White, While I am in general agreement with your arguments on this topic (Mr. Smith's crime), I think you could have been more careful in crafting your recent analogy. I know people that would be categorized as 'poor', based on family income. They probably work harder for their paychecks than most of the more affluent people I know...and I respect them very much. To imply that poor people don't work hard and that they would be antagonized by someone (implied as not poor) who does work hard, is unfortunate because it has the appearance of prejudice.

Fear me if you dare: http://www.shrek2.com/downloads/wallpaper/shrek2_wp03_800.html

Apologies to everyone, I just can't seem to get the question out of my mind: Would that be a 'Maltese Bippy'?

Hunt, I suspect that you (like me) couldn't understand much of anything about why people do these things, any aspect of it. But all this hand-wringing may be counter productive and I think we should stop. He was caught. He pled guilty, as he says, to limit the damage to others. That essentially limits the trial environment. It doesn't necessarily mean that there will be no investigation - an investigation is how he was caught in the first place. There is no evidence from that investigation that BSA was involved in any way. To presume anything else would be wrong and anyone suggesting otherwise should produce their evidence. I think the best response is to let the court do its job and we should carry on with our tasks and continue to do what we can to help the boys. And shrug off the comments by acquaintances and co-workers. If they are prejudiced there will be little chance of persuading them otherwise. It is what we do for the boys that brings more families to the program. If we keep our eyes on that prize then Mr. Smith will have less impact in the long run.

Greg, to support your point I know of a boy whose views were agnostic during most of his scouting days. At the very end just before completing his Eagle project, something changed and he began to embrace one faith very strongly. If someone had judged him harshly early on, it could have ended quite differently, and I believe badly, for him. Scoutndad, if the interview is for the purpose of knowing the boy, that is just fine. However, what you view as an interview could be viewed by the boy (or the parent) as an interrogation. It is a matter of perspective as well as method. My point was an exercise in logic, nothing more. If the application settles the question of atheism, and if nearly any answer satisfies the advancement requirement, then there may be little meaning to the exercise. Except perhaps checking off one more requirement. As for judgement, this varies greatly but at one extreme, judgement and prejudice (also, it seems sadly, part of human nature) become related. Something I think it is important to avoid. I guess my 'interviews' might be viewed as lenient.

The question is there nevertheless. If a leader merely listens and that's all there is to it, then no problem. Consider the statement: "if he cannot give evidence that he has met the advancement requirements regarding duty to God obligations he will not be allowed to advance." Under the 'listening' standard, I understand that any response except a statement of atheism would be accepted as such evidence. Or am I mistaken? My concern is that a leader who took a more active role may JUDGE the evidence that the boy submitted to meet the obligations. I also note that if there is no such judgement, and nearly any response passes (except for being an atheist, perhaps), the requirement seems pointless. The question of belief in God was asked and answered in the application process...if anything else is acceptable why keep asking?

Greg, your suggestion would work but I think it is an issue that Mom and Dad need to reconcile. If they take your suggestion for now, it sidesteps the issue and as noted earlier, he could face it with even less equivocation later as a scout. NWscouter, a HUGE amount of wiggle room. I'm wondering how many leaders out there are qualified to interrogate a boy about his religious beliefs in a meaningful, non-superficial way. Edited part: Oops, got the name wrong.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Good grief! 39 years of service and now this? Sad for sure, I'm thinking monumental stupidity as well. Edited, just found the answer: From the website: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11261401.htm "In February, a law enforcement official came to the national office in Irving, informed Scout officials of the investigation and told them that no criminal activity had occurred on the premises, Shields said. Smith was immediately placed on leave." This clears BSA, I think. If he did this off the clock, privately, at his residence, then it all falls on him personally. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Been there many times, starting in 1957. The activities are many and a week hardly touches it. After you see the thermal areas with all the tourists, there are plenty (gazillions, technical term) of trails of various lengths. There are day trips and there are extensive backpack trips. My favorite is to circumnavigate Yellowstone Lake, taking side trips up a hill or two. There are lots of others as well and, depending on the actual dates you are there, you could easily find solitude. The Canyon area is ripe with all sorts of trips, including short horseback rides. And if you head a little north of there around Roosevelt/Tower you may be able to get in on some more extensive horseback trips. You will have to make reservations in advance for much of this so you need to check it out online. Here's a link: http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/services/horsride.htm A lot depends on the interests of the group. Yellowstone is my favorite place of all time for a long solo (Cascades coming in a close second). The bear situation is greatly improved over what it was way back when but you still need to be prepared (needless to say). Have a great time, I'm envious.