packsaddle

Well, I've heard of him. From a news article with a slightly calmer tone about it. Welcome to the forum! I agree with NJCubScouter. Your response may serve only to call further attention to the object of your contempt and that may be counterproductive to your perspective. An additional twist to consider is the fact that the author (artist?) has successfully captured your attention and caused a rather strong emotional reaction. I doubt that you intended to give him such power over your mood and thoughts. However, to answer the question in the title of the thread, didn't Jesus say something about turning the other cheek? I am reminded of the old "sticks and stones" verse. Sacrilege is something that could possibly get a person tossed out of a church. But that's about as much as can be done, I think rightly. My response to this stuff: If a law hasn't been broken, let the market decide. If it has artistic merit it will survive. If not, the market will do as I do and quietly ignore it - the worst sort of death for such products.

"sanctimonious twit"? C'mon, don't sugar-coat it - tell us what you really think! Now to run and check on those knots....

Gopher Judy, Uuuuuh....it's been a while but I think that was the robot, not Dr. Smith.

OneHour, I think your generosity is admirable and I certainly don't mean my comments to be critical of you. In our situation, similar generosity in the past led other adults to 1) assume things are taken care of and 2) inadvertently take advantage of those being generous. My concern is for responsibility, namely, by those on the receiving end. It is not only fair for you or another leader to be reimbursed, it is the best way for the non-active parents to understand the monetary costs for the program. As I said before, time is something we willingly donate. I can't expect the parents to act responsibly if they have insufficient information.

Typical trip: Church bus - 14 boys, Ford Expedition - 5-7 boys, Chevy Suburban - 5-7 boys, the Ford or Chevy pulling a heavy troop trailer as well. 300 miles or so of driving. Fuel $2 per gallon or more now, not to mention excess wear and tear on the vehicles. The hours of time, we donate gladly. I think it is appropriate and fair to reimburse any adult who hauls boys in their gas guzzler or uses it to pull a loaded troop trailer. If I use my personal vehicle for my work, today I get 40 cents per mile. I gladly pay for someone to use their vehicle to haul my boy or his equipment.

I'd cut a little slack for the trail shelters. But I do understand the concern. I think this is one reason why only one week of summer camp counts toward camping MB. BTW, my experience on the AT is that on weekends many shelters are jammed like refugee camps. We stay clear of them and take alternate open sites.

The CO pays for most leader training. Leaders pay the same fees as the boys for food, etc. on campouts. This unit levies a fee of $7-15 per outing depending on number of meals. I am delighted to see balanced meals planned by the scouts at any cost. It does happen sometimes. The annual dues is more like $30 to cover registrations and minor recurring costs. Major outings are managed individually. I am still struggling with an ideal way to deal with indigent scouts for major outings and I would like to hear your ideas.

The question was about a nose clip. The thread was: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=25135#id_25644 Enjoy.

The intent is for him to acquire the knowledge and experience necessary to be able to function independently (skills) and to be able to instruct others (leadership). The requirement is there as a standard to demonstrate that level of skill on his way, ultimately, to First Class. He can meet that requirement in a number of ways but in the end he must have that ability and skill to advance. In this troop the boys can do this individually (perhaps on a backpack trip) or as a patrol - with the boy taking responsibility for one cooked meal for the patrol (I enjoy watching the second approach...and the anxiety that builds in the patrol as their meal gets closer - or farther - from success).

Laurie, I still miss it. I stayed on as cubmaster for a couple of years after my son left and enjoyed it thoroughly. My suggestion...become an assistant den leader again. Enjoy.

I agree with Hunt on this. OGE, I am reminded of another similar thread in which the hot debate was whether or not a nose clip should be allowed during the test. A full mask? Covering eyes, nose, AND mouth? Brace yourself.

Church property (or property of the CO, whoever that is) is good. I realize that such real estate may be limited for many units. Utilities provided by the CO.

Welcome back. I too have learned from you. Seems like more than a few weeks, though. Good luck on the new business. I still miss littlebillie. Where are you, littlebillie? Trevorum, diversity...agreed.

Three observations: First, I want to thank Trevorum and Kudu for setting (from my perspective, at least) a very high standard for debate in these forums. I think that every reader will recognize that the debate is 'going for the jugular' without all the name-calling and reliance on 'bumper sticker' or 'sound bite' reasoning. Also that, in the spirit of UU tradition, this is being openly presented for all to read and appreciate. Second, while the outcome of all this is far from certain, the element of civil disobedience mentioned so far is mild. I suspect that many of us engage in civil disobedience, so often as a matter of fact, that we are unconscious of it. Occasionally driving one to five mph over the speed limit (possibly more?) comes to mind for me. Anyone else? I agree with Kudu that for a boy to wear the award on the uniform in violation of the BSA's punitive action is just fine. Lastly, although this debate is important because it represents a controversy that affects the UUA, I lament that children are still caught in the middle. The debate, in some ways, was engaged years ago between BSA and the UUA. It seems now to be modified, involving both BSA and UUSO against the UUA - I could be wrong but this remains to be seen. While I am still not comfortable with my understanding of this conflict, I do recognize that children remain the target of a punitive BSA policy. That is, unless they adopt the new award by the UUSO. Another Faustian bargain, it seems, forced on boys who ought to be able to invest their time learning about other matters, just like boys of other faiths. From my perspective it is sad when adults choose to hurt each other needlessly. But that is preferable to adults hurting children...as surrogates for other adults. I fear that the trend continues.

In case fgoodwin's response doesn't seem to make sense, I believe he is responding to a post I made in another thread that resembles this one (ACLU strategy will backfire). Fgoodwin, that was written tongue-in-cheek. I guess I should have expected that someone might take it seriously. Sorry.

A calculated move, an inevitable result. BSA is getting exactly what they expected.

"Wow, that was fun, let's do it again!" Fgoodwin, in the spirit of your original post, consider the possibility that the totally private outcome is precisely what BSA has intended from the very beginning. And that, in fact, BSA is cleverly manipulating the ACLU into 'forcing' BSA to that end (against BSA's will of course, heh, heh). Then BSA will have attained its goal and the ACLU will have taken the fall as the bad guy. The guys at BSA must have studied Machiavelli, don't you think? H'mmmmmm?

BSA chose to take their case to the Supreme Court. And they won. They either knew the consequences and chose this path anyway - or they were hapless clods that never saw it coming. Either way, BSA won their case and got their way. Everything after that was predictable. BSA won their right to go private, so 'private' it is. It was a great legal victory and I don't understand why so many are whining and wetting their beds about the results. As I have said before, the victim stance doesn't work well for non-victims.

I occasionally encounter something like this and it is potentially a great learning opportunity for the boy. If the issue is something along the lines of what Hunt stated, I think it is an opportunity to ask the boy to explain how he rationalizes his deception without actually accusing him of anything. If done well, the discussion can lead him to understand his thinking error. And this can have the effect of causing him to 1) rethink his decision, and 2) begin to think about future decisions in similar terms. Both of these results are positive.

Kudu, welcome to the forum. I have tried to follow this topic and I am eager to learn more when possible. I therefore read your message with great interest - and I learned for the first time that BSA had objected to the pamphlets, "When Others Say God" and "In Support of All People" as well. I had not read of BSA's objection to these. However, I searched for the letter you mention and I think I found it on the website. The letter I found was: May 7, 1999 - Lawrence Ray Smith to John Buehrens. As a point of clarification for other members of the forum, the two resources that BSA mentioned in the letter regarding homophobia and religious discrimination ARE the two pamphlets that you named. They were sent (as separate pamphlets along with the religious award pamphlet and a letter from Buehrens) to boys who were interested in earning the religious award. However, it was to my surprise to realize that BSA placed their restrictions on UUA scouts in order (is everyone ready for this?) TO PROTECT THE BOYS. Riiight! While I agree that this amounts to religious discrimination, I will have to think about your characterization of UUSO as "caving". I will probably have to consult my copy of 'Leadership and Self-Deception' one more time. And then I'll think about it some more. This is worrisome.

Gopher Judy (nice moniker, by the way, I won't ask), I get up that way once in a while but when I visit I usually stick around Cedarhurst...with trips to the city for emergency replenishment. Going out on the island is like crossing a time warp. Don't be too anxious, Larry isn't all that great. Only about a 3 on the Jeff Foxworthy scale. "...let's do the time warp again..."

Vicki, we are in agreement. I was just noting that I realize that age is not the only factor in safe driving. A later age is also less risky for such decisions as marriage, reproduction, etc.

Vicki, the drunk that hit my family was 42 so there's never absolute certainty. But the local roads and highways in my area are littered with crosses and memorials to the local deaths. Nearly all of them memorialize teenagers. I too have to wonder about the mindset of parents who resist revisions to the way we permit drivers.

Torveaux, I was driving a school bus at 16. And it was completely irresponsible for the state to allow me and my co-drivers to do that. We were very experienced but very unconscious of the responsiblity attached to the job. I agree that today experience is a major factor. And today the young people I see in this area do not have the experience level that we acquired in the rural setting decades ago. That said, my concern mostly relates to the recent revelations regarding cognitive development (and this goes to the maturity, etc. factors you mention) for young people into their early 20's. That, combined with lack of experience and other factors, is the nature of the age issue for me. We use an arbitrary age cutoff now because of the difficulties assessing those maturity factors individually. As we learn more about the developmental processes associated with 'maturity' we may be able to establish a more reasonable, less-arbritrary age limit.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

CaveEagle, I'm thinking the legal age should be changed back to 21. Including the driver's license. Cheaper than the GPS fix.