packsaddle

Yeah, I liked Cat Ballou too. If you ever get the chance you might consider "Hallelujah Trail" as well. Brian Keith, Burt Lancaster, Donald Pleasance (as the Oracle). Somewhat un-PC though...maybe that makes it more fun. bsat4jb, for me it was, "It works the same for us (protestants), dear, we have two children." (Meaning of Life) This one is hard to beat for us biologists. I'll try not to inflict myself on you any further.

Well...yeah. Actually a long time ago these young women wanted to do the things the Boy Scouts do but they had to wait for a Venture unit to form. Now they are older and Venturing is more suited to them. The Venture males are going to have to work hard to match the skill of these females! And so far, in a head-to-head competition my money would be on the double-x chromosomes. Nice ideas on integrating the boys across the ages. Thanks.

We are starting a new one with explicit intentions to avoid such needless conflicts. The current SM is very supportive and as a Venture leader, I will encourage the boys with dual identities to live up to their responsibilities in the troop as well. This will be good for both groups. We also plan joint activities along the lines that Trail Pounder mentioned. I think this will encourage the younger boys to also join the Venture activities once they are ready. We already have a strong contingent of females in the crew...disappointed in GSA activities and longing to be Boy Scouts.

I'm on TDY in Sacramento right now but my boys back home know to look. Thanks.

KoreaScouter, I was about to throw in with your idea (we also do DO lasagne, followed by DO cobbler) and then I met cheffy. Jordan fades back, shot's up... nothing but net. Cheffy, can I eat with your troop, please, please?

I did this with an Explorer post many years ago when they were more of a venturing post. We took the Boulevard trail after starting from Newfound Gap. Did it in January. I think winter is the best time but you will need trail crampons. We came down the Alum Cave Bluff trail and it was solid ice in all the worst places. I think it was a great trip. Years later my wife and I went up the Alum Cave Bluff trail to LeConte but just for lunch. Got charged by a bear, long story. Great fun though! Hope you come away with lots of good memories.

Ed, I saw the humor. I nearly fell out of my chair! Good one, BW! I think that a deity is big enough to withstand a little jest. Fat Old Guy, better watch out or else it will be meadow muffins at 20 paces.

Bob White, CRANEACE is welcome to lash out against me verbally if he wishes. I am not certain that he has presented this issue to the forum solely for the purpose of identifying a solution. But to me his motives are less important than the situation he has described. I think you and Dsteele offer good advice. It is my opinion that a good leader does not quit, especially if he judges more to be gained by continuing the work. In the case posed here, I am left with a strong impression that we have incomplete information and any of our opinions could easily be in error. CRANEACE and I share the sense that BSA has a different view of "freedom of speech". I do indeed feel that BSA will punish a member who speaks out publicly in opposition to their policy. We have discussed this ad nauseum in past threads. But it IS my opinion that public opposition to BSA policy has an associated risk. I try to be proactive and offer guidance to my boys to help them avoid risky situations of all sorts in life. So far, so good. I also have a really great bunch of guys. I consider true success to include avoidance of needless conflict as well as conflict resolutions that avoid damage to the parties involved, not merely winning a fight that damages all parties. Also not running from such conflict if no better resolution exists. Therefore please rest assured, CRANEACE, that at such time that I choose to take that risk, it will be for a boy that I know and for a situation for which I am very knowledgeable. If such occasion arises and other means of resolution are exhausted, I will defend that boy without hesitation, without regard for my status in BSA, and without regard for any other adult or organization. It will be for that boy and, if necessary, for nothing else. I wish you well.

OGE, you bring tears to my eyes, Asimov indeed. I understand what you say, having felt that boot many times growing up. I also got my revenge. I recognize it for what it was...an human/animal urge that, once satisfied, left me in deep remorse for the harm I did to another person - and it felt good. I can't justify the boot, and in retrospect although I never worried about that person's boot again, I know that in a moral sense neither of us were better for the exercise. I lowered myself to his level and proved able to exceed his malevolent ability. Not much of a way to conduct civilization. Fortunately we both lived through it. From what I learned later, I was the only one to learn from it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

NJCubScouter, by now you probably know I agree with you on the issue of gay membership and the associated questions of morality. I also agree with your earlier wish for more clarity in this case. There is always a finite probability that we have not been presented with all the evidence. If one assumes the rendition given by CRANEACE is reasonably complete, then I sympathize with sentiments, such as that by Eisely, that some sort of consistent due process is needed. That is, due process is needed rather than a hidden, secret, possibly prejudiced decision by a small group of men in a process to which we have no access (Rooster's kangaroo court). An alternative view would be that there is also no evidence that such due process DIDN'T occur. Absent such evidence one way or the other, we are all left to our opinions and prejudices and no-one outside Fat Old Guy's inner circle (around here we call it the 'good old boy system') really knows the basis for the decision. However, on many occasions in this forum it has been made clear to me that with regard to other sensitive decisions: BSA needs no such due process, BSA needs to supply no rationale, BSA needs to explain to no-one. Do I like this? No. Do I accept it? Answer: I want to continue to be an adult leader and I feel it necessary to keep my opinion publicly 'in the closet' to avoid similar treatment. If the rendition given by CRANEACE is reasonably complete, then I say that...BSA just MIGHT be, at least in a way, consistent.

Dsteele, this really struck home with me. I have tremendous sympathy for boys who have some characteristic that causes them personal anguish, and allows other boys to tease. It has taken some time for me to learn to let them know that I am always going to 'be there' for them if they need help...and then treat them just like anyone else. It really does my heart good to see boys, some of them with profound genetic or similar disorders, joining in as.. and being treated by the other boys as... just other guys. Part of the spirit of scouting.

Ed, they can order mine in 'rainbow', or as they say in the Old Testament, a coat of many colors. Also, don't go too hard on Bob White. I have often tried to view what he writes as containing the dry humor of the English. Especially the imperial way he hands down his pronouncements. After all, he DID use the smiley face, I'm not sure but it has to be for just about the first time. Man I don't know about you but it sure made my day!

Thanks Dsteele, I haven't signed the application yet but that comes soon. I think we're still in the formative stages for the Venture 'crew?, post?' Anyway I'll get the Leader's Guide. It is comforting to hear that this is similar to the Troop, maybe I won't have so much new stuff to learn. OGE, I knew I could count on you. Those are intriguing explanations. I had heard of some baseball players 'boning' their bats and thought that, perhaps, that was related. I have always wondered what possible good it did to rub a bone on a wooden bat but perhaps the 'polishing' effect...? Or it could just be a good luck ritual.

I am learning a lot about this topic, although it did seem to stumble a bit in the beginning. This is important to me because I am about to jump ship to help lead a Venture unit. I am not even sure the charter has been prepared or approved. But the distinctions I am reading certainly are confusing to me and I am evidently not alone. Dsteele, is there a concise guide to all this anywhere that I can borrow, buy, or copy? I guess the better question is, what documents do I need to bone up on? And finally, does anyone know the derivation of that phrase, 'bone up'?

Fat Old Guy, No-one else seems to have noticed so, although I sympathize with scouts who are teased at school, I'm not ready to endorse the way of our 'good old days'. Remember, "violence is the last resort of the incompetent." Anyone out there recognize that quote? OGE, my money's on you, maybe you too, littlebillie. Amazingly, a couple of my scouts did a while back.

Wow, Mark that is a really dire situation. Going off topic briefly, we recently experienced something like it as well (but for different reasons, related to the DE) and I wholeheartedly agree with your statement on the need for critical mass. There's a troop size that once attained just seems to spiral down. That is, unless you get that infusion of new bodies, which, luckily, we did. I hope you do too.

TwoCubDad, I think what you're saying also goes to the spirit of scouting as well as interpretation of policy. Rooster, our viewpoints are different on this and the distinction is important. Where your viewpoint is that of the entity handing out the rejection (the organization), mine is from the perspective of the person being rejected (the boy). Neither that boy's regard for scouting (I would expect it to be lower) nor his feeling of personal rejection is likely to be assuaged by knowledge of the fine point you just proposed to minimize it. And it is so unnecessary. You might be interested to know that a few years ago, a local Methodist cub scout pack had a Unitarian Universalist cubmaster...and was glad to have him. He graduated to their troop when his son was old enough. No problems at all.

OGE, nice song. Rooster, While they may not hire hockey coaches, in most countries they do hire soccer coaches:) Couldn't resist, I just had to try one of those smiley face things. Hey, it worked! I think I understand your meaning but one thing that troubles me is that a unit could start as mine has, with boys of many faiths and from many cultures, and then the CO could decide to 'narrow' the scope, essentially encouraging those who 'do not fit in' to leave. I would resist this...especially if there was no alternative unit. On the other hand, if a unit starts as a monoculture and resists outsiders (which I think you are advocating) that seems not quite so bad. But again I remind you that if you take the element of religious faith out of the process, it is easy to make a comparison to a unit that is all-white and encourages other races to apply elsewhere. I have seen that too (not recently). I think that all boys need these opportunities and it is a shame if some are rejected simply because they are a minority faith.

I sincerely hope that MK9750 will indulge my use of his analysis from the other thread on the UUA/BSA conflict: "The UUA had material in their Religious Emblem Award Literature that was inconsistent with the Philosphies of the BSA. The BSA objected, and when the UUA made an unacceptable attempt (to the BSA) to ammend their material, the BSA advised the UUA that they would no longer recongnize their Religious Emblem. This apparently caused the UUA to work harder toward satisfying the BSA, as, after many letters between the two organizations, and many reviews, the UUA was able to satisfy the BSA by pulling all reference to homosexuality out of the material. They said they would attempt to stay true to their beliefs by advising all UUA youth where they could obtain guidance on the topic if they were looking via other channels (by the way, this is a very reasonable position to take, IMHO). The BSA then agreed to recognize the Award. When the Emblem materials began to be distributed to youth who wanted to work on the Award, there was a seperate sheet included detailing the UUA's position on the issue and advising youth where to go for guidance. I don't suggest that this is a bad thing, but it was clear to me that the BSA's intent was to avoid ANY reference to homosexuality in the materials for an Award that they would recognize: The UUA used the disemination of the materials for the Award to provide information about the subject. A few more letters went back and forth, and both insitutions apparently agreed that they would not be able to align their goals with respect to the Award." This was from the other thread where MK9750 sought an unbiased analysis. Bob White, I now ask you, where is the reference to UUA doing anything regarding membership requirements? Clearly BSA would object if a CO attempted to circumvent or alter membership requirements, but outside your statements, I simply haven't read anything about this in regard to the UUA/BSA conflict. I have reread Mark's analysis and the material I collected independently years ago and all I can find is that BSA objected to the UUA statement of disagreement first in the P.R.A.Y. pamphlet, later in the separate enclosure to their boys. I am sure that Mark and others would also like to know the source of that information because it would be of material importance to understanding the conflict. Mark, I am still not clear about the specifics of the last agreement between BSA and UUA. Did UUA specifically agree not to mention the homosexuality issue in the supplementary material? Or was this agreement without that level of detail? Were you able to get a copy of it? Bob White, I have also reflected further on your claim that, "...the BSA made the decision to remove the UU as a chartering organization..." I excerpted this from one of your previous messages. I think that while this excerpt is not the complete statement, the idea is intact. Mark made no reference to such removal. Dsteele also has not mentioned such removal (at least not that I can find in the forums). I would like someone to confirm that, in fact, BSA HAS made the decision to remove the UUA as a chartering organization. Dsteele, you out there somewhere? I would like to know when this happened and for what reasons? Bob White, I ask these things because you are evidently in possession of knowledge that I have not found elsewhere. So I am asking for you to identify the sources of your information. I really do try to be accurate in my statements and if I am wrong I want to know the basis for it. Thanks for your help.

Bob White, I'm clear on that part. The reason I spoke for you out of turn (and I apologize), I'm still confused about something you said earlier. To wit, "The BSA did not tell the UU what thier religious doctrine should be. They told them how their changes would effect their awards eligibility to be displayed on the BSA uniform and how it would require the BSA to bar a Unitarian Church from being a BSA charter organiation." That part requiring the BSA "to bar a Unitarian Church from being a BSA charter organiation." caught my attention. Given that the change UUA made was merely to verbally state disagreement with BSA, BSA's rejection of UUA churches as COs sets a precedent. For the sake of consistency and fairness, I would expect ANY church that expressed public disagreement with BSA similarly to be ejected as a CO. Unless.... UNLESS BSA had the ability to arbitrarily deny CO status regardless of the situation. In THAT case, I understand rejection of UUA churches that express disagreement with BSA while allowing CO status for other churches in disagreement with BSA. And I think the point that some of us are trying to make is that the Episcopals may provide such test. Moreover, as I understand it, NJCubScouter has identified other organizations evidently in disagreement with BSA as well. I'm merely waiting for all the shoes to drop (I've always heard that phrase used, but never really understood it, can someone help me there?). The outcome will be telling. If the Episcopal church (or any other church) publicly disagrees with BSA but is allowed to continue as a CO, then I am correct in my statement that BSA arbitrarily rejects COs for any (or no) reason. BUT, if the Episcopal church (or any other church) publicly disagrees and BSA consistently rejects them as COs, then BSA is being consistent and fair, at least in their way of thinking. And I will have the evidence needed for me to reject my interpretation. Alas, if the Episcopals merely keep silent in their disagreement, we'll have to wait for some other church to provide the test.

Bob White, So....you're saying that BSA does NOT have the right to deny CO status for any reason? I stand corrected.

Ed, I am surprised that Bob White hasn't kept with the spirit of past responses. If I were him, I'd inform you that as a private organization, BSA has the right to capriciously and arbitrarily deny any potential CO - or to deny with prejudice or reason if BSA wishes. Neither explanation nor apology has to be given. Just like membership. Not, of course, that I agree with that spirit. But Ed, do you think his response actually addressed your observation?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

SagerScout, you took the words right off my keyboard. But I did enjoy the vicarious thought about a 10-mile run. It sent me right to the snack machine for refreshments.

NJCubScouter, It's interesting, isn't it, how the sense of humor changes with time. I'm not sure if it's age or experience or even if that can be sorted out. I agree about the Jerry Lewis films. I remember really liking 'Big Mouth' and quite some time later saw it again thinking, "OK, why did I like that?" That said, I remember my son laughing at cartoons at a very early age, around 1 year. Recently I saw a rerun of some of those cartoons at the student union...yep, those university students are still laughing!

Well folks, the students are back and I'm weathering a withering attack of virus-laden emails through our network. So I'll make this brief. Twocubdad, I was the one who made the 'higher standard' statement. Thanks. But I should add, I expect that of everyone, including my scouts, my virus-propagating students, and the UUs, unless they have demonstrated unwillingness to accept the challenge. Dsteele, you might be interested to know I earned my God and Country in the Presbyterian Church. It was hard but my minister taught me well. Confirmation is something that must not have been practiced by my church, at any rate I don't remember anything like it. I was the first boy to request to do the God and Country and, to my knowledge, the only one ever for that church. It is my understanding that the degree of difficulty for the religious award is also dependent on age group. Cubs may not be held to as rigorous requirements as Boy Scouts or older children. I am not sure this applies to all the faiths but I seem to remember it did apply to a few I examined through the PRAY organization. I had tried not to muddle the issue by raising the additional issue of interfering with religious doctrine although I agree with Ed that BSA ought not poke its nose into such (sorry Ed if I just mangled your message). I am still struggling to understand the UU faith anyway so I'll let others tackle that aspect of this conflict.