packsaddle

Yeah, Uncle Buck was good. I really liked John Candy. I am a little surprised that absolutely no-one listed a Jerry Lewis film...not that I know one that stands out. I just expected someone else to mention him. OK, King of Comedy, supporting role.

Mark, I am glad to read your reply. I had not thanked you for the good job you did researching that issue. I learned a few things that I hadn't known before as well. Thanks. I do understand what you say regarding tactics and degree of harm. I admit that I am honing a fine edge here, but that is because I think we should be able to expect the best out of this organization, and I expect them to meet a higher standard. I am sure you agree with that. At the same time, don't think the UUs are getting off lightly in my world. I have taken and still take them to the verbal woodshed about this on numerous occasions...in fact, I started with them. Why shouldn't I do the same to both parties? This is, after all, a Scouter forum, not a UU forum. I get to see the UUs up-close and personal and I don't hold back. They do, ahem, take it to heart more than BSA seems to. I appreciate your good words.

No, Rooster7, I would not make the comparisons that you just did. In the case of UU Boy Scouts, a large organization (BSA) made a conscious decision that affected a small number of boys - boys that were segregated (by BSA) on the basis of an idea that was being promoted not by those boys but by other persons (UUA). The situation is very similar to what I observed during the conflicts regarding segregated schools. In many cases children were caught in the middle. It was without honor then, and now. Although BSA had the ability to do what they wanted, their action was needless as the outcome had effect on neither their policy nor any other youth. They couldn't touch the persons (UUA) who actually were promoting the idea with which they disagreed so BSA took action against their (UUA) children, Scouts in this case. Again, very similar to actions I observed during desegregation conflicts. I think a wide variety of types of minorities will see the similarity as well. Bob White, you can minimize this by calling it a mole hill and I suppose you do that because of the small number of boys involved, a minority of Scouts, if you will. To me the fact that BSA was willing to engage in this tactic IS the point and the numbers of boys is less important. Actually, the smaller the number the more sensitive I tend to be to it. BSA was not merely willing but they were intent on this action, indicating again a willingness to hurt a few youth again if it advances their cause. Again, an old tactic that I and others know too well.

So, Bob White, you're saying that UU churches are no longer allowed as chartering organizations? I had been looking for this answer for a while, thanks. Actually, I think this is relevant to the topic. If you will reread the original post by littlebillie, it asks about the potential for similar action to the Episcopals as taken for the UUs. Seems relevant to me. To note a similarity does not necessarily amount to an equation. An equation involves two things that are equal, sometimes formalized with and '=' sign. An example of a similarity could be in the comparison of, say, a golden delicious apple with a red delicious apple. Both are similar in that they're apples, but clearly not equal. Perhaps there is such equation in your mind but I noted the similarity in order to identify an area for future scrutiny or concern. Finally, my concern is for those boys who were affected by all this. I note your failure to address that. I can hardly equate (your term) your concern for what can go on a uniform with BSA's willingness and intent to focus their response on innocent youth. You obviously have no such compunction.

I agree, Twocubdad. After reflection there is another way to view the BSA/UU conflict. At the outset was one potential outcome of the interaction. In the end was another. A comparison of the two is instructive. At the outset, if BSA had merely not responded to the UU statement of disagreement in the pamphlet for their religious award, what would have been the effect on BSA policy or actions? There would have been no effect, BSA could have ignored it. The UUs would have had their say. End of story. In the end, what was the effect on BSA policy or actions? There was no effect. And the UUs eventually had their say anyway. The difference between the two paths is the decision by BSA to 'punish' the boys by not allowing them to wear the religious award. BSA chose to apply this to the only persons who were vulnerable to their action, a few boys who had no real part in the conflict but were in a position of weakness with respect to BSA wrath. The humiliation of those few youth might not seem important to persons in the majority view. But to me the real issue is that BSA chose to do it at all. They had nothing to gain, nothing to lose, and BSA did it to those boys anyway. And in this particular case, the action speaks volumes about BSA's 'character'. I saw this process many times in my past, applied to persons of color; blacks, hispanics, middle easterners, oriental...not to mention Jews - all vulnerable because of their minority status. So I react strongly when I sense a similar mode in BSA. Today's minorities should take notice.

In the case of interactions with the UUs I can square BSA policy or actions with neither tolerance, inclusiveness, nor fairness, nor with the golden rule, all of which I hold as traditional values. We obviously just disagree. hops scout, you are in agreement with my use of the term. The only limit that should apply to the exercise of such right is where its exercise limits that right for another (golden rule). In my view this is where BSA crossed the line with their actions. But they had the ability, power and position so they did it. And that's that.

That olive oil idea is intriguing. I must try it next time. I go with the protein, not so much out of calorie balancing as I just like it. This should also relate to another thread on ADD and medications, but I have found that the calorie-rich items like oils and protein tend to steady ADD kids a bit, me included. The quick buzz of sugar or starch followed by the dive is hard, and medication doesn't compensate for that. But a lot depends on the venue. Before I take a group out to a reef for a day of snorkeling, I watch for the persons laying up a huge omelet at breakfast. Then I stick with them. Sooner or later they chum the water and man, what great fish-watching!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

You really got me on that one Ed. Your choice, speech or press. Which do you think it is?

Why Laurie, I detect a finely-honed sense of humor...the kind that comes with, dare I say it, maturity. OK, I give up. How do all of you get those smiley faces into these messages?

Bob White, There was an 'or' in the statement. This means that under either set of conditions, the Episcopal boys will still be allowed to wear their religious award on their scout uniform. It does not mean that BSA is currently trying to intimidate nor does it mean that the Episcopals are currently planning to state a disagreement in writing. It merely states two conditions that, assuming the Episcopals disagree with BSA in the future (and this seems a possibility on the gay issue), the Episcopals can seek to avoid the fate of the UUs. Ed, Freedom of expression. Here's the edited part. Ed has a point, the term 'expression' doesn't occur in the first amendment. However, it is common to lump expression in the form of speech and expression in printed form into a single term, 'expression'. The UUs consider the issue a 'freedom of speech' issue but BSA objected to what they wrote in print (UUs have been speaking their disagreement for much longer.) So left to decide which, I opted for 'expression', I hope Ed is the only person with a problem with this. Rooster7, in the original post the only issue mentioned was related to wearing the religious award on the Scout uniform. Later in the thread someone brought up the question of chartering. As I understand the current status with the UUs, their Boy Scouts may not wear the religious award on the Scout uniform. However, the boys are still free to be Boy Scouts, to earn the religious award, and UU churches are still free to act as chartering organizations (am I wrong about this?) I see these as separate in that context. I agree with you that intimidation is un-Scoutlike. In my view, defense of our freedom and our constitutional rights does not merely mean defending our personal rights - it means defending the rights for all citizens. Am I wrong? And where we disagree on an issue does not mean that one party's rights are or should be subordinated to the other's rights. On the contrary, we should respect each other's rights even if we disagree. BSA rejected the ability of Boy Scouts in good standing from being able to wear the religious award that they earned. BSA did this because the boys' church openly disagreed with BSA. The church was confronted with a situation tantamount to an ultimatum. BSA essentially took boys' ability to wear their religious awards on their uniforms (just like other religious awards for other faiths) and held that ability hostage, to be released only if the UUs no longer expressed their disagreement in print. The printed material was not BSA literature, it was literature associated with the religious award, a non-BSA award. The UUs could either set aside their freedom of expression of their disagreement with BSA policy (Ed this is the 1st Amendment part) or they could cave to the BSA - essentially the two alternatives the Episcopals may face if they also find disagreement with BSA on this issue. If I read more into Ed's statement than he actually said, technically the UUs did not lose their right. They exercised it. They chose not to be intimidated by BSA - risking that in the exercise of their right, BSA would continue to take action against the boys. And the UUs were right, BSA continued to deny Boy Scouts in good standing an ability to wear the earned religious award of their faith on their uniforms. And I still ask the question, 'and this benefits those boys how?'(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I wish we had had these when I was a Webelos den leader. As it was we did most of this anyway and had a great time camping with the troop. But the new requirements will spread these activities through Cub Scouting more effectively and set a good standard, I think.

To follow Bob White's reply, I agree with his assessment. The Episcopals (like the UUs) will not likely get in trouble with BSA unless they choose (like the UUs) to state their disagreement in their religious award literature (avowed dissentors). THAT is where the rub with the UUs began and they were unwilling to back down completely. As long as the Episcopals are willing to let BSA intimidate them out of their 1st Amendment right, or if they merely choose to remain silent in print, they should be just fine. Chartering is a separate issue, I think.

Laurie, Regarding your youth at 40+...don't kid yourself. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Yeah, it's a great "quote". I keep the Plato version on the wall in my office to befuddle students when they come to challenge me about one thing or another. I use it to measure their sense of humor. The few who ask about it usually get it. The youth I work with in- and out-of-scouts are better than ever in my judgement and getting better still. They make me optimistic about the future. Bob White, out of curiosity, just what kind of, ahem, corrective actions are you suggesting? Would you care to elaborate on the transgressions? Or h'mmm...maybe I shouldn't want to know.

Fat Old Guy, I've heard similar things said about San Francisco, New Orleans, Miami, New York, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, OR...well, you get the idea. So maybe we should have listed Bedtime for Bonzo (not too certain about the chimp, though).(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I thought about Dr. Strangelove but I wasn't so sure about global destruction fitting with comedy...but I see your point, it was a great (but dark) comedy. I DID forget another favorite - Men In Black (the first one). Even more recently, I thoroughly enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean (anti-Disney persons are missing a real treat). Although not strictly on the subject but a source of laughs for me, at least, I really liked The Little Mermaid (sorry, another Disney product). And I get lots of laughs at the boys' horrified reactions to this news. Moreover, they're speechless when I defend the Nintendo version as the best ever. I find that this ploy keeps them a little off balance giving me an occasional tactical advantage in the head games they keep trying. Great fun.

As long as they meet the current requirement, I see nothing wrong with counting family camping. Actually I encourage family camping...it's good to get everyone out there. You are the counselor, you make the call. You are obviously conscientious so I would have no objection to your decision.

Excellent discussion (Eagle at 15). I sympathize with the position championed by le Voyageur and later by Mike F and others. Situations that le Voyageur confronts are where the rubber meets the road and "Be Prepared" is not an idle admonition. In those situations anyone who is unprepared, regardless of rank, is a liability. If they happen to have Eagle rank, I see a boy who was cheated somehow. I also agree that boys can get all the benefits of scouting without ever making Eagle. I see a parallel to education. There is information that is communicated by reading and conversing. We sometimes call this 'coursework'. There is also information that cannot be so communicated. I call this 'experience' and that takes time...and doing. le Voyageur's needs demand that experience and I see a deficiency if an Eagle (of any age) presents himself without it.

NJCubScouter, You're right! I forgot about Star Trek IV...I even own a copy. The line that got me occurred on Earth when discussing the period literature, it went something like this: Kirk mentioned some of the period authors, among them Jaqueline Suzanne and (as I remember) Harold Robbins. Spock responded with reverence, "Ah, the classics." I nearly fell out of my chair. And the scene when Scottie tries to verbally address a classic Macintosh. I guess I am sort of a trekkie (My buddies and I saw all of the originals first time through and many times after) but that is why I especially like the Galaxy Quest fun-making.

I guess I'm the guy they used for the design 'cause I like the fit and feel of the pants (of course custom-hemmed for my inseam). And I even like the elastic part...after an outing you don't have to search for seed ticks, they all gather there.

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world (I think this might be the best ever) The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming Sleeper Meaning of Life (Monty Python) Most anything with Buster Keaton (yeah, I know they're silent) Ground Hog Day 1941 (I might be the only person who liked this) The Loved One (Jonathan Winters, outrageous) The president's analyst (James Coburn) Maverick (Mel Gibson and James Garner) King of hearts (I'm with you here, Saltheart) Galaxy Quest (more fun than any of the Star Treks) BTW, I think I follow the Disney thing but I don't know about the Levi-Strauss thing. What's that all about? Oh...a horse is a horse, of course, of course...

I am fairly sure my dignity was destroyed in this one, even with all the laughter, but here goes: My wife insisted that I accompany her while she shopped for some women's underwear items. We located the lingerie section of a local department store and I breathed a sigh of relief, seeing we were the only persons there besides the sales lady. My wife picked out an armful and asked me to hold her purse while she retired to the dressing room to see how they fit. Still nobody but the sales lady was present so I nervously agreed. Then I heard my wife's voice asking me to come back to the dressing room to help her decide. She decided she didn't like any of them so she asked me to take them back out and return them to the sales lady. By the time I emerged from the dressing rooms, purse over one arm and items over the other, the sales area was full of women. There was a sudden hush. The sales lady was cool...she asked me about the decision and I responded, "They didn't fit" as I gave the merchandise to her and walked past the dead-silent, slack-jawed shoppers. As I bravely carried my purse out of that section I could hear murmurs behind me. Nothing left of my dignity, I decided to brass it out and laugh later. My wife still smiles at this triumph and sometimes I wonder if she planned it all along.

dsteele's solution is absolutely perfect! It not only solves the 'fashion' problem but it also provides incentive to collect enough merit badges to require a sash (and incidentally show everyone the mile swim, etc. patches). Great solution!

Rooster, I see your point about the exchange and I gladly remove your toady status. I understand your views and I commend your consistency. Thanks also to you, Dan. I reread the series and I still feel that Swordse received some rough treatment but I am heartened by your messages. I had not thought about the eastern religion thing but in retrospect, most of my comments were in regard to my ignorance of them (excepting Baha'i). And, just a note, I undertand that Judaism does not hold a belief for the existence of hell, Rooster I thought you would like that. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. You may also want to check your religious histories, the roots of UUA date to the first 3 centuries AD. After the Nicene Creed established the trinity as dogma in 325 AD, Unitarians and Universalists were persecuted as heretics by Christians because they (UUs) desired to choose their faith, not be dictated to. The Greek root of 'heretic' (hairetikos) literally meant "able to choose". More recently, among the religious groups arriving on the Mayflower were some who eventually became the UUA in this country (Unitarians and Universalists later combined after having developed separately). All of the groups arriving on the Mayflower were seeking religious freedom and as I understand it, other groups on the Mayflower were the precursors to Protestant denominations including the Baptists. There is much, much more. Another point I would also like to clarify. If I gave the impression that I reject certain faiths as wrong, that is incorrect...it is much the other way around. (I don't believe I ever used the word 'reject' in my post) In each of those instances, once I made my views known or suggested alternative views, I left because I was no longer welcome. Rejection has been largely aimed at me by those establishments, no offence taken. The basis of this has usually related to segregation and discrimination and my revulsion of such, but not always. Most of the time, to employ an old joke, I HAVE sought faiths willing to accept persons like me. Rooster, I do not condemn or judge your faith. On what basis would I do this? I absolutely defend your right to hold your beliefs. I also demand the same right for me and every other individual. Sometimes I feel it is a minority view. I sense that BSA also does not agree. My willingness to question persons who believe they possess the 'one true faith' is less a desire to reject than a desire to learn if, perhaps, they really DO possess the 'one true faith'. As you might surmise, most reject my queries...as I said before I am still working on it. Later.

I am curious as to what Swordse did to deserve the response he got from the next three posters. Have I missed something? I have to admit the response was troubling. It conjures an image of boys sitting around the campfire. One makes an honest heartfelt statement about his faith. Another boy then ridicules him with a statement about someone wondering if there really was a dog. His toadies join in the fun. Not respectful, not scoutlike, not particularly honorable. Am I wrong? I was Christened and later baptized in a very old, small country church that had a small, empty balcony. The balcony was originially built for slaves. The slaves were buried outside the church cemetary in anonymous locations marked simply by single stones. I still occasionally visit those hidden and publicly unknown sites. I was later raised in another Presbyterian church. I left due to their openly racist character, the extent of which I discovered during my work towards God and Country. I visited and left Methodists and Lutherans for similar reasons. Southern Baptists, ahem, need I say more? I was further astonished at the unashamed explanation by Mormon missionaries that the negro race could not be blamed for their inferior status... 'nuff said. I respect the RC church for their steadfast and solid principles but I can't accept the doctrine (or whatever) of infallibility (I also choke, so-to-speak, on transubstantiation). These faiths also seemed to roll Judaism in with their condemned but until much later I had no basis for examination of Judaism (result of growing up in the South). I now recognize the rich heritage Judaism offers and I hope to learn more. I have, however, thoroughly enjoyed my interactions with Quakers (Benjamin Franklin was the first and, arguably, the greatest American scientist). I also respect individuals who pursue the WWJD approach (I wear one of their bracelets as I write these words). I am very sympathetic to the Unitarians (now UUA) for their willingness to stand up for worthy, unpopular causes (the spirits of Thomas Jefferson, Clara Barton, Albert Schweitzer and others also make good company) as well as their inclusiveness and their intellectual approach to faiths of many types. I also very much like the Baha'i and their faith, much similarity to UUAs, accepting, peaceful. I am fascinated by Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism but I doubt I have sufficient years left to fully understand them. My long-time personal faith was begun as a Scout many decades ago in my studies of native American culture and religion. I am still working on it. I don't consider mine to be 'the one true faith' and I question anyone who does. My family always supported individual rights to choose a faith, no problems. My directions have been determined by a revulsion of religious-based hatred and violence...and a search for a better way.

I'm not sure about all of them but some of the vocal ones mention that they don't want to mess up the fashion statement they are making with the suits they have. This is sort of an unfair (probably inaccurate) interpretation of mine but it's the best I can do. They aren't embarrassed at being scouts, they just don't want to mess up the suit. Maybe we should require them to purchase and wear official scout bathing suits. Your thoughts?