packsaddle

Sagerscout, I would give the boy every opportunity to explore his own feelings through reading and discussion with other people who have struggled with this question. I agree that this boy needs a non-judgemental environment. Merlyn is right that there is an eventual risk but isn't that risk there anyway? Our last batch of Eagle applicants merely submitted the application with no supporting materials (at the request of the council). I believe that few persons actually saw the supporting letters and other materials. If this is common practice, it shouldn't be a problem. Swordse, I have arrived at this thread late but I want to welcome you to the forum. I have long admired the outlook of the Quakers and I offer you my encouragement. Please don't be surprised (or offended) at any rigidity and narrowness you encounter here...these guys are nevertheless well-meaning...but you know what inevitably happens when discussing religion.... KWC57, again I am reminded of the words of some of my beer-guzzling, racist, obese, etc., and non-religious neighbors..."God created me in His image, har, har, har.". What a great sense of humor! I was taught that this is, nevertheless, true. Fat Old Guy, People...do....worship rocks...don't they? And yes, that should conform to BSA requirements. I have personally seen congregations gathered at growths of kudzu that sort of look like Jesus, as if someone knows what Jesus looked like...h'mmm, come to think of it he might have looked something like Arafat. Like that image?

mk9750, Years ago while I was trying to grasp the rift between the UUA and BSA it became clear that while each organization agreed to disagree, the UUA, near the end, tried to accommodate BSA as part of an agreement to get the religious award back on the uniform. The UUA changed the wording of their pamphlet to conform to the stated demands of BSA. BSA reneged. Bob White is correct in his statements that BSA needs no justification for its actions...or any justification they wish. BSA is free to act arbitrarily and with prejudice and they owe no explanation as a result. My question is: "and this benefits the boys how?". My requests to our council for some clarification were met with a polite and nervous silence. I got the point and never broached the subject publicly again. Why? In spite of such issues, I like the program and I feel I can have a greater impact by working with the boys (this will be clearer later in this post). The issues are interweaved and the concerns by the UUA toward BSA regarding homosexuality or atheism have long existed. These are the only issues that BSA seems to recognize in this conflict. The UUA obviously disagrees (apparently so do the Episcopals) but they also see the religious award conflict as a 1st Amendment issue. The point I keep hearing is that BSA 'excommunicated' the UUs because they merely stated their disagreement. I have the pamphlets, old and new, and they seem to confirm the UUA rendition. The UUA stated in their literature that BSA policy is one thing and that UUA is in disagreement. There was no condemnation outside a simple statement of disagreement...in their (UUA) own pamphlet. The UUA in a compromise with BSA changed the wording to meet BSA's demand. And then BSA changed its 'mind' about the compromise. As I understand it, a UUA church still can be a CO (although it mystifies me as to why they would want to). I need to emphasize that in all this, BSA is consistent in their reaction to such 'avowed disagreement'. It is in the act of public revelation that BSA ejects 'avowed homosexuals' and 'avowed atheists', not when they quietly "know their place" within the program. And it was for the public statement of disagreement that BSA chose to reject the UUA religious award - 'avowed dissentors' if you wish. If the UUA had kept their mouths shut (so to speak) they might have been able to dissent quietly all they wanted (there is probably an object lesson here for us as well). Having grown up in, and still living in the old South, I recognize this MO clearly. Yes, I vividly remember sitting at the campfire as a Boy Scout listening to the leaders (and DE as well) discuss how racial segregation and discrimination was consistent with Biblical teaching and morality in general - those were really mean times and nothing for which BSA to be proud. I am saddened to report that those evenings made strong impressions that supported hatred and prejudice in some of the boys. It is clear that BSA enjoys the benefits of constitutional protection, they profess to promote similar values, ...and then they seem so unable to live up to them. But as Bob White is quick to note, BSA is within its rights to act unapologetically in any manner they wish. And this benefits the boys how? I react by trying to keep my eyes on the real prize - the troop and the boys - and I hope that time will do for BSA what it did for racial segregation and discrimination, still a work in progress but making progress nevertheless, one boy at a time.

Eisely, I am somewhat sympathetic to your idea. While my boys understand that their patches can be placed on their swim trunks, they are completely opposed to such. Each year the new crop of snorkelers and mile-swimmers file their patches away. It would be good to see some other approved form of display. They still go for the achievements year after year, but refuse to display the patch in the official manner.

Fat Old Guy, I'm not sure how to respond to your quip. So I defer to your superior knowledge of bedroom exile. Marty, I gleefully add that one to my life's collection of delicious ironies.

Just a note in case someone has some misconception about lemmings. If you were to stand in the tundra during a lemming population boom, you would be lucky to actually see a lemming or two within your search radius. The image of lemmings lunging en masse over a cliff into the sea was popularized by a Disney movie 'White Wilderness'. That image as well as other scenes depicting the results of overpopulation by lemmings were contrived by the film crew. See the link: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm The film crew purchased lemmings from Inuit children elsewhere and imported them to Alberta for the filming. (Alberta is not native lemming habitat) The crew then assembled them on a snow-covered turntable to contrive the 'migration' scenes. The lemmings were then herded over a cliff at a nearby river and into the water. Back to reality... Lemming migrations are real and they happen in response to population density and competitive pressures inducing migration to new territories. But deaths are not 'suicidal' and usually due to lack of familiarity with the new territories, or to predators. Or...perhaps we need a refresher on the Environmental Science merit badge?

btps, Thread evolution in progress. Anyway, something you wrote struck home with me. Many years ago as cubmaster, I made the mistake of allowing our local DE to speak at the Blue and Gold banquet. I winced as he presented a shrill diatribe on homosexuals and atheists and how BSA was confronting this menace (I am not exaggerating). While it was comforting to know his days as DE were numbered, that made little difference to several families who summarily left scouts as a result. I think you are correct. Most families are in for the positive things about the program, the things that are directly beneficial to the boys. Years later some of those families admitted to me their shock at learning this aspect of BSA at that Blue and Gold. They expressed no regrets in their decisions. The issue and the stance of BSA is 'no-win'. Worst part about it is the boys lose too.

OneHour, I would like to encourage you to stick with scouts. I have a coffee mug that beseeches me, "Don't let the turkeys get you down." I offer that message to you because we need people who care. Specifically, we need people who care about the boys...and if we give up we leave the boys to the turkeys. Try to take Bob White's message to heart. There is a example who is as rigid and by-the-book as I can envision and I can only imagine the frustration that he experiences because of that. But he seems to thrive. I also have to hold my nose on some occasions in this organization and sometimes I flame off but I keep my focus on the boys. That is really the thing that is most important. Give it some thought and, hopefully, give it another try.

LauraT7, I agree with your concerns about MBs at summer camp. My pet example is Env. Sci. where the boys finish this in 5 effective days of camp. I suppose this is possible if they do little else but I doubt such camps meet the full requirements for that badge. I have similar concerns about several other knowledge-based badges given at summer camp. I am still looking for the way to communicate such concerns effectively to our council. They haven't listened in the past. However, if enough of us make noise I think we will eventually be heard. The issue with the individual boy is related but it is also separate. I see big problems if parents do not care. I agree that this is where leaders can make a difference both by instruction and by example. But as long as we rely so heavily on volunteers there will be inconsistency. And I maintain that the parents are always the primary determinants of a child's development. The boy will always be exposed to peer pressure to take shortcuts, the easy way out. Learning to decide when not to yield to such traps is part of life and they need to learn that skill while such decisions have less impact. I wish them luck and good leaders to help them.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

NJCubScouter, I hope he arrived too tired to tell you all the fun he had. But you are correct in your anxiety. Eventually, he may encounter a situation, perhaps hazing, that will make him question things. It happened to my son and many of my other recent Eagles. In each case, either with me or with their parents, they reached a decision point: leave scouts or stay and confront the situation and see the completion of their goal. This usually occurs just before or just after First Class. If they decide to make the commitment, some time later while they are well on their way they discover that they are enjoying it again (usually around Star). And looking back from Eagle is an even better perspective. They may face this decision many times in their lives. I wish your son and you success.

kwc57, I think that Fat Old Guy was responding to one of my posts when he was originally signed on as Al Lundy and then switched. I can only surmise that when the forum switched his moniker it changed all occurrences of Al Lundy except those in the message texts. But I clearly remember username Al Lundy, and later my confusion at responses from Fat Old Guy. Anyway, I guess I don't have very strong feelings one way or another as to identity switches, etc. Maybe I just haven't thought about it enough. littlebillie, I agree. Although I've been hard on a few posters from time to time, I haven't seen a post from anyone I wouldn't like to meet, you in particular. Thanks.

There is little I can add to the excellent responses I have read. So I join by saying this is the 'character' part where the boy must decide what the 'spirit' means to him. The parent is crucial in providing support and guidance. The exercise is one that he will have an opportunity to repeat for the rest of his life. Good luck.

This line of questioning could be very humorous. When I went to camp as a boy, I was perfect (anyone believe that?). But really, I can't remember anything I forgot that was really needed. My son, on the other hand... Well, OK, one set of underwear (or other clothes) for the entire week is survivable. And you really don't need a flashlight. They don't normally brush their teeth anyway. H'mmm, I join with Ed on the sleeping bag thing. Also, a swim suit is tough to replace. If they are in open dwellings, a mosquito net is also good. If he forgets bug spray, he'll come home looking like smallpox. Scratch that, he'll come home looking like that anyway after using all the spray to create 'blow torches' with other boys. The 'personal stash' thing is risky. When I was a boy, a skunk raided my 'stash' one night. Right under my bed. I watched the whole thing. Scariest night of my life, well almost. Then after the skunk left we followed it to the counselors cabin and threw a bottle at it to make it spray. Great fun! The edited part: I would like to add, that extra towels are also good. Don't plan to ever use them again. Trash bags so you can conveniently dispose of all his fabric things are also helpful. You might want to go ahead and locate a burial site for the bag and contents. Check with your state for regs on hazardous materials.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Twocubdad, Connecticut is prohibited by law from promoting organizations that practice such discrimination, especially self-avowed discriminatory organizations such as BSA. I saw no judgement that BSA discrimination policy was bad or evil. Or did you read something I missed? Connecticut is simply prohibited from promoting an organization with such discrimination policy. There is no judgement necessary, they are just following the law. I suppose there may be a forum somewhere in which similar complaints against Connecticut are made by members of the KKK. Here is the solution I see: The state (any state) should not engage in such charitable activities for ANY organization. If state employees want to give to charity they should just do it...OFF the clock. The same goes for the feds (known as Combined Federal Campaign). Let all charities fend for themselves. The 'natural selection' process will be interesting. If the values of BSA have the merit that we all believe, then we will prosper in the marketplace. This solves the entire issue in my mind. A 'sauce for the goose' approach, maybe, but outside of having to contend with another wave of telemarketers (for charity this time) I see no downside.

scoutldr, I suspect that your good questions will not be answered. Or at least not be answered well. I have been asking, in different ways, similar questions that relate to one aspect you mentioned. I doubt that this is related to influence based on wallet size alone but I think your assertion of dominance by one group over everyone else is correct. But isn't that obvious? Isn't this common for any organization? I would like for the decision-making process to be made open to the membership. I would like not to have to speculate on who these influential persons are...or what they have said in the meetings to influence these decisions. There may be a list of names but without some accessible record of their arguments and statements, there is little that we can do but complain. Perhaps that is the intent. Remember, this is a private organization that can put you or me out for any or no reason.

Twocubdad, I didn't get the part where BSA's discrimination policy is illegal. I think it is legal in all states - that question was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Connecticut is not limiting BSA's ability to apply or enforce its policy. Connecticut simply declines to promote fundraising for BSA because BSA does discriminate. It's that simple, no judgement involved...outside that applied by BSA itself.

Acco40, 10-4 on those chips. But the designation of 'pie' I strictly reserve for food items. Let's see, cow-pie, that could be meat loaf? FYI, A couple of my other favorite euphemisms include 'meadow muffin' (another verboten food reference), and 'meadow mound'.

BSA knew the score and we should live with the consequences without whining and wetting our beds. Merlyn is right, a state should not promote as charities, organizations that would place the state in violation of its anti-discrimination statutes. BSA is still completely accessible to the public as a charity - the public merely needs to support BSA directly rather than through United Way or similar vehicles. Connecticut has done nothing to alter that and state's rights advocates should be in agreement. Remember this is BSA's choice, indeed demand, to go it alone as an exclusive, private organization.

We have had a considerable number of boys who (frustrated with other troops) have quit Scouts for a while and joined back again into our troop. It has been my pleasure to inform them that the partials they are carrying may, indeed, be completed at any time until age 18. These guys have become outstanding leaders in our troop, our gain was someone else's loss. Other troops in the area have 6-month or 1-year limits and I try to make it known to everyone that this is not regulation. They don't seem to care. One SM even retests his scouts on each MB and refuses to pass them if they don't meet HIS standards. I don't see the type of form as a problem unless it contributes to poor record-keeping, a big problem in BSA.

Eaglefoot, This is another example of why I believe a sense of humor always helps. Being one of your neighbors, I too have encountered similar situations, just not in my troop. Thankfully my troop is really good this way. I think there have been good suggestions for troop internal responses. My response to other angry leaders varies but most of the time those guys are frustrated and just blowing off steam. You can usually sense this and they usually don't really want to knock your block off. I calmly ask first, "Is that really what you want to do?" If this throws them for a loop (and it does most of the time) we settle down to a discussion of what they really want. If possible I work some food into the equation. But sometimes they do want to knock my block off. If it's a short guy I point out that even though he has the inclination, he likely doesn't have the weight and I just walk away. If he's really big, I try the Abraham Lincoln method (since I have the choice of weapons) and suggest cow flops at 20 paces. Then I walk away. Or run if necessary (I have noticed that usually the big guys in Scouting will practically die within 50 meters). And so far my head is still connected. FYI, this last one (cow flops) would be a good way to end another thread (from the desk of a pompous, arrogant, pedantic, closeminded bookthumper). But, come to think of it, throwing stuff around is mostly what they're doing over there already.

If she doesn't want the Chianti, I'll take it. But, ahem, it is also made in Wisconsin, isn't it? Just trying for consistency.

Rooster, "We are Bob. Resistance is futile." Magnificent! The best thing I've read in a while. ...or like the little dinosaur says, "gotta love him!". My vote: Time to kill this thread. See you folks elsewhere.

Saltheart, You were asked for an email address for notification of postings, etc. when you signed on to the forum. That is your private email. I'm posting this message to yours immediately after this.

Eisely, I guess some of us "shif'less skonks" are a little more "tetched in the haid" than others. The tough part is figuring out who's who sometimes. Dsteele has made a positive contribution and I, for one, am less likely to level a blanket condemnation at the pros as a result. That's progress, isn't it?

Yazr, weuns do! For a 'Snuffy' initiation see: http://www.toonopedia.com/snuffy.htm

The boys in our troop usually discuss this topic during the drive back. In no particular order: Food - ice cream (milkshake is good), pizza, fresh-baked cookies (usually chocolate chip). Hot shower. Television shows or movies or video games. The family dog. Sleep. No offense intended, but mom usually ranks after all that stuff but ahead of siblings and housework. Dad (if not a scout leader) comes in somewhere at about the level of the shrubbery around the house. BTW, they will act as if they don't like it but secretly they really love being smothered in kisses, called 'sweetie', and being treated to your own version of 'shock and awe' at all the bug bites, etc. They'll likely tell you a story about each and every one.