RobK

Merlyn_LeRoy writes (quoting me): >How does a military base chartering a Boy Scout troop require anyone to follow a religion? It isn't; but your previous paragraph didn't outline everything that the first amendment forbids. For example, if the military tried to create a youth group that excluded Jews, that wouldn't violate anything in your opening paragraph, either. But it wouldn't be lawful. The other things the First Amendment protects aren't relevant to this discussion (eg free assembly, redress of grievances). I have completely covered the religion aspect of the First Amendment. It forbids congress from forcing a religion on anyone, or prohibiting anyone from his chosen religion. No more, no less. Lawful or not, the Constitution does not prohibit the government from sponsoring groups that limit membership based on religion as long as membership is in no way required, and other groups can be sponsored. In fact, any laws Congress may have passed prohibiting it may be in violation of the Constitution if they inhibit anyone from freely exercising his religion. "[A]llowed" organizations are not the same as organizations run by the military itself. I've been talking about BSA units sponsored by the military. Your implication is absurd. The military makes available facilities, possibly some supplies, and a Charter Organization Representative. That is what they would supply to any youth group that wanted to organize on the base to serve the children of military personnel. It's not as though the troop is part of the military. As has been pointed out, the troop is run by volunteers on their own time. The commanding officer of the base cannot force a serviceman to be Scoutmaster of the troop, nor force any of the youth to join the troop. >If you wanted to start up Atheist Scouts of the World, with atheism as a requirement, ...which is impossible, since WOSM will only allow one Scout organization per country... So? What does WOSM have to do with it? If you want to start Atheist Scouts of the World, start it. This sort of attitude really gets me. It would also be unlawful for the military to sponsor a youth group that only allowed atheists. Why? Quote me the law. I've already shown that the First Amendment does not prohibit it. >Further, to disallow an organization with religous requirements from operating under the auspices of the military base would be in violation of the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the First Amendment. Only if the military welcomes all outside organizations onto their bases, which they don't. Military bases aren't public forums. That's irrelevant. The issue at hand is youth groups serving the families of military service people. If you were a member of the armed forces and wanted to start an Atheist Scouts of the World troop on your base to serve atheist children of military personnel which had atheism as one of its membership requirements, there would be no Constitutional inhibition. Essentially what you want to do is deny the families of military personnel their rights, recognized by the Constitution, to freely exercise their religous principles, whether they be theist or atheist. Is this correct? If an atheist youth group were operating under the auspices of a military base, serving only atheist youth, would you honestly support a lawsuit to force them to stop?

I'd just like to make a point about the First Amendment. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Congress is forbidden from creating a state religion that all citizens must join, and Congress is forbidden from preventing you from following your religion. Congress cannot require you to follow a religion, nor can Congress require you not to follow a religion. How does a military base chartering a Boy Scout troop require anyone to follow a religion? How does a military base chartering a Boy Scout troop prevent anyone from following their own religion or lack thereof? Membership in the troop is entirely voluntary. There is no punishment for not joining the troop. If kids were required to join the troop, then there would be a problem. Moreover, the troop is not the only youth organization allowed. If you wanted to start up Atheist Scouts of the World, with atheism as a requirement, and you had enough interest to get a troop up on the base, I'm sure you'd be allowed all the privileges that the BSA troop is allowed. I'm sure Campfire, et al. are welcome on military bases too. Further, to disallow an organization with religous requirements from operating under the auspices of the military base would be in violation of the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the First Amendment. (This message has been edited by RobK)

I've carried one pocket knife or another every day since I was a cub scout. I carried them to school through college, and I carry one to work. I've also regularly carried a Gerber multi-tool for several years now. My current pocket knife is a Gerber EZ-Out with a clip so I don't even need a pocket. I even carry it when swimming, clipped in the waistband of my shorts. Being without my knife would be like being without my left hand.

What's wrong with a group of men and boys having time together without women around? I doubt there are many men who want to actively deny women or girls the right to do things in a group without men around. And I really don't believe that the idea is to actively deny women any opportunities to camp. The presence of even one woman changes the group dynamic. It's a subtle change and women won't generally be aware of it since they can't know what it's like to be in a group of men without women. In fact men often aren't aware of the change. But that change is there. I believe it is good for boys to do things together without women or girls around. I believe that it is good for boys to do things together with women and girls. BOTH experiences are vital. I can't explain why this is so just yet, but I firmly believe it. (This message has been edited by RobK)

"Pedophilia has little if anything to do with being a fruit or not." Unfortuneately, this is simply not true. Most convicted pedophiles self-identify as homosexual, and in fact, most homosexuals were sexually molested as a child or had their first sexual encounter (a homosexual one) with an adult during their teens. Psychology in this area is so heavily politicized that you won't get a straight answer (pardon the pun) from almost any psychologist about it. If the data in a study showed that every single homosexual studied was a self-avowed axe-murderer, you'd be told, at best, that the data was inconclusive.

KoreaScouter, I think it is largely an American thing. America is mostly made up of other countries' misfits, the people who wanted adventure or couldn't stand to be told what to do. That's why we have so many more of these problems than other countries. America was the place to which those that didn't fit escaped. If America hadn't been available, these problems would've cropped up earlier and more evenly distributed among other nations. -RobK

I've heard of doing this with potatos and I bet it would work quite nicely with eggs. You thickly coat the outside with mud, then place it in your fire. When the mud is thoroughly dry, it's ready to eat. -RobK

Yaworski, Pull your kid out of that school, get him off those drugs, and homeschool him! Homeschooling is not that hard and it's definitely worth it. It's not even really expensive. What your paying for the drugs will probably cover all your expenses. There are gobs of resources on the net to get you started. The school your kid is in obviously only cares about having compliant sheep and they intend to drug your kid into compliance. Get him out before they hurt him anymore! -RobK

I think both Bob White and Yaworski have valid points. Bob makes the point that times change and we have to keep up with current technology. Yaworski makes the contrasting point that, just because times and technology change, doesn't necessarily make older skills useless, especially for fulfilling the aims of scouting. Let's look at ax and saw work. I just had a tree fall in my back yard and I needed to cut some of the limbs. I used my ax and pack saw and skills I learned in scouts. I didn't have to pay money to someone to do it for me. I was self-reliant. Ax and saw skills are still useful, even in the middle of a city. People will always own property with trees on it, and the ax and saw will always be useful in tree maintenace, professional or do-it-yourself. Baden-Powell put a lot of emphasis on tracking skills, not primarily for tracking, but for the observation and deduction skills that are honed by it. It was a major program point. Does BSA require tracking for anything anymore? Does BSA really teach it anywhere anymore? Coverage on one page in the handbook can not teach tracking skills. It takes a lot more than that. It's little more than a nod to scouting history. Tracking can be quite a useful skill though, even in the city. It's not about tracking animals to hunt them. It's finding old people with Alzhimers who've wandered away from the nursing home. It's finding lost children. It's finding a gas leak. B-P even gave lots of games for learning to track in the city. There are still plenty of good reasons to teach Morse code and semaphore. They do still have some utility in the modern world. So I don't have semaphore flags with me, I'll use handfulls of tall weeds. Scouts should know how to improvise in a pinch. Most of all, Scouting is a game. When B-P started the movement, many of these skills were already on the wane. Even then ax use and Morse code weren't really necessary life skills. Scouting is a game with a purpose, bait to catch boys and teach them to be better people. The game was going out and playing at being a pioneer sort of woodsman.

It sounds like what is needed is not so much co-ed scouting, but for GSUSA to get its act together and provide a real scouting program for girls. What are the Girl Guides like in other countrys? Do they suffer from the problems that GSUSA does? -Rob

"The other case I personally know of is my son's friend. He is 11, lives with single mom and 2 older sisters." This is certainly a boy who is trying to learn to be a man and is having tremendous difficulties. And how could he not, living in a home with a mother who is angry at men, and two sisters. I think he would defintely benefit from scouting through the exposure to positive male role models. Theodore Roosevelt wrote a good article in 1900 on the American boy. It's available at http://www.bartleby.com/58/10.html.

I'm not aware of shorts being part of the British military uniform at that period of time. Admittedly, B-P did put it together with availability of surplus clothes in mind. As I recall he used the uniform he put together for the SAC as a model. But he did design it intentionally to be suited for outdoor wear. "The field uniform looks formal because it is meant for formal occasions." The only problem with that is it doesn't look formal. It doesn't look like something I'd wear to a formal occasion. It looks like "buisness casual" office wear.

While Bob White makes a good point, that older is not always better, I must make the contrasting point that newer isn't necessarily better either. I still much prefer older uniforms. My ideal uniform would go back to essentially what B-P first instituted, a long sleeve shirt, shorts, knee socks with flashes, and a campaign hat. That sort of uniform makes the wearer look like he's ready for the out-doors. The current uniform makes the wearer look like he's ready for the office. B-P was intimately familiar with the out-doors and understood what sort of clothing was really useful.