Rooster7

This is what I know about the John Birch Society. John Birch Society, educational membership organization, which is opposed to socialism, Communism, Nazism, and fascism, and which strongly, supports a limited federal government under the Constitution of the United States. It was founded in Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1958. The organization was named after U.S. Army Captain John Birch, who was killed by Chinese Communist forces in China ten days after the end of World War II in 1945. Someone enlighten me (no sarcasm intended). Tell me what it is about this group that has some people upset. Specifically, what belief do they possess, or what action have they taken, that gives one reason for pause? In my lifetime, I have heard them mentioned several times before, often with the same sense of contempt that is being shown here. For future reference, I'd like to be educated as to why. I'm not necessarily a supporterPerhaps I just know the history of the group.

sctmom, Thanks for the post. I thought I was the only one...There ARE boys out there capable of being an Eagle at 12 or 13. I'm not saying that it's typical, but for anyone to say it's impossible is very presumptuous. In my original post, I inadvertently shorten my kid's Scout growth by a year. He will not have his badge requirements done before 12...I meant to say 13. Regardless, I simply want to reiterate that there are exceptions. I have met some 12-year-olds that were more mature than many 16 and 17 year-olds. Not only in regard to behavior, but in intellect and character as well. BTW, my wife and I home school too (for the last 10 plus years). We used merit badges to complement our curriculum like others have stated here. My oldest earned his Eagle at 16. He is now attending the University of Delaware on an AF ROTC scholarship. I foresee my middle boy achieving the rank of Eagle this year (he has all of the requirements except the project) at the age of 15. My youngest has poured all of his efforts into Scouting. He has a couple of medical problems that has prevented him from pursuing his first loves (football and wrestling). However, because he has been concentrating his efforts in Scouting, he will have his badge requirements done later this year (probably before age 13). I suspect that he will be an Eagle at 13. Every boy is different. Every boy has different interests and motivations. Some boys have a very strong drive to achieve and be recognized...Ever hear of Type A personality. To the skeptics, I'm just saying...Don't judge until you meet the boy. All debate aside as to how or why this boy acquired his 123 merit badges (stellar Boy Scout), I'm still impressed. Look at the list of medical problems that this kid had to overcome. He didn't give in. He found something he enjoyed and excelled at it. This warms my heart (even if there is some kind of discrepancy concerning the badges). You have to love a kid that doesn't let circumstances beat him down. I'm still inspired.

Truth be told, I started the negative tone in this thread. However, I think the proposal of removing the American flag from the Scout uniform ("Some things gotta go...) without any explanation is rather inflammatory. le Voyageur has since provided an explanation, although I still find it lacking. While I am often guilty of knee-jerk reactions, I prefer not to think of myself as a jerk. That being said, I'm willing to back up the truck here and start over. le Voyageur, welcome to the site. You will find many diverse (although not always politically correct) and passionate opinions here. Enjoy.

I'm merely an ASM. If I've misjudged your intentions, I apologize. However, I was a little incensed to see the American flag on a list with the subject header of "Some things gotta go...."

I don't buy it. It IS exactly what you're saying that offends me. World Brotherhood is fine, but it does not replace my country. BSA has always promoted God, COUNTRY, and family...not God, WORLD, and family. I love the United States, and it stands second to none. If that offends someone, than so be it. Intellectualize all you want. Call me narrow minded if it makes you feel better, but I'll fight you and all other comers on this issue. As for your military record, I am impressed. As for your uniform suggestion, I stand by my original post. Perhaps you intent was to protect our flag from ground dirt...But I really have a difficult time believing that argument. Try buying a ground cloth instead.

Why anyone would want the American flag removed from the BSA (Boys Scouts of AMERICA) uniform is beyond me! I find this suggestion contemptible, especially given the current crisis that our country is enduring. If you don't like the American flag on your BSA uniform, I suggest joining another unit, like in another country. Sorry, but I'm tired of this kind of garbage.

Stan, Most Scouters on this site probably endorse your sentiment. While I do NOT take offense, I do disagree. I have met some 12-year-old boys that were very mature. They are the exception. Still, they do exist. For the boy who truly focuses on scouting as his primary activity, the badge and rank requirements for Eagle are very do-able in two years. I agree with Brad Andrews though. A good project will likely prevent many of these boys from obtaining Eagle before the age of 12. I think your statement is unfair and does not take into consideration the will, dedication and maturity of some individuals. My son will have most of his Eagle requirements completed before his 12th birthday, if not all, with exception to the project. He'll probably take his time and do a good job on a worthwhile project before his 13th or 14th birthday. Regardless, I know without a doubt, his level of effort and the quality of his work on these badges, match those of older boys in and out of our Troop. In fact, being an Eagle has nothing to do with age. It's about learning life skills and developing character. That being the case, I know of some 17-year-old Scouts who have obtained Eagle, but fall much shorter in character than my 12-year-old son. If your concern is in regard to the badge work, then here too I think the statement is unfair. Some 12-year-olds are doing college course work. Why can't 12-year-olds be capable of earning 21 merit badges when there are some earning 21 credit hours at John Hopkins?

It's been done before...BSA policy permits it. I don't see a problem so long as both jobs get done.

sctmom, That's a great analogy. If a Scout is not wearing his uniform, Review Boards should act as if he showed up for a job interview in blue jeans and a T-shirt. In fact, is this not the reason why BSA exists...To prepare him for the real world?!

Congratulations!

Chippewa29 said, "Also, I tell them that is must include at least half of the troop and be approved of ahead of time by the adult leadership in the troop and the invitation is open to everyone in the troop/patrol." In my troop, only patrol members must be invited for patrol events. Why would you demand that the whole troop be invited (if it's a patrol event)? Chippewa29 also said, "For example, four Scouts in our troop are really good friends, so if they camp out together in their back yard one night take a day to go with their parents to an amusement park, it doesn't count." I agree with this. The entire patrol must be invited for it to be a legitimate patrol outing. However, if the whole patrol was invited and only the four showed up, I would count it. Andrews said, "Note that it can be a patrol activity, but applying the same criteria (while counting 1/2 the patrol) would seem reasonable." I disagree with this because otherwise a boy could limit the invite to his "friends" only. This would alienate the rest of the patrol and cause a lot of hurt feelings. It certainly would not be Scout-like behavior for the patrol leader. All patrol members should be invited (but not necessarily attend) for it to be a legitimate patrol outing/event.

Actually, I don't think we have strayed from the topic. The battle concerning political correctness is centered on interpreting what is true. Religion (faith in God) is a struggle that concerns ultimate truth. As to the article, if the parable's purpose is to promote tolerance for those who don't share your faith, then I fully support it. It is an "enlightened" attitude. On the other hand, if the parable's purpose is to promote universalism, than it is foolishness. Intellectually, these faiths cannot coexist. Few can. Nevertheless, the fact that two or more groups may have conflicting faiths does not mean that they must hate one another. In fact, most religions command tolerance if not love for the unbeliever. What I'm trying to say is - I do not support the notion that one must deny the truths or tenets of his faith in order to make others feel more comfortable. If your God demands that you recognize Him alone (even publicly), then that's exactly what one should do. This does not nullify anyone else's faith. Others are free to do the same (at least, in this country...last time I checked).

I thought PC meant - Please cease to be politically correct while utilizing your personal computer. At least, it works for me.

This is a minor point as far as I'm concerned, but I feel compelled to clarify. I respect all people regardless of faith. Not necessarily because of what they believe, and in many cases, in spite of it. In short, I do not respect all religions and beliefs. I do respect all people and their right to believe what they want to believe. Don't read too much in to this...It means what it says, nothing more. I can like and respect a person and not agree with or respect his beliefs.

Its Trail Day, AMEN. I'm pleased that you understand my point. We can disagree about what we believe and yet still respect one another. Dedicated Dad, slontwovvy, and sctmom, While many will disagree, the fact is, Baden-Powell wanted British youth to be prepared in every way, including for war. If one researches his statements, while he emphasizes citizenship, it was his frustration with inexperienced and unskilled troops that provided the catalyst for Boy Scouts. Of course, there are other reasons to learn to handle a gun, but there is nothing wrong with learning this skill so one may defend his nation.

Ed, I'm not suggesting that given any two belief systems or faiths that one must be right and the other wrong. However, in this particular case, sctmom is juxtaposing Christianity with Judaism. For one to be right, the other MUST be wrong. Logically, this is a simple deduction that cannot be disputed. Is Jesus THE Savior? Is He the Son of God? Jews say no. Christians say yes. How can one be right without the other being wrong? It's not possible. Who is right? That's a separate debate. I'm not looking to start that debate (although, as a Christian, it should be obvious as to where I stand).

sctmom, You said, "Jews do not accept that Jesus is THE savior. Does that mean it is just their "opinion"? Only Christians are right and everyone else is wrong?" One can argue about what is right and wrong, or rather, "what is truth?" But the bottom line is: There is only one truth. So, yes, both of these groups cannot be right. Their positions are mutually exclusive. Logic dictates that one is right and the other is not. Jesus is either THE Savior or he is not. This is not a pretence to proselytize. Your statement/question infers that there can multiple truths. That is nonsense. BSA accepts all major faiths of the world (as they should). As individuals we should seek truth, but it is not BSA's mandate to determine it for us (outside of the fact that there is "a" God). A Christian who believes he and Jews have no disagreement, either does not understand his own faith or does not trust it to be truth (which, by definition, would make him a non-believer and not a Christian). Does this mean we should treat each other with disrespect? Of course not! However, respect does not mean I must accept someone else's faith as truth.

It warms my heart to say, judging from the above posts, I am in complete agreement with my BSA brethren. Still, I'd like to add a few comments: 1) The "PC crowd" infuriates me. Why? Primarily, because their arguments position themselves as self-appointed and self-righteous caretakers of the "abused", when in fact, they are guilty of their own rhetoric. They portray everyone who disagrees with them as bigots or idiots. They assume without debate that they have interpreted all of the facts properly. Those who chose to see it differently become the accused. They claim to be protecting the defenseless from mistreatment, but in performing this "noble" task, they will slander anyone and everyone. We should all speak up when the PC crowd attempts to invoke their will. If not, eventually, they will create the "utopia" that sctmom described. 2) As to Christian prayers being forced on un-willing participants (per sctmom's second post), I have never witnessed this. In fact, it is quite contrary to what I have been exposed to. In the D.C. area, the PC crowd usually fights to ban all public Christian prayers (regardless of circumstance or place) because someone might take offense. Apparently, they equate hearing with participating. I do notnor should anyone else. If so, we might as well ban all speech. 3) Lastly, I agree with Brad Andrews. We need to be careful not to confuse perception with reality. We may have different opinions about truth, but there is only one truth (by definition it must be so). Consequently, these discussions can often turn ugly. If I claim one truth and you another, then one of us is either a liar or deceived. Since no one likes to be called those things, it often prompts a un-Scout-like reaction. Nevertheless, I feel we can have these discussions as long as we are aware of the implications, use logic to defend one's position, and restrain ourselves from emotional reactions. As an aside, on occasion, I am guilty of not restraining my emotions. Surprisingly, most posters at this site have not overreacted when I have done this. This has inspired me to some degree. When I have managed to restrain my tongue on this board, it has been rewarded. This is to say, very often the person or persons disagreeing with me, will concede a point or will provide a better and more agreeable explanation of their position. Patience is a virtue (just wish I had more of it). To those of you who have practiced patience (some call it grace), I say thank you and have a Happy New Year.

Mike, Yes, there have been some intense and passionate conversations. However, for the most part, people made valid points. On occasion, some folks (perhaps myself included) may have made a few hasty comments. Still, I found the discussions to be informative and helpful. Frankly, those complaining about unscout-like behavior have usually generated the most unscout-like comments.

Does that have to be notarized? ;-)

I'm not personally offended. I have been following similar discussions on other threads. It appears that several Scouters would have problems with this for the following reasons: 1) Weekly Uniform Inspections - Too much pressure on the kids...Or, may cause embarrassment. 2) BDU pants - Not officially sanctioned for a BSA Class 'A' uniform. 3) Push Ups - Some Scouters feel this constitutes corporal punishment (which is not allowed by BSA). Quite frankly, given this specific scenario, I'm not concerned at all about any of items listed above. How much do you want to bet that this discussion does not end with my explanation? My response to Weekender was a prediction. I was anticipating that his post would awaken some strong opinions and passions that others had already expressed on these topics (although I wasn't planning to participate in this one).

Weekender, You're going to get an ear full now! Weekly uniform inspections! BDU pants! Push ups! This thread may never end...

In an earlier post I wrote: "...once it is known that a particular boy is sensitive to this kind of thing, then I believe it is reasonable to ask and expect the other members of the troop to respect his feelings (even if his feelings may be unreasonable) and refrain from joking around with him." And "If a Scout crosses the line (while joking around), then yes, the Scoutmaster should reprimand that individual and take measures to console and reassure the 'victim'." Given your story, I feel you were a victim for three reasons. One, the adults betrayed your trust (it wasn't limited to the boys). Two, I believe an all night Snipe Hunt is excessive (it crosses the line of "being reasonable"). Three, after the first incident, the adults and the SPL did not respect your feelings (which I presume you made known). And of course, given these facts, your feelings were very appropriate and justifiable. I understand why you feel so strongly about this issue, but I still disagree. Certainly not all troops behave in the manner, which you described. Leaders should be alert and sensitive to the potential affects of a practical joke and deal with it swiftly (from either end of the situation, depending on the appropriateness of the joke and a given reaction), but I don't believe a ban is right. Anything can be abused, even a good cause. If we created bans every time there was a potential for abuse, then we wouldn't have much left to do except watch the campfire (strike thatNo Scout ever just watches a campfireIt's physically impossible). Not that a practical joke is noble, but it can create positive results (such as bonding), and when done right, there doesn't have to be a victim (in the true sense of the word). I don't suspect we'll agree on this one. As a baseline definition, you refer to all practical jokes as "humiliation and debasement" with no other qualifying statements. I can't help but believe that your past history will not allow you to ever see my viewpoint. I think I will bow out at this time. I can't define and defend my perspective beyond what has already been stated. I liked to end on this noteI respectfully disagree, but find your writings to reflect a thoughtful and caring person, I hope you see the same.

Sctmom, I guess my point was not taken in the light that I had wished. But if you want to pose it this way, "What does a woman know about being a boy?" - it is succinct and for the most part, accurate. Frankly, I don't see how that is arguable. It does NOT MEAN you don't know how to raise your son or how to relate to boys. It simply means you may not know or understand exactly how a boy thinks. As to, "This is not just a 'boy' thing". I never said practical jokes were exclusive to boys. However, very often how a boy reacts to a situation is very different from the way a girl reacts. As a group, boys do view themselves and the world around them differently than girls do. OGE, I realized you did not view it as a man/woman thing. I brought this out in an attempt to demonstrate to you that this is exactly the kind of situation that a Scout leader could use to teach a young boy about how to deal with others properly from a male perspective.

In our troop, the SPL conducts a formal uniform inspection about once every three months. More recently, the PLC decided that a Scout must wear his complete uniform (hat to socks) to every Troop meeting. If he is not wearing the complete uniform, he is not allowed to participate in the weekly game (conducted at the same Troop meeting). I haven't heard of a single complaint yet. It's not an issue in our troop.