skeptic

John-KC; I like your comment about exercising our right to vote. Unfortunately, choosing he best candidate is a lose, lose situation in too many instances. It comes down to choosing the lesser of two poor choices. And integrity in politics seems to be almost extinct in my observation. Another reason to try to keep the values and citizenship elements in the scouting program.

The anecdote about the world jambo reminded me of other changes in our BSA activities. At the occasion of my troops 80th anniversary, I received a few photos in the mail from the early 40's. They were sent by a 1945 Eagle, a salt of the earth man who still gives to the program in actual service at the camp. One of the photos was of a group of staffers from circa 1943 in the Sierras after camp was closed. As I pulled this 8 1/2 by 11 bw photo out, I began to see naked limbs of teenage boys. It turned out to be a very well posed, no "private parts" displayed, of the group on rocks next to the river. It brought to mind my growing up, when I learned to swim at the YMCA in the early 50's; Friday night was all male night, and skinny-dipping was allowed. Also, the locker room was simply male; there was no concern about impressionable boys seeing things they perhaps did not quite understand. Now, most high schools do not require showers after PE because they are afraid someone will be embarrassed or feel out of place. Which brings me to an occurence just last week at a cub day camp held on a Naval base. We went to the base pool, and had to enter through the mens locker room. You guessed it; there were naval personnel in the dressing area, and we found ourselves rushing a dozen 8 year olds through very quickly. Yet, we did not have to field any questions, or at least none that I know of. We come back to the issues discussed in the "Wimp" article. There is reason to be careful and protective of children; but we seem to have gone far beyond common sense and making normal life more difficult for our kids in many cases. They are not nearly as fragile as many would have you believe; and they often are far less bothered by the unusual or unknown than we fear. There needs to be a middle ground somewhere. Alot of it depends on us being rational enough to realize that participation in whatever we want is not possible. Sometimes we simply need to let it go, especially when to push it too far will simply destroy it completely. It took 20-30 years for the race issue to reach the point we now accept as status quo, and so could this one, referring to the Gay issue, not the God issue. But let's not "throw out the baby" by mistake. Personally, in regard to the Atheist part of this discussion, I simply cannot accept the idea that BSA should have to alter its basic tenets. If you do not like them, go some where else. You are not forced to be a scout or scouter.

There are two continuing areas of attack, or, if some prefer, disagreement with BSA policies. One is the Gay issue, and the continuing castigation by the PC groups that BSA are ignorant bigots, or living in the dark ages, or other complimentary comments. Yet, seldom discussed is the little pre-cursor to Gay, avowed; (avow: to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame ;ever ready to avow his reactionary outlook). If you attach this word to other areas, such as smoking, drinking, gun carrying, and so on, then you would have lots of people that would not fit the leadership desires. While that word is not used in most areas that might be cause for turning someone down as a leader, it only because few would ever question the reasoning for the decision. Whether or not it is true in most cases, the "lifestyle" image attached to Gays is not one that most parents would want to expose their children to directly. And while I cannot prove it, I would wager strongly that few of the individuals that are so upset by this BSA stance would actually allow their own children or grandchildren to participate in a unit with one of these outspoken individuals in leadership. So, the reality for the BSA is they are in a lose, lose situation with this issue. The PC position makes them scapegoats either way. Reality is that most units would disappear fairly soon if these individuals (again, we are talking about avowed) were allowed. And heaven forbid if it was approved, and then the individual was found to be a pedophile preying on the youth. The first thing out of the victims lawyers' mouths would be, "you knew about him; why did you allow him to be a leader?". And the jury would almost as quickly say, yes; give them some outlandish sum. Rock and a hard place. Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity. So, if you do not believe in one, then why would you even entertain joining the BSA? They do not require you to join, and you can do all the things they do other places, other than their singular advancement program. You can still be friends with youth in the program without joining, so that is not a reason. Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. This individual is more likely to be the one you would encounter, especially in the example given of the young man who, at 16 makes a decision regarding his beliefs. If, he is able to make a personal decision of this magnitude that he is, in fact, an Atheist, then he also will be able to understand the reason why he no longer can be part of the BSA. If, as is usually the reality, he is still not sure, but only reflecting a parental or family view, then he is still within the parameters. A serious discussion would probably determine that he knows "something" is responsible for the things that have no answer, but he does not know what. An good example of this is the quote of one of the Randall twins years ago that "Mother Nature" was responsible for the wonders of nature. It just was not the God that a majority of people recognized. Part of the mistake too often made is the idea that God refers to one specific deity. That is nonsense; and BSA recognizes almost all forms, even the vagaries of Budhists. Granted, a large percentage of BSA members are of a specific few beliefs, but the law of reverence does not specify any of them. So, why is the BSA singled out? For the very reason that they still actually stand for their foundational beliefs. And, while there are many who claim they are out of the mainstream, that is really not the case. Again, if you were able to actually get a true poll, one that was made without any political leanings, and could guarantee no personal attacks by the "radicals", it would still show a substantial majority agreeing with the BSA. But, of course no poll can do that, and people have become so tired of personal attacks by a small minority, that they simply refuse to get in the middle. These are observations and opinions. Please do not attack me personally, as I will not respond, and will simply block any such individuals. Feel free to pontificate all you want about how accurate, rational or irrational, or skewed they may be.