TAHAWK

That some conduct is less bad that other bad conduct does not seem to be much of a standard for teaching values. "A Scout is trustworthy. A Scout only commits lesser crimes. We only steal a little." Is it really unfair or unreasonable to expect adults who agree to be models of ethic behavior for children to be willing to comply with the law. regarding stealing.? What would your Mom say?

Here is the reply to my email pointing out this article to someone we all know, a regular spokesman for BSA. He, of course, had spotted the article. Since he did not give permission to give his name ( and I did not ask) I present his comments without attribution. While I understand the sentiment, I do demur somewhat to "Webelos III." Dens spend most of their time meeting separately, an advantage over the troop-method and therefore tend to identify as den members.

We have had good luck in having the distict's SPLs/Crew Presidents meet as a committee to do the planning with the events to be sponsored by one or two troops. The sponsoring troops describe the event, including rules, provide for event equipment, and staff the event at the camporee or klondike. Two or three of the right sort of adults act as advisors resources and use questions to be sure the events are doable and the rules crystal clear. The committee of SPLs elects the "SPL" for the Camporee or klondike. That SPL is responsible for follow-up to be sure the sponsoring units' preparation is on track (part of each written plan is progress points), is in charge of the colors ceremony Saturday morning, and the awards campfire Saturday night. Maybe we've been lucky and people reserve the right to critique events, but there have been no major issues and attendance has been way up over what it was when a committee of adults selected and planned events and then begged and pleaded with troops to supply staffing. (Different troops running events AM vs. PM resulted is what were, in many respects, two different events due to different attitudes about judging. This caused a perception of unfairness, and pretty rough critiques at the meeting Saturday night.) We start planning eleven months in advance. Two months sounds like punishment, proving that "No good deed goes unpunished."

Agreeing that there are bigger crimes than stealing. And still believing that there is a diplomatic way to handle this . . . Imagine that the Scouts figure out that the Scouter stole the film so he could show it to them and that the Scouter felt it was not a big deal in the great scheme of things to steal the film - or that he feels stealing intellectual property is not REALLY stealing at all. One copy is only a misdemeanor, not a felony. Sorta' like shoplifting a $100 worth of stuff from the Walmart. What is the lesson for the Scouts? The FBI has its point of view. The estimated value of IP theft in 2014 is approaching $1,000,000,000,000.00, nothing to the federal government budget but real money to some.

Sounds like some good suggestions above. Ohio had a 35-year high for mumps in 2014. Measles hit a peak near 400 in July, mainly among the Amish and leading the nation. (One result was that the Amish decided to have vaccinations - a change in policy.)

"For those pro's remaining, this paradox, Recruiting does not increase membership, program does. If we build it, they will come - quality units (not Excellence nonsense) and local camps both with cool scout adventure programs." +100

Video: "The purposes of Advancement are to build the boys' confidence and self-esteem." [apx] BSA: "The steps in the advancement system help a Boy Scout grow in self-reliance and in the ability to help others." "Experiential learning is the key: Exciting and meaningful activities are offered, and education happens. Learning comes from doing. " "Success is achieved when we fulfill the BSA Mission Statement and when we accomplish the aims of Scouting: character development, citizenship training, and mental and physical fitness. We know we are on the right track when we see youth accepting responsibility, demonstrating self-reliance, and caring for themselves and others; when they learn to weave Scouting ideals into their lives; and when we can see they will be positive contributors to our American society." What I was taught: Advancement is a way of giving recognition for behaviors we wish to encourage. It encourages both the recipient and those who see the recipient being recognized.

In 1972, the two Orange County, California, councils recombined into a single council. This action seems to have been stimulated by the decisions of the two councils to sell their respective camps and build larger camps in more remote locations. The result of combining was a single super camp, surrounded by a National Wilderness Area, and a camp sinking fund that keeps getting bigger despite occasional "dividends" to the well-funded council's general fund. It claimed 25,803 youth in traditional units in 2013. Cannot find more recent numbers.

I too miss the bugle calls that regulated troop, district and council events, including summer camp. Scouts at summer camp were very quick to pick them up, especially Meal Call and Mail Call. Troop 43 had five buglers and an annual challenge system to fill and rank those five positions. Seems like there is not a fixed ceremony. Various Scout camps varied then and now. The military services do it differently. When I was seventeen, the First Division, U.S.M.C. raised the colors to "To the Colors" and lowered them to "Retreat." But when there was a band present, they played the National Anthem as the colors were raised or lowered. That still seems to be the case according to current U.S. Navy regs. At that time, Ft. Ord raised the colors to a cannon and Reville and when lowering them played "To the Color" [no "s"] and then "Retreat." Yet, I was told, Ft. Benning used the same ceremonies as the Marines and West Point did it like Ft. Ord. The Air Forces says: I witnessed the Coast Guard at Long Beach raise them to "To the Colors." Perhaps it's all good if it is practiced and respectful. (Just warn me about any cannon; please.) More bugles !!!!!

Again, I apologize for a lack of clarity. My research brought me to numerous fascist and racist sites that spout a torrent of bile about Muslims, not to mention about every other group other than them. Iwas that hate speech that I meant byu "hate group nonsense." That "nonsense" is a strawman since it is so obviously divorced from any objective reality. I thought that statements by CNN, the UN, the New York Times, and Her majesty's Chief Superintendent of the Constabulary were in a different, qualitative category as compared to, say, Storm Front. I should not have called Thomas Winsor a "cop." He is a lawyer and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Constabulary for England and Wales, Not a source to be dismissed out-of-hand I would think.

If you are not using "discrimination" to mean behavior that is unlawful, then I truly missed your point. The Unruh Act did not make the BSA's conduct unlawful because, the Court held, it did not apply to the BSA or such organizations. I have no doubt that BSA ignores me. Makes me wonder why you come here to address the generally-ignored. Just what is your goal? BSA probably does not ignore the WOSM and its acknowledgement of the atheism of certain religions. Yes. Every single Buddhist and Jain in BSA is an self-acknowledged atheist, publically acknowledged as such by WOSM and has NOT been kicked out by BSA for their atheism. Indeed, BSA recognizes their religious awards. Does BSA say so in so many words? No. That behavior has been discussed in this forum. Does not change the facts, (edited by Packsaddle)

Wicki has internal appeal procedures and has "locked" some articles to prevent what amounts to vandalism.

The ruling was in two cases in which the local BSA councils were being sued for alleged civil rights violations. Pretty famous cases. .Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America, 17 Cal.4th 670, 952 P.2d 218, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 410 (1998)(sexual orientation) and Randall v. Orange County Council, 17 Cal.4th 736, 952 P.2d 261, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 (1998)(religious requirement). These wins by BSA were widely publicized, especially within the ACLU. The BSA councils were found not to be subject to the law. Buddhists are atheists. If BSA didn;t know that, I pointed it out to them in 2007. For many years, It has been pointed out in the Fundamental Principles of The World Organization of the Scout Movement, of which BSA is a member. Buddhists are welcomed by BSA since 1926, as are atheistic Jains and Hindus. (Labeling them as "non-theistic" changes nothing.) Of course I have no examples of their being kicked out. That's the ;point. They are welcomed since deemed "religious." Your narrative is factually incorrect. Only some atheists are excluded, not the entire class.

We have an answer:

My fault. I was not clear. There was an announcement that a site giving all the rules about uniforms and insignia would be up and running a couple of years ago. The current "Guide" has been patched and patched, and is not a particularly complete or useful tool.

The degree to which a person becomes defensive when questioned and sulks when he does not "win" is one measure of being a "big" and "mature" person. Sadly, the "size" of a person has little to do with height or weight, and "maturity" is not a matter of years.

I was trying to distinguish between what are sincerely-help ethical or moral judgments and the law (as it evolves). I was not asserting that the two terms have the same meaning. However, because "invidious discrimination" (AKA "invidious intent") has repeatedly (but not consistently) been said to be an element that must be proved for discrimination to be unlawful, it does not seem to be particularly useful to say that discrimination is "invidious" when that conduct has been held to be lawful, even Constitutionally protected.. Obviously, the authorities in California do not agree, but I am not in California and they are not the last word. (Beyond federal decisions, please note that California's civil rights law was unanimously held by the California Supreme Court in Curran and Randall not to apply to Boy Scouting.) . The California rules mean what the California Supreme Court say they mean unless reversed by a federal court. ​The Chief Justice of Alabama dismisses the federal court decisions on gay marriage. We shall see. And, as I posted, that is the law, as changed by the Court, and will remain so unless overturned by the federal courts as violating freedom of association and speech. That may be unlawful if the club is similar to the Rotary. The decisions are fact-specific depending on the impact of exclusion on the plaintiff(s). However, the KKK, as you have observed, legally discriminates against several groups on the groups of "race" or religion, including Jews. So not all discrimination on the basis of religious or sex is unlawful. (A nominee for the USSC Justice belonged to a club of female "movers and shakers" that excludes men. At first she defended her membership, saying that the club had not acted with discriminatory intent because to her knowledge, no men had applied yet. She later resigned. The club still exists) I do wonder about judges in California who belong to the discriminatory Girl Scouts of America. Out I guess. And if the exception for youth organizations falls, why does the exception for "religious organizations" stand? The rationale for the decision about youth organizations amounts to a belief that a judge belonging to BSA could not project the required "appearance" of fairness to Gay litigants. This a decisional rationale that cuts in many directions. Atheist litigant and evangelical judge - or visa-versa? Suit between a Gay and a straight and a gay judge - or a straight judge? Turkish litigant and Armenian judge? (Californians may l understand this last better than others if they are old enough to recall the assassination.) Even if we disregard your statement that BSA allows Buddhist members, the objective reality is that BSA does not exclude all acknowledged atheists. I am sure that the unanimous California Supreme Court knows pretty clearly the result that they wanted. You will recall that they changed the law. What they held is California law at present, just as the New Jersey Supreme's Court's decision in Dale that BSA was a public accommodation was the law in New Jersey when issued. So a citizen of California may not hold a certain public office due to his or her lawful exercise of his or her right of freedom of association as arguably guaranteed by the First Amendment. For now. Ed: Interestingly, the USSC has very recently heard oral argument in a case over the constitutionality of a Florida judicial conduct canon that prohibits judges from personally soliciting campaign contributions. Such behavior is said to impact the reputation of judges for integrity. It is being challenged on the grounds that a judge has the constitutional right under the First Amendment to ask for donations under the rubric of political free speech. In 2002, the USSC struck down on First Amendment grounds state judicial canons that barred judicial candidates from discussing legal issues that might come before them during campaigning for judicial office.

The UK top cop was talking about zones inhabited by foreign-born persons where the police do not operate because the population elects not to use that aspect of government, preferring instead to be their own law, including , he said "Honor Killings." I have already said I have no personal knowledge. Perhaps the UK police official is incorrect. The hate group nonsense about Muslims is a strawman. Lack of policing in Muslim slums due to "practical problems" instead of acknowledged policy and practice may be a distinction without a "practical" difference.

I hope we can distinguish between thoughtless violations and knowing violations. I also hope that a calm, adult conversation would lead to an end to such activity. without hard feelings. Yes. Judgment is required,. Turning a blind eye presents an ethical issue as contrasted to a legal issue ("accomplice") Few jurisdictions retain the concept that failing to report a felony is, itself, a crime. There is, as someone else noted, the "Fair Use" doctrine. Copying a couple of pages for the kids is probably OK. Selling copies of a couple of pages is not' Porky Pig stuttering "That's all folks" to end a home-made video is probably also Fair Use. Playing the entirety of what must be a pirated copy is anther thing entirely. Speaking of intellectual property, I came across an interesting bit of language regarding BSA's ownership of the "Boy Scout" and "Scout" marks. The Congressional Record contains these words explaining why the exclusive right is being granted: "If any boy can secure these badges without meeting the required test the badges will soon be meaningless and one of the leading features of the Scout program will be lost. " Merit Badge mills anyone?

Well, I hope I am capable of logic. Logic tells me that since BSA's discrimination has been found lawful, it is not, as you repeatedly claim, "invidious." It's just discrimination, which is generally lawful. I fail to see the logic of your question. The courts have not found BSA's discrimination to be unlawful, hence it is not "invidious." At least that is so for now. Tell me more about this club. Is it restricted to Catholics, such as Knights of Columbus? If I am equivocating, it's as a professional, but I do not believe that I am. I am merely attempting, as best I can, to follow points of law that you ignore.seem to discomfort you. What I thought I clearly said is that only unlawful discrimination is "invidious." If I was not clear enough, I am now. That would, of course, depend on whether it was invidious - that is, unlawful. What the KKK is most infamous for is attempted and actual intimidation and murderous violence in violation of federal civil rights statutes passed over a long period of time.. Their targets were persons of color, Catholics, and Jews. They influenced government to pass laws found to be invidiously discriminatory. The, shall we say, traditional KKK has been sued to admit a person who had African-American blood, but I don't know how it came out. He was a happy Klan member, but they threw him out when they found he was not "pure" (as if there was such a thing.). I suppose they could argue Freedom of Association, like all the other groups who lawfully discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin. Or to quote you in this thread, "The KKK excludes non-whites legally." (We live in an age of miracles. One Klan, the Rocky Mountain Knights, is welcoming persons of color and gays. [not sure about atheists.] Brian obviously does not refer to that group. Perhaps this development is not so strange since George Wallace laterly solicited the support of Alabama's African American political establishment and of the voters they organized.) You have noted that BSA admits atheists, remember? On this forum. Buddhists. And they admit Jains as well and recognize their religious awards. So, its policy and practice is to exclude some atheists, but not all. . The ruling could not be clearer. The California Supreme Court, as a matter of state law, found conduct which the federal courts found lawful, to be "invidious." Whether that ruling will withstand federal judicial scrutiny is another question. The context, state administration of its own judiciary, complicates the case. Being convinced, even passionately convinced, of the rectitude and legality of a position, does not preclude being mistaken. The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is very clear that, notwithstanding federal court decisions, gay marriage is unlawful in Alabama. The University of Michigan was quite sure its "affirmative action" plan was lawful. ​ Now tell us, if you will, what are the most important aspects of the Patrol Method in your opinion? Like the new uniform? Favorite places to camp in Minnesota?

Say things like that, and someone will be unhappy and offended. The truth hurts.

Stosh, BSA changed direction because they decide Scouting needed to become more urban and less outdoor in order to attract the increasingly urban population of youth. Ignorant of the past, they failed to note that Scouting had always been most successful in urban areas and less successful in highly rural areas. Apparently novelty is a draw. The anti-military period was just before WW I. Shooting MB's were eliminated. Scouts were "for peace." General Leonard Wood quit the national board in protest. TR complained openly and bitterly. Then we got in the war and "patriotism" swept all before it. Nothing like that since. qwarze, got it. Thank you. You believe "invidious discrimination" as used by courts includes lawful discrimination? We have court cases ordering the end of legal discrimination? Why do you suppose that every example given in the quotes is a "protected class" as to whom discrimination is presently unlawful? Not a mention of "invidious discrimination" against Browns fans in Pittsburgh or discrimination on the basis of objectively-determined ability or "invidious discrimination" by the Masons who require professed belief in a Supreme Being for membership. Those who use "invidious" as a synonym for "I don't like it" are certainly free to express their dislikes, but they do not advance legal analysis.

New position patch - "Honor Guard." But it goes on the right sleeve: http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/01/27/honor-guard-patch/#more-31938 It is suggested that we be sure the Scout shop has the patch in stock before making a buying trip. Boy, that on-line uniform and insignia site would be a nice thing to have delivered on.

Unable to post all day. Ed: Well, maybe not. This posted, unlike several previous efforts to report problems. I'll try to pot in the threads again.

Yes, indeed. For some reason(s), Bill's contribution is downplayed. "Scoutmaster to the World" but not to the U.S. Yet he was the champion of elected Scout leaders, here and elsewhere.