TAHAWK

"Are you involved in an official rewrite, or just gathering ideas for a proposal to National or a unit program?" shortridge, this is not a project of the Scouting Division. I will forward comments to the unknown person(s)at the address in the MBP. The requirements can only be changed by B.S.A., but the text of the MBP is to assist the candidate, as can any other material, according to its accuracy and quality. The "official" versions of the MBP and the requirements were apparently written by a committee. Either that committee did not reach a consensus or the MBP failed to reflect such a consensus. Please compare Reqts. 1 vs. 9 (insects), pages 26 vs. 29 (LNT), and p. 55 (re clothing) vs. p. 16 and most of pictures, that show t-shirted, shorts-wearing and hatless Scouts. Then there are the other problems. How do we make it better? How should the information be arranged? Anyone out there a WS counselor?

Another award is an interesting topic. Lifeguard. Emergency Servies Explorer. But that atill leaves the MB and whatever might be done to improve it. Some will suggest big changes and some only tinkering. I have a number of problems with the current requirements/book (I mean oak?" OAK!!) -- even taking it as a Golden 72 Hour badge vs. what Olsen created, but I want -- I think I need --to get input from other Scouters.

This merit badge started out requiring mastery of primarily a primitive living skillset, with a pamphlet written by Larry Dean Olsen. Over the years, the requirements and the contents of the pamphlet have moved to what is sometimes called "modern survival" - staying alive for a few days until found by SAR personnel. Assume for purposes of discussion that you are rewriting the Wilderness Survival MB pamphlet. How would you change the pamphlet and the requirements? (This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

I collect Scout edged tools. Until the last 18 months or so, they were all made in the USA with the exception of the "Swiss Army" models from Victorinox and Wenger. No more. When I was in our Scout Shop recently, I noted that the standard Boy Scout utility pattern knife they carried - THE "Boy Scout Knife" - was made in China. I wonder if this would have happened if Camillus had not gone under last year. Happily, the Cub knife was made by Colonial in the U.S.A. -- and the best Cub knife I have ever seen. There was also a Bear and Son lock-back that was significantly more costly than the Chinese lock-backs. Case also makes knives with the BSA logo, but they seem to not be sold at Scout Shops. Very expensive little things, they are. The market seems to be adults. There were also some very cheesy Chinese-made axes (cast heads and handle wood so soft I could dent it with a fingernail & grain all wrong). They were a fraction of the price of the medium-quality Snow & Neally axes also on display. Anyone want an exploding axe? This follows a general trend of production of edged tools leaving the U.S.

Gee Brian, I was not arguing with the Surpeme Court, I was quoting the Supreme Court. It is useful to read what they actually wrote instead of what the ACLU wishes they had written. The "militia" was NOT the National Guard. It was everyone, as the Supreme Court expressly noted in upholding a ban on sawed-off shotguns. More from the Supreme Court to follow as the issue is squarely before them on an appeal from decisions below outlawing the DC ban: "That would be an odd right of the people if limited to militias, commented Chief Justice John Roberts in the Supreme Court hearing March 18 in District of Columbia v. Heller. . . . Referring to the American Revolution, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that tyrants took away the peoples weapons, not just those of the militia. For the American settlers, Justice Anthony Kennedy added, Wasnt there a need for self defense against Indian attacks, robbers, wolves and grizzlies? In recent years, Kennedy is the swing vote in close cases. . . . The text of the Constitution already had a militia clause. As Kennedy noted, the preamble to the Second Amendmenta well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free statesupplemented that clause. My view is that the amendment guarantees a general right to bear arms without reference to the militia. And Scalia added that historically, English bans had been imposed on possession of arms by oppressed groups, such as Roman Catholics and Scottish Highlanders. . . . Justice David Souter found keep and bear to be a unitary concept what is served by bear, if you can keep? He quipped that you do not bear arms to hunt; no one in the 18th century talked that way. . . . The second clause of the Second Amendment, insisted Scalia, goes beyond the militiait is a right of the people. Why not acknowledge that? Kennedy stated that a machine gun is more related to the militia than the handgun, but the latter is relevant to the homeowner. . . . As is usual, the justices engaged in their own fencing match. Look at the murder rate, the crime statistics, anguished Souter. All the more reason to allow homeowners to have handguns, implored Scalia. . . . Justice Clarence Thomas asked no questions. But a decade ago, in Printz v. U.S., he wrote an opinion appearing to favor the individual-rights view."

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Note: "All males physically capable of acting in concert." In short, the "militia" was the people in arms, if necessary in violent opposition to he state and/or the government. The Authors had just lived that experience, killing the servants of the state and its lawful government in order to make the Revolutiion. The Ohio Militia Act is, as is typical, in accord, but makes a presumption that age 55 (IIRC) is the limit of physical capability -- drafted, as it was, at a time when the average lifespan was in the upper 40's. This was, of course, long before females (in all states) and African-Americans (in some states) were fully citizens . And if it's homicide, then the deceased was a human being. Thus, the ACLU must argue, and has argued in several criminal cases, that killing an unborn child cannot be homicide. This is necesary, in the logic of the ACLU, to be consistent with the ACLU's support of abortion at any stage of pregnancy and under all circumstances.

"The BSA might be the largest youth tolerance school in the world." Brian replies: "And I might be Marie of Rumania." When I was a Scout, we were picketed by the John Birch Society every Scout Week because we were supposedly Comsimps or dupes of the Commies. Why? Their signs said noted that Boy Scouts had racially integrated Troops (gasp!), raised money for UNICEF (?!?!?!), and had a World Brotherhood Merit Badge (LOL). My Troop had boys of many religions, including Buddhists as I have pointed out. We were "white," brown, "black," and "yellow." One of them was the son the the head of the county chapter of the ACLU. My how times have changed. "If the ACLU fought for second amendment rights with as much zeal as taking the BSA to the woodshed they may have some street cred." Brian replies: "They do, actually. It's just that their interpretation of the 2nd amendment is pretty much in agreement with supreme court rulings, so there isn't much to do." Hold on to that thought for the few months remaining in your fantasy that "the people" in the Second Amendment means "the state." Strange how the ACLU only has a problem with "the people" in one amendment only. In any event, Jefferson said the rights come from a higher power, not the state. The Bill of Rights establishes no rights. It prohibits the state from interfering with rights otherwise granted. One should really read what was said at the time about the right to bear arms. No respectable historian is confused. "Why doesn't the ACLU go after Uncle Sam for killing unborn babies by funding abortion [?] . . . That seems to be an intrustion on ones rights, to be grabbed out of the womb seems to be worse than getting roughed up by the local cops." Brian replies: "Well, if you abort a woman's fetus without her consent, I'm sure you'll get charged with a crime." Homicide?

David, I like where you end up; truly I do. But the legal argument that you present is based on a false premise. The First Amendment bars action by the federal governement, not private parties. Out of their experiences with the Church of England, the Authors were concerned about the establishment of official religions by the government. Later amendment extended Constitutional protection of inalienable rights to actions by state governments. In fact, the Freedom of/from Association guaranteed by the Constitution bars the federal government, with specific exceptions (such as "public accomodations") from forcing a private party to associate with those whose beliefs they reject.(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

The aluminum scare proved to be like the Alar scare - all rumor and no science. The orginal science on BPA leeching out of type 7 polycarbonate was done in Cleveland at Case Western Reserve U. Research showed that BPA, a mutigenic chemical, leeched out when the polycarb was subjected to very hot water and strong detergent. Animals kept in polycarb cages cleaned with very hot water and strong detergents showed highyl elevated levels of serious birth defects in their offspring. Those results, duplicated many times, suggested that hand washing at least sharply reduced the risks. Over the years, industry-financed studies found that there was no risk while university studies repeatedly found there was a risk. For whatever reason(s), polycarb is leaving the market. PET or PETE (Type 1 plastic) is apparently safe for repeated use. A number of "environmental" sites state that PET leeches DEHA which they say is identified as a carcinogen by the EPA. In fact, the EPA does not identify DEHA as a carcinogen and has approved PET containers for repeated use. With the withdrawal of Polycarb from the marketplace, colored PET water containers are appearing in increasing numbers, as I noted last weekend in Target and Walmart. I still use the type 2 (milk jug) Nalgene bottles that I bought in 1982. They work fine and Type 2 has been repeatedly found to be safe.

Our Council decided that all LEAD unit Scouters (e.g. SM's) had to be "fully trained" or no recharter. When achieving this proved a problem, part of the response was a nine-hour IOLS course authorized by the SE (which, per "Scouting" [magazine], Scouting Division has not authorized). There has been no suggestion in our Council that training has to fall within any particular date to count for the "fully trained" rule. As to Wood Badgers who took the old course taking the new course, in our recent course we were expected not to wear our beads (Makes sense to me.), but they go back on otherwise. After all, we earned them.

Dan, Maybe you went deeper into Google than I did ("wiccan OR wiccans scout OR scouts OR bsa") or have knowledge otherwise, but while I found several references to wiccans being denied unit charters, not one reference had a who, what, when, or where -- much less a why. Perhaps you can share details if you know or have access to them. As I recall the 25 unit rule, it was announced in the early 90's. There WAS talk at the time of Wiccans being involved, but also one-church protestant denominations. IIRC the Crystal Cathedral was involved (two blocks from where I grew up), and at least one predominately African-American denomination that claimed they were denied their own religious award on racial grounds. Again, you may have more details. As for Covenant of the Goddess itself, is it not more accurate to say that it ASPIRES to be the umbrella organization for all Wiccans? As in, does Universal Federation of Pagans, New Wicca Church, Pagan Allliance, Circle Sanctuary, or Sacred Well acknowledge CoG as their parent organization or representative? I don't know. I just found them via Google, claimed to be organizations that bring Wiccan covens together. Also interesting that CoG's religious award was proposed by CoG not merely as an award for Wiccans, but also for Druids, Asatru and Native Americans. Isn't that like the Greek Orthodox Church proposing that they set the standards and issue an award for all Orthodox churches? What would the Druids say about that? EagleDad seems right to point out that Buddhist Scouting does not get discussed routinely. I am probably the only Scouter in my District who ever had Buddhist Scouts - or Bahai for that matter. But if "atheists" are all those who do not worship a creator divinity, THEN BSA does not make things very clear when one compares the legal site and DRP, on one hand, and the official instructions for Boards of Review and statments quoted above about the acceptabiliy of pantheism from in the Lambert case, on the other. (Produces some of the same effects as teaching Leave No Trace and felling, limbing, and bucking in the same course.)

Brian, You assert that certain things are true, or will be true - things contrary to quoted, very express BSA policy on the subject of what "Duty to God" and "reverent" require. Then you say I - someone - anyone - needs to DISPROVE your unproven assertions as to policy, practice and future events. I don't think I have to disprove your assertions, even if I could prove the negative. I think I have the right to rely on the statement of BSA that only acknowledement of a "higher power is required and the statement in Lambert's case that even an aknowledgement of soemething as amorphous as reverence for "nature" would have been enough. I think I can rely on my experience with Buddhist Scouts in my Troop when I was a Scout and in my Troop as a Scoutmaster. They were very clear as to why they didn't join in prayer (no one to pray to), not that they were offended. (Two, earned more than one Buddhist religious award.) I think I can rely on the 88 year history of Buddhist Scouting and BSA's explaination of the tenants Buddhism. You disagee. Free country. I submit that you expressly rest your analysis on two things: 1. The lawyers said all "atheists" are barred, and Buddhists are "atheists" to the lawyers. Ergo, Buddhists are banned and will shortly/soon/sometimes have to go; OR 2. The BSA does not understand that most (all?) Buddhists are non-theists, like my fellow Scotus all those years ago and the Buddhists Scouts in my Troop twenty years or so ago. When BSA figures out what (most/all?) Buddhism is about, Buddhists will have to go - not just exotic Baptists. Implicitly ("Implicitly, because you will not discuss the quoted BSA statement on "God" at all, despite having been asked -- and challenged -- to do so), you must also be assuming that BSA does not really mean it when they say that any higher power will do. I say this because I respect your intellect enough (having read many dozens of your posts attacking Scouting) to dismiss out-of-hand your suggestion that belief in the power of humanity, collectively, is "belief in a higher power" in the sense that that term is used. No one at BSA has ever said anything to support such a strained definition, and the question is,, "What does BSA mean," not what I or Lambert or you, Brian, mean. Brian posts: "Are you an atheist and a Buddhist? You could be a test case if you are. I don't know if the national BSA has ever had to address this situation directly." Nope. I'm just a poor excuse for a Methodist, who has Scouted in units with Uu's, Bahai, Buddists, Shinto, Jews, Muslims, "Hindus," one kid who insisted for a couple of years that he was a pagan (about the time "Conan the Barbarian came out), and, I am sure/odds are, with those with no beliefs in any higher power whatsoever. They all help up their right hands, made the Sign, and took the Oath. Brian posts: "'Does not!" isn't much of a comeback. Brian.' That hasn't BEEN my comeback. I keep showing instances of atheists getting kicked out, and official BSA statements that atheists can't be members, and you keep ignoring them." Brian, you have not show a single instance of an atheist with a belief in a "higher power" being ousted. The only example you brought up where I can find details was Lambert, and he refused to acknowledge any "higher power." He was, at least at that point in his young life, strong in his non-belief in any spiritual world. Brian posted: "The way your question is phrased made it sound like you thought I was arguing that only members of Abrahamic religions can be members; in any case, I haven't been arguing that. By the way, no, I don't think it would be better. But it wouldn't surprise me very much." Sorry for the confusion. And I am sure you expect the worst from an organization you oppose so strongly and in often, may I say, colorful terms. Brain posts: "I'll take that as a "No." You will take it as you will. If I haven't made my position clear to an objective reader -- or even to you, shame on me. (Not that I think I'm objective. I can only struggle in that direction.)

This has been a great journey into true non-denominationalism. Boy do we need to work on our religious observances -- to check really carefully before we open mouths or even schedule all such for Sundays (And I don't just reference Seventh Day Adventists.) Brian posts: "The only thing I'm saying is that official BSA policy at national is to kick out atheists. If you're a Buddhist and an atheist, BSA national will kick you out for being an atheist. If you're Jewish and an atheist, they'll kick you out for being an atheist." Since you have the burden of proof on the affirmative of your statement, Brian, prove it. No, don't quote the lawyers on "atheists," That's theory, we don't know what THEY meant by "atheist," and yuor interpretatino (of their interpretation) is contradicted by the official BSA statements squarely on point that I quoted (and that you won't talk about) and 88 years of past behavior. I want real-world proof of "will" -- of actual behavior or express intent to act. Show us a Buddhist -- or Jain or non-theist Hindu -- kicked out by BSA or told he or she is going out because he or she is a non-theist - an atheist. Or show us a statement from BSA that, not withstanding the any higher power rule, Buddhists, Jains, or non-theistic Hindus are out. On my part, I have already pointed history. You just keep arguing, implicitly and expliciitly, that BSA for 88 years, and its religious affairs directors, MUST NOT know what it all means; like BSA thinks Buddhists are sorta exotic Baptists (Both begin in "B."). "Does not!" isn't much of a comeback. Brian. Brian posts: "bsalegal.org is as much a BSA site as scouting.org" It says that is is a site maintained "on behalf of" -- not "by - the BSA. It is run by one of BSA's law firms. I think you know that very well. You have been into this for years. I just got "here" this week. I have conceded that BSA can't avoid responsibility for what's on the lawyer's site. But someone as into legal stuff as yourself ought not to complain about being technically accurate. It is not BSA's own site, and it says that. And I just give more weight to generations of behavior (including personal experience since 1954) and express statements by the BSA of practices it mandates concerning questioning Scouts about the subject. Brain posts: "The "actual conduct" of the organization is to refuse membership to atheists. They refused the Randall twins and went to court. They testified in the Powell case that atheists couldn't join. When David Wise testfied in the Welsh case and mentioned that he, too, was an atheist, HE was kicked out. Brad Seabourn was kicked out for being an atheist." Oh yes, the tent-year-olds who somehow knew they were "atheists." A PARENT trying to make a point, using his children as tools. Not admirable conduct by an adult. What DID the ten-year-olds believe? Or tell me what dad had coached them to say. Did they acknowledge ANY higher power? You would know this to the last detail. The other two, who knows. I suspect that found them on Google (Like I just did. Gee, only three hits for Seabourn. Pretty obscure.) What did they beleive - or not believe? Did they, like Lambert, your other example (above), deny ANY higher power"? That would make them not just atheists, in the literal sense, but also not "reverent" because they refused to acknowledge any higher power. This last would differentiate them from Buddhists, Jains, and non-theistic Hindus. So if you have some proof that they were believers in ANY higher power, bring it on. Brian posts" "'Would it be better, somehow, if BSA actually did exclude everyone except "People of the Book"?' Now you aren't even making sense. "People of the book" is typically a Muslim term referring to Christians and Jews, so I'll suppose you're asking if it would be better if "BSA actually" restricted membership to followers of Abrahamic religions." And yet, I seem to have communcated. You got it in one. AND YOUR ANSWER IS? Brian posts: "But that doesn't resemble at all what I've been saying. I've been saying that the BSA kicks out atheists. There are plenty of people who are NOT "people of the book" and who are NOT atheists, so your question doesn't relate to anything I've been saying." And your statement ("I've been saying . . .") seems to me to clearly be an overgeneralization. Clearly the BSA kicks out SOME atheists and allows in those who acknowledge a higher power. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that BSA allows some atheists in and excludes others on the basis that the excluded deny any higher power? Is discrimination AMONG atheists not as bad, as bad, or worse than discrimination AGAINST some atheists? I would think that's not really a hard one for you. It's religious discrimination in favor of believers in a higher power, with all that implies. Brain posts: "I thought the issue was whether official BSA policy is to refuse membership to atheists. Please note it's possible to be a member of a religion and be an atheist. Being a member of a religion does not erase the possibility of being an atheists. ALSO note that it's possible to be a member of a religion that does not require belief in a god, yet some members of that religion CAN believe in gods." Certainly agree with the statements. "Hindus" are so all over the lot that it could be Western ignorance (and current politics in India) that lumps them together under the "Hindu" label. Even the theistic Hindus differ on the identity of the Supreme Being. As to the issue, as you have framed it, the evidence seems fairly clear to me. Brain posts: "And how about Jains and expressly non-theist Hundus? Are there any who BSA national knows to be atheists, yet allows them to keep their memberships? I'd genuinely like to know, as that would be significant." One knows from the unchallenged proof presented. You have to assume facts not in evidence to conclude they don't understand what they have been doing for 88 years or understadbn the words they have posted on the BSA website. And, again, why would discrimination AMONGST atheists on religious grounds be "significant" to a champion of atheism. Don't you want us to take the whole package? Brain posts: '"Gotta watch out for those those polytheists in Scouting too." If the BSA decides to interpret their DRP to exclude polytheists (which they could, of course), then yes." I guess I can wait to see if something happens. Policy and practice could change. Always possible. But its not probable to me that BSA will launch a purge of Wiccans and polytheistic Hindus when the rule is any higher power. You are in a position in the battle against Scouting where "viewing with alarm" is useful - perhaps essential.

Brian, I already addressed that issue. While I don't think BSA gets off blaimless for the site the lawyers maintain "on behalf" of Scouting, I continue to believe that the BSA's site and the BSA's conduct trump what the lawyers say on their site -- to the extent that you read "atheist" to mean non-theistic religions like Buddhism. I find that, often, "atheist" is, inaccurately, taken to mean void of all religious belief, not that a lawyer weould ever use the wrong word. Never that! But, Brian, you continue to refuse to discuss what the BSA says on tis site. You also continue to refuse to address the presence of Buddhists in Scouting for far longer than yuo have been alive. You will not address the presence of Jains and non-theists witnin Scouting. Is making your point more inportant than the actual conduct of the organization that you dislike so strongly. Would it be better, somehow, if BSA actually did exclude everyone except "People of the Book"? I do not see the relevance of you last statement at all. Probably just me. I thought the issue between us was whether BSA excludes those who follow non-theistic religions. Even if SOME Buddhists are theists (could be/don't know) the fact that all Buddhists are welcome argues that BSA does not exclude solely on the basis that one is not a theist. And how about Jains and expressly non-theist Hundus? BUT O GET BACK TO THE OT: How about Wiccans? "According to BSA spokesman Gregg Shields, religious emblems are the property of approved religious scouting organizations and are awarded at their own discretion. For example, he said the National Catholic Council on Scouting and the National Jewish Committee on Scouting each have their own unique religious emblem. 'There is no national Wiccan organization,' Shields said. 'So, that's why there is no religious award for Wiccans.' He encouraged any Wiccan group that would like to charter a troop in their community to submit an application to their local BSA council for consideration." You could always contact this Assistant Scoutmaster and ask her about it: "The Reverend Pamela Griffith, Previous Temple Director (Retired) The Reverend Pamela Griffith started on the Wiccan path over 40 years ago even though she was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church and attended Catholic Elementary School. Her paternal grandmother taught her how to read tarot and was and still is her guide on the path. She lived with her grandmother for a short period of time before her death and was constantly amazed at her knowledge of folk remedies and the way she just knew things. Over the years, Reverend Griffiths path diverted many times, sometimes coming to a halt. She was a commissioned Youth Minister, Catechist, Extra Ordinary Eucharistic Minister and Hospital Chaplain all through the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore. She is a wife, mother (of three adult children) and grandmother (at this time three granddaughters). She is active with the Boy Scouts of America as an Assistant Scoutmaster, Webelos Leader, Unit Commissioner, Merit Badge Councilor and Religious Emblems Councilor. She was initiated to the First Degree of Clerical Status through the Correllian Nativist Tradition at their Spring Lustration in Hoopeston, IL in 2004, and is now working on her Second Degree. Recently, she was elected as the moderator of the Washington-Baltimore Pagan Clergy Association. In addition to being the Chief Financial Officer for a small energy company, she has her own catering firm (Shamrock Knights), and Mary Kay Cosmetics business. Residing in Baltimore, MD, she loves to cook, sew and do crafts, especially with her grandchildren." Gotta watch out for those those polytheists in Scouting too. I hear there's a Norse pagan troop in Utah, of all palces.

Excuse me? I quoted the language from the BSA's website that shows that Buddhist Scouts are part of Boy Scouting and describes their beliefs. No mention of God or any deity by any other name there. Are you know arguing that BSA doesn't know what's on its own website?

Brian, I can't hope to answer your first question. If someone testifies under oath to a fact and that witness knows the testimony to be false, they have commtted perjury. I don't know what these witnesses knew or believed to be true or what THEY meant by "atheists." But if the issue is whether "atheists" as I understand that word literally --those who no not believe in a theistic diety -- are admitted to Scouting, the answer is that they have been for 88 years -- and still are. As to your second, rhetorical question, obviously there are religious or spiritual requirements to join Scouting. Given who sponsors units (and we know how that has changed over the last few years - and why), those requirements are unlikely to go away, however abhorent you find them to be.(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

Brian posts: "Tahawk, their websites and official spokesman have been saying for years that atheists can't be members; are you saying the BSA is wrong about its own policies?" Brian, I am saying that, for me, the BSA site's language and the BSA's conduct since 1920 control over the statements on the lawyer's site "on behalf of" the BSA. If you don't agree, that's your decision, but I think I have the better argument. You might directly discuss what BSA says and the implication of 88 years of Buddhist Scouting. Brian posts: "Also, Victor Iwamura, the chair of the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting, is still trying to "influence the powers that be" on the issue of Buddhists omitting 'god': http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scouting.issues/msg/15ed2e62c872ccad If atheist Buddhists aren't a problem in the BSA, why does the chair of the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting describe trying to influence the BSA on this as a "difficult struggle"?" Perhaps some Buddhists have a problem with the BSA's use of "God" because they clearly do not believe in a deity. However, I thought the question was whether BSA has a problem with non-theists. Clearly, by continuing, over 88 years to accept Buddhist (and, more recently Jainist and non-theist Hindus) as members, by chartering untis to non-theists, and by recognizing the religious awards of non-theistic denominations, the BSA shows what its poicy and practice actually is. I would personally prefer a more sensitive treatment of Buddhism by allowing a variation in the Oath, although I have personally observed that Buddhists are, due to the tenants of their faith, very difficult to offend and very ready to forgive. Calico posts: "'Mr. Lambert would not agree to even that, acknowedging no "higher power" beyond homo sap collective: I think the only higher power than myself is the power of all of us combined, Lambert told King." I[t] seems as if Lambert is acknowledging a higher power - the power of all people combined. So if we accept that Lambert is acknowledging a higher power, and yet he was still tossed out, then we must accept that the BSA statement that they'll accept any higher power is, well...BS." I do not accept that Lambert was acknowledging a "higher power." In common usage, a "higher power" refers to some force, influence, or agency power, beyond mankind - individually or collectively, such as Dharma for Buddhists and Jains. So, to me, the G may be a "higher authority," but it's not a "higher power." I hope always to allow that disagreement may be based on differences in understanding, not to condemn such differences as "BS." Calico posts: "This statement actually advances Merlyn's argument. Who else but an athiest would state they have no religious duty? As only an athiest would make that claim as it is a central belief of an athiest, then the BSA tossed him out for professing his belief which he comes by as an athiest. They tossed him out because he was an athiest." I was not clear. My understanding of the facts, from his description of what happened and the statements of "Scout officials," is that BSA tossed Lambert out because he would not agree that he had ANY religious or spiritual duty whatsoever. He would not acknowledge -- however broadly or indistinctly or informally or individually -- any "higher power." Had he said he was a Jain, an atheist, he would have passed. Had he said that he saw some non-theistic higher power in "nature," he would have passed. He was firm in his non-belief. It was his SORT of atheism that led to his being shown the door, not atheism per se. Nevertheless, he wanted all the benefits as if he meant something all those years when he affirmed his duty to "God," and swore that he would be "reverent."

So, Brian, you are down to, "They must not know Buddhists are not theists or they wouldn't allow Buddhist units, Buddist Scouts, Buddhist Scouters, and Buddhist religious awards. From BSA's site: "Scouting in the Buddhist Community Overview Scouting serves an important role in youth development in the Buddhist community. Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops, Varsity Scout teams, and Venturing crews chartered to Buddhist organizations can be found throughout the United States. Scouts can participate within units chartered to Buddhist organizations or as members of units chartered to other organizations. Buddhist youth have participated in Scouting for more than 80 years. Since 1920, with the formation of Troop 4 by the Fresno Buddhist Church, young Buddhists in America have enjoyed the benefits of Scouting. Organization The Buddhist Churches of America administers the religious emblems program for all Buddhist denominations in America. Founded in 1899, the Buddhist Churches of America is affiliated with Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha in Kyoto, Japan. The Buddhist Churches of America National Committee on Scouting works with the religious leaders of the Buddhist community to develop the Buddhist religious program. The National Buddhist Committee on Scouting works closely with the religious relationships director of the Boy Scouts of America to promote a harmonious relationship between all religious denominations and organizations. Religious Emblems Any registered Scout who has fulfilled all of the requirements for the Metta emblem or Sangha emblem can receive the recognition appropriate to his course of study. Metta Emblem. Metta is a Buddhist term meaning loving kindness and goodwill. This word was selected as the name for the Cub Scout religious emblem with the hope of nurturing boys to relate to all things with loving kindness and goodwill. Sangha Emblem. Sangha means Buddhist brotherhood. The Sangha emblem program gives the Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, and Venturer practical guidance in achieving the spiritual pledge made in the Scout Oath and Law, through the application of Buddhist teachings. The program teaches the basic tenets of Buddhism as they relate to the activities of daily life. The program stresses the importance of both harmonious relationships and the universal brotherhood of all living beings. The Goal of Buddhism The goal of all Buddhists is enlightenment through understanding of the reasons and causes of suffering. Awareness of impermanence and of oneself and compassion toward others are basic and essential elements of Buddhism. Buddhist Practices The fundamental doctrine of Buddhism is the Four Noble Truths, which are: Noble Truth of Suffering Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering Noble Truth of the Path that leads to the Cessation of Suffering The last of the Four Noble Truths is also referred to as the Noble Eightfold Path, which is another basic foundation of Buddhism. The Noble Eightfold Path is the practice of Right Views Right Thoughts Right Speech Right Conduct Right Livelihood Right Effort Right Mindfulness Right Meditation For more information, contact your local Buddhist temple or write the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting, Buddhist Churches of America, 701 East Thrift Ave., Kingsland, GA 31548-5222; phone 912-729-6323; fax 912-729-1699; e-mail viwamura@sbcglobal.net; Web page: www.geocities.com/bcascout"

Brian, I'm am not sorry to accurately report the directions for Boards of Review from Scouting.Org, especially given their application to the Lambert case. I know how the words "reverent" and "duty to God" have actually been applied in three different councils over decades. I know Buddhists have been Scouts at least from 1954 forward. I know other non-theists are accepted as members. I know the religious awards of non-theists are recognized by the BSA. It suits your argument to cite the words that you cite, to ignore others, and to ignore the facts on the ground - that professing nontheists have been, and are, admitted to full membership in the BSA. Your argument pushes you to ignore the official statements that "God" does not necessarily mean the God I was taught to worship. Mr. Lambert's case hardly advances your argument. He was not denied membership because he was not a theist. He was asked about meeting his religious duties at a Board of Review and said he did not believe in such a duty. (Perhaps he had not noticed the words in the Oath and Law.) The very article you link includes the statement by a relevant "Scouting official" that Mr. Lambert, in 2002, need only have acknowledged some "higher power": "On membership applications, Boy Scouts and adult leaders must say they recognize some higher power, not necessarily religious. 'Mother Nature would be acceptable,' Farmer said.' . . . "It can be part of subscribing to a structured religionor a more amorphous faith in some presence greater than ourselves. Mr. Lambert would not agree to even that, acknowedging no "higher power" beyond homo sap collective: I think the only higher power than myself is the power of all of us combined, Lambert told King." This was his right. It excluded him from membrship in the BSA. You have quite accurately quoted words from the legal site maintained "on behalf of" the BSA -- whatever "atheist" means to them. But when any words there conflict, or appear to conflict, with statements by the BSA, I take it that the latter controls over the former, especially when some professing non-theists have been accepted by Scouting for generations and are still, to this very date, accepted. And who does that irritate more, Brian?(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

Mr. LeRoy writes: Here's what the official BSA legal website says: http://www.bsalegal.org/faqs-195.asp 'Q. Can an individual who states that he does not believe in God be a volunteer Scout leader or member? A. No. The Scout Oath represents the basic values of Scouting, and it addresses the issue of duty to God before duty to country, others, and self.' . . . BSA reps have stated under oath in court that atheists cannot be members. I think the BSA doesn't realize that Buddhists, Jainists, Hindus, Jews, etc. can also be atheists." Mr. LeRoy, we had Buddhist Scouts in my Troop in 1954. I suspect that however slow some might be, the fact that Buddhists recognize no supreme creator has probably come to the attention of the BSA in fifty-four years. In any event, and I'm sure someone with your focus on this issue knows, the instructions for Boards of Review state: "The Boy Scouts of America does not define God for a Scout, nor does it interpret God's rules. Those are matters, as said above, left to home and to the religious body to which the Scout belongs. The board of review does not serve as an inquisition into the correctness of a Scout's perceptions, rather it seeks to determine whether the Scout has fulfilled his duty in a way he sees fit, keeping in mind his profession of a particular faith. Discussion of a Scout's religion is very appropriate at a board of review, but it should be done with respect and appreciation for the variety of faiths and beliefs in the United States. An open-ended question like "How do you honor the 12th point of the Scout Law?" will allow the boy to discuss his religious beliefs. A blunt "Do you believe in God?" should be avoided as there are some religions that do not use the name "God" for their supreme being or higher power. A Scout may fulfill this duty without being a member of a particular denomination or religion. In these cases, a board will want to understand, through informal discussion, what a Scout feels about this particular duty, how he sees himself in relation to his beliefs, and how he fulfills them. It is very common for adolescent boys to question religion, particularly formal religion. If a candidate indicates that he is not certain about religion, the board should ask how he is trying address his uncertainty and to fulfill his duty to God." In short, ScoutersMom nailed it. Theism is not the test and has not been for a couple of generations. Still don't know whom this bothers the most.

"tahawk, Merlyn is correct: BSA official have stated repeatedly that theism *IS* a requirement for membership. Except, of course, for Buddhists, whom BSA evidently doesn't think are really atheists. Maybe BSA thinks there are "good" atheists and "bad" atheists?" But there is no such requirement in fact. I think Scouting still struggles with defining "reverent" and "duty to God" without offending some within Scouting. Some feel their particular religious view is correct to the exclusion of all others. They explicitly or implicitly weave their view into speaking about "reverent." While ignoring the elephant in the living room is a proven human ability, Buddhists, Jainists, and non-theist Hindus are in Scouting and their religious awards are recognized by Scouting. Therefore, for anyone to say that Scouting requires theism in its members is simply inaccurate. Not sure who that bothers more, theists or other atheists.

"my posts in this forum are not how I oppose illegal acts by the BSA; I worked with the ACLU to end charters to discriminatory BSA units by government entities, but as the Maryland DNR Venture Crew shows, the BSA hasn't quite lived up to their promise to recharter all such units. BSA officials have stated a number of times that theism is a requirement for membership. My remark about whether the BSA allows polytheists to be members was in response to John-In-KC, pointing out that the DRP could easily be interpreted to exclude polytheists, and the BSA can decide to interpret any of their requirements to exclude pretty much anyone they want" Well, your first post says something about what you are not doing here. But why ARE you here? I guess over the decades I have seen "BSA officials" say things that were not accurate -- also U.S. Presidents, university presidents, media figures, UN officals, and ACLU officials. And folks can always "interpret" language to fit their beliefs or prejudices or hatreds. However, BSA has allowed non-theists to be members -- at least since I joined in 1954, and BSA offically recognizes their religious awards -- and did in 1954 IIRC. That would seem to be that, so far as theism being required goes.

Mr. LeRoy, perhaps you explain to a relative newcomer how your posts in this thread are part of an effort to prevent violation of the law by the BSA. Is this an effort, for example, to reach decision-makers at the BSA and to convince them to different behavior from that which you attribute to them? My belief is that the BSA does not require theism, much less monotheism. If it did, BSA would not charter Buddhist units nor recognize a Buddhist religious award.

The original question asked about the "troop" and insurance coverage. In almost all cases, a troop is not an entity - a person at law. Thus, it cannot typically be sued or held liable for any wrongdoing. The CO is typically an entity and Scout leaders are persons. As such they may be sued and held liable. Why is "insurance" helpful? For two features. 1. Payment of costs of defense (attorney fees, court costs, and other costs of defense). 2. Payment of any judgment against the defendant ("indemnity"). (The first is important even if the defendant is not legally at fault - "wins" the case. This is so because in the U.S. we usually do not allow a winning defendant to recover costs of defense from the losing plaintiff. As noted, anyone can be sued for anything. Satan has been sued in Federal Court, although the case was dismissed for failure of service of process on Satan.) The general liability insurance provided by the BSA, according to my council, covers the CO as primary insurance and Scouters as secondary to any insurance they have (kicks in when you exhaust your personal coverage) regardless of whether you followed Scouting rules or not UNLESS you acted intentionally or criminally. I see nothing contrary at Scouting.org "Due diligence" can be used instead of "ordinary care," although that is not the typical use of the term. Intentional or criminal misconduct goes beyond acting without "due diligence" or acting without "ordinary care' (AKA "negligence"). In no sense is the exclusion for intentional or criminal misconduct related to any issue of "due diligence." My Council rep cannot find "due diligence" in the policy. In many states, such as Ohio, this exclusion is a moot point because insurance (a contract to defend and indemnify) to protect against intentional acts is an illegal and uninforceable contract. But note that negligent vehicular homicide is a felony in many states. All that being the case, good training should reduce the risk of injuries and, therefore, the BSA should offer good training and Scouters should eagerly take such training. So I am left to muse on: Axes (can remove body parts) 1/3 of 60 minutes at weekend or two-day IOLS course (30 minutes at my council's exec's "eliminate the fluff" nine hour course) 1 page of technique in the BSHB Nothing in the current Field Book Currently, no regular intermediate or advanced training in use of axes. We could do better, and locally are proposing to do so.

Is it not true that the BSA has had to spend extra time on the "Clean" point as well? I think Beavah nailed it. Get massively attacked on one of your values and you spend time explaining (NOT explaining away)and defending that value. (And reincarnation is very much a Buddhist "thing" as well.)