TheScout

I thought I remember that scouts couldnt fundraise in uniform.

Thats what I mean, always check before you leave camp. With hundreds of cards a week it is often possible to make errors and some counselors are plain incompetent.

I was an Ecology Director at a camp last summer so I was responsible for hundreds of cards. They were all stamped with my name, title, the camp, council, and year in the couselor record, all stamped with my signature, and all stamped with complete. It doesnt matter if they are signed or stamped with a signature, its the same thing. If they were stamped with just "Passed with Camp" somebody should have requested a new card from the counselor because that is unacceptable. Same thing if complete is written over, someone should have asked for a counselor signature before they left camp.

Kinda a joke. Where is George Washington on the most influential Americans list? Also on the link they have Martin Luther King Jr. the 8th most influential leader of the millenium. Are you kidding me?

Yes. One of the requirements is to live up to the Scout Oath and Laws. He clearly did not. Giving him the rank who be disrespect to all the boys who earn it.

You have only one option. Give it to the CO. Its their property.

It might work better if the young man just asked the Advancement Chairman about it himself.

Everyone seems to forget that horrendous acts of violence committed by the Indians as well. The perpetrated massecres of settlers at Schenectady, Deerfield, and many other places. Indians also took violence on this scale to each other. The "native" tribe to my area, Western New York was the Neutrals. Around 1700s they were eliminated by the Senecas of the Iroqouis Nation to secure more hunting land. The campaign of the Americans should not be recognized as genocide. It should be thought of a series of violent wars by many nations to secure North America. It should not be compared to the genocide of Nazi Germany. The Jews represented no actual threat to Germany (except maybe in Hitler's eyes) and were killed for no purpose.

Because you are comparing the actions of American soldiers to those of Hitler's death squads. The comparison can only be made by someone with an agenda he or she is trying to prove.

packsaddle, the article you metion states itself, "Therefore, most mainstream scholars tend not to use the term "genocide" to describe the overall depopulation of American natives"(This message has been edited by TheScout)

I just think if the doubt is this big don't count it. Let the scout do one of the other options. He will learn something. It is not supposed to be easy, its a required merit badge.

PrarieScout, With all do respect I find it rather offensive that you call what happened to the Indians genocide. To compare that with what Hitler did to the Jews, or what happened in Cambodia, or Rwanda is disgusting.

It seems like a stretch. If you have to ask on this forum if it is acceptable, it probably is not.

America is great because we have believed throughout our history that God, our Creator has given us our rights. (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .) This is crucial to American freedom. Because our rights come from God, and not the government, no government can take them away.

In our lodge elections are only held January through March.

Good ideas Bob.

So sad that the once proud British scouting movement is abandoning the cornerstone of its tradition. Hopefully the BSA will be able to preserve its own proud history.

Boy Scouts for boys. Girl Scouts for girls. Who would have thought of that!

I had the county legislator from our district speak at my Eagle COH. The scout who earned Eagle in our troop before that had the Deputy County Executive. Both had great speeches.

Merlyn, You write, "I support the ability of the federal judiciary to stick its nose into local matters when decisions should NOT be made by the elected representatives" I don't think I have ever heard a more anti-democratic sentiment. I think the people should make the decisions through their elected representatives. The American people are not children to be dictated to. They are mature, wise, and good enough to make their own decisions. If you want to attack me for thinking that popularly elected legislatures should make public policy decisions go ahead, but I will stand by that belief. For two centuries many Americans have fought, died, struggled, and prayed for the right to elect representatives to make decisions for them. I think that is principle that we should cherish most in America. Also, since you say that equal rights for non believers in God is not a "crazy" idea, why do you and those who share your sentiments have such a hard time getting the people and their elected legislatures to agree with you. Why can you only get a couple of judges. If your cause is just the American people will support it. I believe the American people are fundamentaly good and can make their own decisions. Apparently you don't. Thank you.

Merlyn, So basically what you are saying is that you DO support the ability of the federal judiciary to stick its nose into local matters when decisions should be made by the elected representatives of the people. You cite that fact that blacks were denied rights for many years by local governments. However may I remind you most of the civil rights advances in American history have taken place by elected legislatures of the people. Congress and the States ratified the 19th Amendment to give women the right to vote. Congress ended discrimination in public accomoadations with the Civil Rights ACt of 1964, Congress ended discrimination in voting rights with the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Congress and the States ratified the 26th Amendment to give 18 year olds the right to vote. These decisions with popular support are taken by the public as legitimate more quickly. Look at the massive resistance to Brown vs. Board of Education. You should not hide behind the walls of the federal judiciary. If your cause is just you will be able to convince the American people because I believe they are inherently good and wise. I fear you must cower behind a few judges because they are the only ones you can convince of your crazy ideas. Thanks.

Merlyn, One could contend that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the states. That is a weak arguement as well. Currently only some of the Bill of Rights guarentees have been "incorporated," or applied to the states. May I remind you that the original Supreme Court cases following the passage of the amendment such as the Slaughterhouse cases ruled the opposite of what you claim, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to all citizens of the states and was only designed to protect the rights of free blacks in the south. Only later did activist courts seek to gain more authority over state legislation as well. I misstated the 1st Amendment "establish religion" Obviously San Diego did not do that either. Anyone who claims so is clearly just misrepresenting facts. You must also realize that clearly Mr. Madison's views were repudiated. The Congress elected by the American people hired a Chaplain and kept one for over two centuries and continues to have one to this day. You and I could keep bickering back and forth about this issue. The main point is the only thing that you use to back up your ideas is the federal judiciary. Meanwhile I believe such decisions should be up to the American people to decide through through their elected representatives. My question is what is your aversion to letting elected legislatures speak for the will of the people they represent and make law and public policy. You echo anti-democratic sentiments that you and a few judges know better and have more of right to determine policy than the American people. Thank you.

There is no constitutional bar to government discriminating against any religion or lack thereof. If discrimination is what you would call this action. This is especially true of state and municipal governments. I repeat the constitution says "Congress shall make no law providing for the establishment of a religon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Did Congress make any law in San Diego, of course not, this is a local government issue. Did any body establish a religion, of course not. The United Kingdom has an establish Church, so does Denmark, no United States government has any such institution. That being said, historically states of the US have had the right to establish a religion if they want. Massachusetts and several other New England states had an established Congregational Church until the 1830s when it was disestablished voluntarily by democratic means. This shows how the Constitution was written with the intent to stop the national government from making laws respecting religion, not state and local ones. A literal reading of the Constitution, the intent of the people who wrote it, and the history of the United States is defied by your argument. The only "precedent" you can cite is court precedent. What is your aversion to letting representative bodies interpret and make law as they see fit. What is your aversion to to respecting the will of the Americans who ratified the Constitution as a contract between the American states as something they could count on over time to stay consistent. No American would have ratified the Constitution if they knew it could be changed at the whim of a couple judges. Americans should not be slaves of the federal judiciary. It is only one of three branches of our federal government. Its jobs is to protect the rights of the American people, not to shove its opinions down their throats as they did in this case. No where in the Constitution does it say that a state or local government can not offer preferential treatment to a private organization if it wishes. Therefore the Supreme Court or any other court does not have the right to read that into the Constitution. America is a republic or a democracy, whatever we wish to call it, not a judical oligarchy. Anyone who wishes the government to do something should stand up before the people and convinve them. Any worthwhile measure will be passed by the people through their elected representatives in time. It is they, not judges who should decide where American society should go. Thank you. "The power, which has the right of passing, without appeal, on the validity of your laws is your sovereign." -John Randolph

The question here is one of constitution interpretation and the increasing large role of judges in our society. It is correct to say that our constitution limits majoritarion impulses in many cases. Such is true of the First Amendment that protects the freedom of speech, the Third Amendment that protects the right not to have soldiers quartered in your house, the Fourth Amendment that protects the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. The point I would like to make is that no where in the Constitution can you find a clause saying that the BSA should not get preferential use of state facilities. I imagine such an argument is derived from the clause "Congress shall make no law providing for the establishment of a religon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I hope you can see the tangental relationship at best between this clause and the decision of the judge in San Diego to stike down the BSAs lease. The people of the city of San Diego through their elected representatives interpreted the Constitution to allow them to aid the BSA. One judge stepped in with a ruling based only on tangental logic to the original Constitution and struck down the will of the people of San Diego. This judge read this into the Constitution, made up his OWN interpretation, and forced it down the backs of the people of San Diego. "The power, which has the right of passing, without appeal, on the validity of your laws is your sovereign." -John Randolph

I just think that the decision is not really up to us or the courts. We should let the people of San Diego decide, through the elected representatives, they elected to set policy and run their city to choose whether to offer any agreement with the BSA or any organization. Let the people decide throught their elected representatives. That is what our democracy is about.