TySim

Barry, Please do not leave the discussion. If you are misunderstanding something, that means I am not stating things clearly. Let me place everything in a concise edition for you, then we can continue. :-) It started when several older adults asked me (and another leader I found out) to join their touch football game. The CC said no, it was inappropiate. There was a meeting that followed where they told us (more specifically to me, since at that time I am the only scouter to actually have played with them) that YP says we can not play touch football. Furthermore, Scouters are not to touch scouts unless it is a dire emergency, like pulling them out of the way of an oncoming car. In private with the CC I voiced my opinion that that policy was incorrect. that YP does not prohibit it, and that because flag football is listed in the G2SS and all items in the G2SS involve both Scouts and Scouters, that it is implied as being allowed. The CC went to the round table the following evening, and discussed with the DE. The DE told him that it is not allowed, that there is not to be contact of any sort betwen scouts and scouters. (He cited the YP policy as the source for that) The final verdict at that piont from the CC was that Flag Football is ok, touch is not. I originally came here to find some type of ammo to refute their claims, and vowed to keep things posted. I have continued my research from all angles, and applied the same guidelines as are used in court (which are generally accepted guidelines in intrepretting policy by almost every organization) hence the NJ Lawsuit reference. The final result is that I am right in my assessment of what the policy actually says, Which is "There is no prohibition listed that prevents a scouter from touching a scout provided it happens in plain view of others (2 deep leadership) and is NOT inappropiate." However, I have since learned (as of today) that a CC can and often does make policies that define a higher standard than the BSA policy. therefore even though I am right, I found out that it is useless because he can supercede the policy.... I hope that gets it straight.

"You will never find any BSA publication that will say touch football is allowed. The G2SS lists various activities and actions that are forbidden" The point was not about Flag Football, and the G2SS does say Flag football is permitted. The point was the Prohibition of any Physical Contact between Adults and Youth. That is not written down anywhere, one way or the other. To date it seems that the issue has not been refined / defined / discussed at that level. More research has shown that troop policies / interpretations cover both sides of the coin... Several state specifically, no contact at all (Wonder how they shake hands?) Others say inappropiate contact, some say excessive uninitiated contact (there are several summer camps that have that wording) Therefore, thus far it is open to interpretation... As for the burden of proof, I beg to differ. "The burden of proof is not on the unit to show where it is written that touch football is permitted, but rather on your DE and CC to show you where it is forbidden. " The Burden of Proof is actually on me to show that the policy implemented by the CC / DE is counter productive and should be removed. The CC is quite within his rights to implement a policy like this (with the approval of the committee) unless the COR / CO forbid him from doing so. CC's have implemented other policy in reference to G2SS etc, that is clearly allowed by BSA but they decided they did not want to allow. A very common one is a prohibition on Sheath Knifes. Another that seems to be prevelant is the use of certain fuels (not propane) for cooking etc... Most CO's / COR's will not step in. I have yet to deal with this one yet, but we shall see how it evolves.

This is probably the wrong thread to post this in, but after reading several posts, I figure here is as good as any... The ACLU is an organization that protects the Civil rights of ALL Americans. This means that sometimes, those that think they are right are on the wrong side of the ACLU, even when they are in the Majority. I can sight several current examples, some of which are discussed here. Boy Scouts and Gays. The ACLU was actually split on this issue. First there is the rights of a private organization to define membership and requirements. Second came the Rights of Homosexuals. and Third was what defines a private group. The ACLU determined that the BSA is a private group, but is funded in part by money that comes from taxes (as in the case of Military BSA units and the use of a Military base, at government expense for the Jamboree.) The ACLU then decided that if it is publicly funded, that the Courts should decide if they fall under the equal protection acts or not. By bringing the suits that they have, they hope to define, one way or another where the lines are drawn. Nativity / Christmas / God in the pledge..... Religion and Government don't mix. That is a common theme in the federalists papers. We decided as a country to incorporate it, albeit less defined, in the bill of rights. ANY government facility whether it be federal, State, or Local, Does not have the right to push their religious beliefs on others. Turn the situation around a bit. Let's say the Federal Court House in DC decided that they were going to promote Pagan Holidays (And being a Pagan myself I can say these things without it being Pagan Bashing :-P) Suddenly you drive by and see a scene of a nude woman being chased by a Satyr, or worse yet, having sex with said Satyr. (for those interested, cf Pan and Fertility Festival) How offended would you be? Would you then allow your daughter to go on a field trip to that same court? In reverse, for us Pagans, It really is offensive (though most will never say so) to see Christmas displays that promote a Christian Christmas, but not Yule (Which is where 90% of the Christmas traditions come from) Examples of the above: Evergreen / tree (life amoung lifelessness and the promise of a rebirth - Sumerians et al.) Mistletoe - Fertility and Life (Celts) Carols - Long before Christianity, these were song by Pagans during the festival. I do not want this to digress into a debate on Holiday and traditions etc... I simply want to make a point that the Minorities have just as much right as the Majorities. And that is what the ACLU is there to ensure. You can try to make counter arguments like prayer in school, since everyone with a religion prays, but consider this... There are some Pagan Sects that pray skyclad (skyclad = nudes) You allow prayer in school in any form, then you must accept this as well. So when a 14 year old girl, strips down and starts praying, and the boys see it, and they get the hormones flowing, how many of them do you think will want to convert to Paganism? :-) Enough of that... God in the Pledge... I think that if the phrase, "Under God" was in the pledge from the beginning, it would not be an issue. But considering the fact it was added in during the cold war to show that the russians were evil and Godless and that we were good and righteous, is no different in concept then when Hitler espoused that all jews were evil because they are the ones that had Christ killed. It had the same effect as well btw, albeit no where near as deadly as the Hitler Effect (cf. McCarthy Era) I know a lot of you will not agree with this position, or with everything that is written here, but I ask that you be open minded about it and look at it from all sides of the issue. The ACLU is not going after the BSA per se. They are going after some of the government policies in reference to the BSA. Personally, I find some of their crusades to be dumb. I find some of their tactics to be despicable (such as lawsuits against schools that have a Christmas Play) I think there are better ways to accomplish their goal (Such as educating the schools on being non-secular in their holiday festivals) But then again, That is just me......

EagleDad, I think you misinterpret my purpose for including the White Stag reference. It was not to suggest that that is policy because they say so. Nor have I mentioned that to the CC btw. I simply pointed it out because here is a program that collaborated with BSA on incorporating their Youth Protection Policy so that White Stag could be recognized as being BSA compliant. The interpretation they made on the policy is the same as the one I tend to believe is correct. BSA does not have listed, posted, or available anywhere, clarification on this point one way or another. When that happens in any policy debate, the next appropiate step (as was shown by the court system in the recent lawsuit here in NJ) is to apply what a reasonable person would interpret. In order for that to be accomplished, one must look at all available interpretations available. Hence the reference to White Stag, which is as close to coming from BSA as possible without a direct BSA statement, since BSA helped White Stag craft the policy. BSA also helped BPSA (I believe that is them) develop their policy as well. Since they are now covered under "Boy Scouts" and their statement goes something like, "No Inappropiate Physical Contact", it again leads to the conclusion that a reasonable intrepretation is that there is no prohibition on Physical Contact. All of this I have discovered though, is rendered pointless because the CC has the power to implement (correctly or not) policies that Expand on the BSA policies (But not contract) Therefore if the CC says Our troop allows no physical contact, then that is that. My job is to beat him over the head I guess until such time as he sees the light :-P (Figuratively speaking of course.)

FScouter, I am aware that the White Stag Leadership is Not BSA. However, the policies they instituted came with help from the BSA and their YP guidelines. Since BSA members are encouraged to participate in White Stag, and the Two organizations have common roots (White Stag originated as a JLT course in Monterey Bay Area Council, and is the basis for BSA's Philmont and Wood Badge courses) leads me to believe that if they interpret it that way, then more than likely it is common interpretation (As shown by the responses here as well.) BSA does not state anywhere that you can not "touch" a scout. Even in their Scoutmaster training film, they show the SM touching a scout (he puts his arm around the SPL's shoulder and says something like "let's discuss some ways to work on this.")

I am not sure on the CC / DE thing. The CC deferred the conversation until later. I am assuming he wants to do more research. Meanwhile, I am slowly piling up information for him. This comes indirectly from the BSA Youth protection as adapted by the White Stag Leadership program. ----------------------------------------------------- Limit physical contact. While physical contact between an adult and a youth is not absolutely prohibited, as in congratulating a youth for an accomplishment, adults must be very alert to the appropriateness of any physical contact. It is possible that it may be experienced by the youth or seen by others as inappropriate. For example, as in most social situations, you should avoid bear hugs and limit yourself to "shoulder-to-shoulder" hugs, maintaining space between your bodies. ------------------------------------------------------- Their interpretation seems to be the same as most scouters I know, including a former DE.

Finally I know where this is coming from.... It seems that the DE has decided that ANY physical contact between the adults and the youths is prohibited by the youth protection policies. Funny, I re-read all of them, re-took the test (and aced it) and I can not find that anywhere.... However, I did make some headway. The issue seems to be that "Touch Football" involves contact where as "Flag Football" does not. Therefore, if I go buy a set of Flags for the troop, there should not be any objection...... We shall see how that goes.....

Still nothing yet. We have a meeting tomorrow night. I am guessing he will say something there one way or the other.

Just a quick update for everyone. I presented some of the things discussed here, along with several websites where troops put up results of their annual "Turkey Bowl" flag football game between scouts and scouters etc.. to my CC and asked him to clarify this at the District Round Table last night. He agree to get clarification. Hopefully I should know something today.

Oh, I just had to say as well, Anyone that thinks Judo is a defensive art, has never participated in a Judo match. Unlike TKD, Aikido, Godoryu / Gojoryu etc, You have a much better chance of scoring and winning being the aggressor in Judo. Aikido is definately a reactionary MA form where your opponents movement is your best weapon. But in a typical Judo Match, You pop in, try to throw, your opponent counters, and if you are good, you anticipate the counter before the person does it, adjust as they start it, and execute a counter throw based on his counter before he even finishes his counter........ Got to love that eh? :-)

With the ability of my old sensei to propel throw the air a good 15+ feet, I would serious question if Judo is truly a soft art (especially if there is a wall in the way :-P)

I agree 100% with you One Hour. I am one that knows how good I am at playing the game, and how dangerous it could be. The scouts in question are 15-17 range for the most part, with a few younger ones joining in on occasion. I guarentee If I was dangerous to them, they would not have invited me back after the first game. But again, your point is well taken.

Judo / Aikido / Tai Chi are all considered "Soft Art" forms. Karate / Tae Kwon Do / Boxing / etc... Are all "Hard Art" forms. BSA drew the line between the two (and for a very good reason.)

SemperParatus, You are a genius! That sounds like a silver bullet to me.... :-)

I was told that I was making "Physical Contact" with the youth, and that any physical contact is not allowed. He also went so far as to say placing a hand on a youth's soldier (the example was from behind to get his attention) or placing your arm around his shoulder (like is actually shown in the great video for Scout Master specific training) is also prohibited. The last reference btw was in response to an incident involving a youth that needed to be corrected, but not in an embarrassing way. Since he was in public, the leader placed his arm around the youth's shoulder, lowered his head so only the youth could hear, and told the youth that what he was doing looked bad to the others. This all within site of no less than 5 other leaders, and several other youths. The parent of that youth actually told the leader in question that she appreciated the method in which it was done (so as not to embarrass her child) But that is another issue entirely.......