Vicki

Eamonn, your description of Rory's antics brought back memories of our beloved Sophie - the most wonderful Golden that ever lived. Not that I am biased, of course. Especially seeing the first yellow flower before he ate it. I laughed out loud. Our first harbinger of spring (and fall) was when the geese would fly over - sure enough, she heard them long before any of us and into point she went. Then she would give us the funniest look as if to say, "well, I did my part, now you do yours and shoot the darn thing, OK?" Thanks, Vicki

DengarOne, I hope you got some resolution at Friday's meeting. I can possibly shed some light on the "adult patrol method" - we did not use this term but during my Wood Badge course the trainers emphasized that as "adults" we were using the "patrol method" during the course in order to understand how the patrol method works. We also used the "patrol method" during leader training. BW, our council most definitely still uses the patrol method as part of Wood Badge (C-12-04 was my course - beads awarded 3/10). I understand that National would prefer to de-emphasize it and perhaps, as compared to the old WB, it has been de-emphasized. I have no basis for comparison. But during our course last fall we ate, slept, learned and performed as a patrol. Vicki

Logo, purpose, membership, etc. are all exactly the same too - I think they just updated their website but didn't say so. Vicki

Are you sure they're not the same organization? The name is the same and is indicated as "registered" on the second website. The calendar on the older looking website was last updated in January, 2004 - the newer looking website started its calendar in October, 2004. Didn't do too much other digging... Vicki

We use the Requirements Book as mentioned in earlier posts. We also rely on the MB counselors to handle their merit badges appropriately based on the information in hand at the time. For instance, a MB counselor did not receive the updated Cit in the Community requirements prior to an initial conversation with a scout. He knew the requirements had changed but not the details. He allowed that scout to work on the merit badge using the old requirements. Seemed fair enough to me. Vicki

Whoops, yep, one word. Fell back on an old habit. Hate it when that happens:

Google it! Type http://www.google.com, type Woodbadge in for your search (one word - not two), that's how it's spelled. Start reading. Stop when your eyes fall out or you have all the info you need. Vicki

We handle our schedule very much as sst3rd does. While the committee/Scoutmasters don't do the planning, we do provide the PLC with the open dates and suggestions. As a fifty year old troop, a lot of things we have done in the past aren't things current scouts would know about. I guess our troop is so "into OA" that it wouldn't even occur to us NOT to try to plan around major OA events. It happens and we don't sweat it, we just realize that we'll get mostly younger scouts on that outing and plan accordingly. Sounds like the "administrative" people are forgetting where they stand in the larger picture - they are the tail trying to wag the dog on this one, IMO. Vicki

Fuzzy, Trevorum - just happened in on this thread, and yes, there is an answer on the "Buddhist question":

Zippie, glad it turned out OK - I don't know how many school fairs you're dealing with, but we have found it worth the effort to have our school calendar and community calendar in front of us when we do planning...we missed the boat on one this year and had to reschedule a campout because the high school graduation was that weekend. Vicki

EagerLeader wrote >As I said, I plead ignorance to the Declaration of Religious Principle. When I filled out my DL application there was no cover sheet to it, which is where the Declaration of Religious Principle appears. Had I seen it and read it, I never would have signed it. snip..Apparently, I am not a good enough citizen to qualify as a leader.> LilLeo 67 wrote>I think you need to ask yourself...Are you a good person? An honest person? Open-minded & enjoy having fun with the kids? That's what these boys needs. > LilLeo, the BSA organization does not agree with you. According to the BSA, these boys also need individuals who can sign the Declaration of Religious Principle honestly. You can. EagerLeader, by his own admission quoted above, can't. It has nothing to do with whether or not one is a good person or a good citizen. Atheists can be both good people and good citizens. With the eight pages of posts on this topic (which have been very interesting) you have brought us full circle and that's the bottom line as far as the BSA in concerned. Vicki

Prairie Scouter wrote >Question. How does BSA's status as a private organization affect their hiring policies for their own employees? > I don't understand this question. IMO, BSA hiring policies would be under EEOC regs just like anybody else. For instance, and I think this is where you're going with this but correct me if I'm wrong - if the BSA could establish that belief in a supreme being and fulfillment of duty to same were BFOQs (Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications) to being employed by the BSA, then they could hire only those with such beliefs. That BFOQ could be established if all employees are required to cite the Scout Oath and Law. It may be that only those employees required to wear the uniform would fall under that requirement, thus the custodial staff would not. Vicki

Prairie Scouter wrote >Do you think it's possible to separate the actions of BSA's national office from the local Scouting units? > I don't think it is possible. The local Scouting unit, while chartered to a CO, gets its identity from the National organization - hence the ability to use the name "Boy Scouts of America" and all the associated materials instead of being "Boys Associated with ABC Church." As National goes, so do we. Can't have it both ways. Vicki

FB - and they're off! (although I guess that's more of a horse racing term:

FB wrote >they are not guilty of anything more than being behind the changing times, a far cry from criminal or charges of immorality.> In this age of moral relativism, I don't consider it to be a "bad thing" to be behind the changing times. In fact, there are times when I'll be happy to take the pole position in that particular race. Vicki

Semper wrote >It is very likely that your church does not have such a determination letter since they would fall under the group exemption that is granted to large denominational churches (Catholic dioceses, Lutheran synods, Presbyterian USA, etc.). > Without wanting to seem to be picking nits here - if a denomination has applied for 501©(3) status and been granted that status, there is a determination letter. Presbyterian USA specifically has one - you just have to ask the denominational HQ to send it to you. Churches do not have to apply for 501©(3) status, it is imputed and those that don't would not have such a letter. Usually this doesn't cause a problem for your average donor... Vicki

I would suggest that there is some confusion here on the part of you, the treasurer of the Methodist church, or both (as in noise in the communication). It is probable that the Methodist church is able to accept charitable contributions under the denominational 501©(3) exemption. Most of the older denominations operate this way rather than each church applying for its own 501©(3) exemption (I know Presbyterian (USA), Missouri Synod Lutherans and the UCC do - I've served in all three). The Methodists may have a rule concerning sponsored groups not using the denominational exemption to accept contributions directly, rather than having them given to the church and directed to the sponsored group (in this case, the troop). It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that this is the case, given how structured the Methodist organization is. It also wouldn't surprise me to find that a given church treasurer wouldn't know this, but responded with something that sounds reasonable to him/her. This really does get more complicated than a forum like this is prepared to handle. Vicki

"...but adult leaders and role models were more than welcome." fgoodwin, this is the rest of the sentence you posted as a quote from t487. I did not take it to mean parents were excluded, but rather that they should be prepared to not act like parents. I could be wrong, he'll say if I am, but that's how it sounded to me. BinS, no offense here - ever since I took my oldest to the ER with a broken arm (from a jungle gym) and I realized that the constant barrage of questions directed at him (as he sits there in pain) and the dirty looks directed at me when I answered (because he was in such pain) were because they were trying to find out if I had broken his arm - well, it made me realize that everyone is under scrutiny and we may as well not take offense cuz it wouldn't do us any good anyway. Vicki

Dte wrote >Maybe we'll hook up somewhere else with a more mundane topic, like what kind of pack to get for my son or something. > Now THERE'S a topic that can bring out the rabid loyalist in a person - Kelty, Lowe Alpine, North Face; internal vs. external frame. I shudder to think:

Trevorum wrote >I am still concerned that none of us falls into the trap of defining "atheist" as anyone who does not believe in the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God. > agreed! Torveaux, as a person with personal reasons to be very familiar with South/Central America and its history, I concur. The legacy of Europe there (Spain) is much different than the legacy here and much darker in many ways. Of course, then there's the more recent legacy of the U.S., but I'll stop here, we've wandered really far afield at this point:

calumetz, this is pretty much how a lot of topics/threads in this forum go. Personally, I love the way this happens - it's so much like some actual conversations I've had. Some refer to this forum as the electronic campfire - fairly apt description. You're right, it is pretty straightforward concerning atheists and that was the original discussion point. Unless I've missed an e-mail or two in this thread (possible) I don't think anyone is arguing that point. We've just diverged into the grey area:

Fuzzy, I was actually taking a middle ground between you and anarchist. The founding fathers didn't introduce slavery to our continent but I don't think their predecessors got it from the native americans who were here either. The point of my e-mail was that the institution of slavery in the U.S. evolved from the English system of indentured servitude from very close to the time of the "discovery" of the northeast on and that by the Revolution/time of our founding fathers it was well entrenched. Vicki

downtoearth, while I do have a couple of quibbles with your post (no surprise there:

Scoutldr is right - your beading can be held anywhere you and your Gilwell Scoutmaster agree. I had mine at a troop meeting, another member of my patrol had hers at a Court of Honor, a third is planning his at a Roundtable. It can be as short as ten minutes or as long as thirty, so don't worry about attention span. Congratulations on finishing your ticket! I used to be a Bear... Vicki

I think what anarchist is saying is that the founding fathers didn't invent slavery, nor did they bring it to these shores. Slavery began as indentured servitude (which England also had), a situation in which one either served one's time or bought oneself out of servitude. From the discovery of the Americas through around the mid-1600's, this was the case. It was also true that only non-Christians were enslaved and could become free by professing Christianity. Gradually laws were passed which made slavery a permanent and inherited state of affairs. In 1641, Massachusetts became the first colony to legally recognize slavery. Other states, such as Virginia, followed. In 1662, Virginia decided all children born in the colony to a slave mother would be enslaved. Economically it was expedient to handle it this way - you didn't have to contend with losing your labor force as they worked their way free. While I don't think I would have said "bald faced lie", it certainly was an inaccurate statement. Slavery has been with us since history began and is still with us, albeit less widespread. In the 1700's it was still considered a fairly natural state of affairs. Vicki