vol_scouter

FScouter, From Wikipedia (not always the best source but a convenient one), DoD ~20%, SS~21%, Medicare ~21%, other mandatory ~11%. Defense is a constitutional DUTY of the government so that spending is a requirement for the government. Showing my age, I remember in the 60's when the evening news reported that for the first time the defense department was less than 50% of the total budget. The government spends money on education even though that is an area left to the states. I am a lover and supporter of the arts but I am not sure how much that the federal government should spend. Medical care and retirement is not a right. So in my mind, the spending on military may be too low proportionately as to the actual duties of the federal government. I agree that the world would be better off with less military and more arts. I do not agree that the government should reward art that is offensive to many.

Obviously, the ACLU will not be representing Gonzo1 because he his cause does not further their agenda. As a private organization, the ACLU can have any agenda that it wishes but it does not represent everyone's rights (i. Second amendment rights is a glaring example). Merlyn is not telling the entire truth on the ACLU's sources of funds however. As he said, the ACLU can sue and collect if it wins just as any law firm. However, because of a law designed to make sure that the poor can sue the government, they will be paid irregardless of winning or losing if they represent the 'right' people. Thus, they have no risk in suing the BSA. I do not appreciate my tax dollars going to the ACLU just as Merlyn does not appreciate his tax dollars going to schools that charter scouting units. As to the crucifix being photographed in urine (by the way - I am offended by the title that Merlyn uses for this piece of garbage), the case is worse that the tax dollars were given through an award. If the NEA hard paid the artist in advance for artwork and had not known the intended content, I could understand how that happened. Rather, the NEA knowing insulted the majority of tax payers in this country by giving our tax dollars to a worthless, non-imaginative piece that was designed only to shock and to insult. That is a more egregious attack on religion by the government than chartering a group designed to provide values to youth. Finally, I realize that the current rulings are the law. As Beevah points out, the law is always changing. So although I accept the current laws, I do not agree with the interpretation. That is my right. As Merlyn agitates for his point of view, I will agitate for mine. I do not agrue that currently Merlyn is correct but that may change. Once again, only on the religion clause of the First amendment do you not have to show harm. His example of harm is no more compelling than mine with the crucifix in urine.

Merlyn, First, Beevah made the correct argument that in order to understand much art and culture in the world, you must understand the religious traditions - many different religious traditions not just Christian. To not do so is to provide an inadequate education. Thus, learning about religious traditions are requisite for a sound education. Second, as I said, you are not able to show harm from a school sponsoring a scout unit. You can make up lame excuses but there is no harm. I couldn't play certain school sports because I was not physically competitive. So the 3% atheists (I think that the number is a. speculative and b. possibly overstated) who would be excluded are a small percentage as compared to the percentage of youth who cannot play sports, be on the honor roll, be in a play, etc. The only portion of the Bill of rights that doesn't require showing harm is the religious clause of the first amendment. Where's the ACLU calling foul in the uneven interpretation? Third, I am tired of people involving themselves in organizations that they do not like and making the members upset. You do not win people to your view - rather you breed dislike for your cause. Fourth, before you give some argument saying that you object to tax dollars going to a school that sponsors a scout unit being improper use of your tax dollars I will remind you that many more than 3% of the country was incensed over money being paid for a photograph of a Crucifix in a pail of urine. Also, many of us are tired of tax dollars going to the ACLU so that it can turn around and sue the government costing us more tax dollars. The ACLU makes a lot of money being paid by the government to sue the government. The ACLU does not defend our rights - it only defends some of the rights. The ACLU did not defend Heller or other like cases. It is a private group and can take whatever position it wishes but should do so with its' own money - not mine if the schools can't sponsor a scout unit. Last, I doubt that anyone on this list is going to atheist websites and making posts designed to inflame members of the list. You actions convince me that you and others only want to upset others. The more that you persist here, the more that I believe that atheism has little to do with your motivations.

Merlyn, So you want all religious references out of the public arena? In 2005 there was a Wisconsin case in which a group of inmates were wanting to have an atheists meeting. Apparently, this was set aside as a time for religious meetings. In the subsequent court proceedings, a Federal judge ruled that atheism is a religion. So if the schools ban all other religious activities, they are tacitly endorsing a religion - that of no belief in God. This country is founded upon the idea of majority rule with minorities being protected from discrimination by the rule of law. That concept is not being taught any longer in our schools. The minority interests' seem to always trump the majority interests even when there is no demonstrable harm as in the case of scouts meeting in schools. The first amendment was not written as a freedom from religion but rather to allow the free exercise of religion and to prevent the government from FORCING you to accept certain beliefs. It was not written to assure that you are never exposed to religion. I am so tired of 'activism' disguised as 'progressive' thought that serves only to disrupt or to be abrasive. As others have said, if you disagree with scouting LEAVE, start your own group, and let us muddle in our ignorance.

The Eagle Scout award is awarded by National and it can and has been revoked. I do not have a reference at my fingertips and do not trust my memory as to why it has happened but I know that it has.

It is interesting to examine the reason for the religion clause in the first amendment. The several of the original 13 colonies had state supported religions. The religion clause in the first amendment was to insure that the federal government would not prevent the first 13 states from continuing to have state supported religion. The 14th amendment essentially federalized many state laws which removed the ability of states to have state sponsored religion (though that was not the purpose of the amendment. Thus, the founding fathers initially allowed state sponsored religion. Though they may have been uneasy about this, I believe that they would say that the way the courts have ruled s far from their intentions.

No, Merlyn, it doesn't make it 'legal' in the BSA. Beavah is clearly saying that most (but unfortunately not all) scout leaders exercise thought and some wisdom in dealing with our youth. The program works well for most. No program works well for all.

Just as a clarification. Pedophiles have sexual relationships with prepubescent children. The relationships are typically heterosexual though not always. If the child has developed secondary sex characteristics (i.e. started in puberty), then sexual relationships are not those of a pedophile. If the relationship is of the same sex, then it is homosexual when done for sexual gratification. The relationship may be same sex and not be homosexual in nature if the reason is dominance (as is seen in prisons). Once again, if the child is going through puberty or post-pubertal, same sex gratification is a homosexual relationship.

Ed, I never said that the poster was turned down rather that it affected the interest rate on the loan. If you wish to defend this, give a good reason why the BSA should not be truthful on the check to begin with and provide a good reason why a consumer check should be done. A consumer check does not list what someone has bought, just how quickly the bills are paid and how much is owed.

Ed, There would have been 2 checks in a short period of time - her lending institution's check and the BSA. With the dishonesty in the check that the BSA requests and apparently performs along with the BSA takeover of the BSA, I tend to trust the poster. Gold Winger, You might be right that it is cheaper but it does not make sense that you can get a criminal background check and a consumer check for less than the criminal background check alone. Do you have knowledge that this is the case? I still have not heard a single good reason why the BSA should be allowed to perform a consumer check on volunteers.

Acid Test: I was going to reluctantly sign-up online. I received a letter directing my to a website with a password and username. The first screen was an agreement to allow the check. The agreement says that the BSA only wishes a criminal background check but the agreement specifically requires that you agree to a consumer check. To everyone questioning the poster who said that her credit was damaged by the BSA check, the poster indicated that she applied for the consumer check (disguised as a background check only) during the process of a home loan. As you know, checks on your credit rating decrease the rating. Her interest rate increased a small amount due to the check. I do not remember if she was able to definitely determine that it was the BSA check (that is my remembrance) or that it was inferred. I still see the request for a consumer check when they only 'say' that it is a criminal background check as un-trustworthy. If they do not trust me be honest as a long time Eagle scout and scouter, why should I trust them when they are contradictory?

Just to remind everybody once again - you are forced to agree to a CONSUMER check even though the BSA says that it is a criminal background check. Persons on a different list server claims that their credit was damaged while they were applying for a loan. The BSA is not being Trustworthy! Also, most pedophiles and homosexuals preying upon underage children usually do not have a record.

Everyone keeps talking about the BSA asking for a Criminal Background Check - that is NOT what you agree to on the online site!! You agree to a CONSUMER check. What does that have to do with finding criminals??? The website says that the check is a CBC only but they make a point of you agreeing to a CONSUMER check. A poster on another list had their credit checked during the process of obtaining a loan which increased toe interest rate that they had to pay! So there is an issue of being Trustworthy. Can anyone supply a cogent reason why the BSA needs a consumer check rather than a CBC? For Ed, I have as many years in the BSA as do you. On top of that, I am an Eagle scout. I have nothing to hide. If a business asks for a SSN, I do not do business with them unless the SSN is required by the Federal government. Finally, once again the BTK killer is a great reason NOT to do a CBC. He had a clean record before his arrest! Most of the crimes currently found in the BSA are perpetrated by people with a clean CBC.

I my view there are 2 reasons to refuse to agree to the BSA consumer check. The online site makes you agree to a consumer check though they 'say' that the criminal background check (CBC) is all that they are collecting. If all they wanted was a CBC, they would only make you agree to a CBC. So why does the BSA want a consumer check? Second, the check is an invasion of privacy that does not work. Earlier in this thread someone talked about the BTK killer who was a scouter. Prior to his daughter turning him in to the police, he had no record! This is a typical finding. Only parental vigilance will keep our youth safe.

I believe that Trevorum has the most important point. LFL was a way for the BSA to appease the left by having a program that had essentially no membership requirements other than being a youth or adult leader. In many councils, LFL is using funds raised for traditional scouting thus weakening those programs. LFL has never become the entirely separate entity as promised. I believe that if LFL is rejected in California, it will be eventually elsewhere. So it is time to at least separate the two programs or perhaps scuttle LFL as it does not seem to be appeasing the left.

I agree with everyone else. It is not appropriate to ask who the youth would/will vote for in the fall. It is OK to ask who are the candidates, what are some of their platforms (have to allow a lot of latitude because it is not clear at this time by listening to the news), how will you decide on who to vote for, and what do you think are the most important issues. Those questions allow a BoR member to assess if the youth is thinking of people and issues that relate to citizenship in the nation. I would hope that an older youth at an Eagle BoR would tell you in a firm voice "It is none of your business" because it is not! Before this election is over there could very well be a large amount of animosity between the 2 sides. It is not appropriate to ask anyone who is under you who they will vote for.

I tend to agree. As a society we seem to wish there to be no risk in any activity. This attitude takes freedoms away and can decrease our enjoyment of life. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness can only be accomplished by allowing as much freedom as possible to each individual. All the rules that we impose on another in the name of safety can destroy those freedoms. I am not against all rules/laws but we should not issue new restrictions based on low incidence events. A child recently slipped to her death at the Grand Canyon - should we build a fence (maybe with the razor wire to prevent people from climbing over) based on that event? Millions visit the canyon each year so that the incidence is low. So even though the result of a mishap is extreme, the likelihood is low. If it were found that almost all such incidences happened at the same place, address that one place. As a society we need to learn from our forefathers that we are responsible for ourselves and our families. We should be responsible for their safety in most situations and not look to governments to legislate all safety. Obviously, the government should work to ensure safety of things that individuals have little control such as planes (how could I determine if a plane is maintained) but everyday issues like using a step ladder correctly should be up to me. We are doing the same thing in scouting by making new rules to try to cover all situations. In the end, only planning, common sense, experience, and wisdom will make scouting safer.

First, always try to get as much emergency training as possible. WFR training can help in many non-wilderness situations whereas basic first aid can leave you without some necessary skills. Second, as to the comment about a lack of "Good Samaritan" coverage may about a recent case filled in California. I found the BSA inout on the case at www.BSALegal.org: "Boy Scouts of America submitted a friend of the court brief to the California Supreme Court in a case about the interpretation of that states Good Samaritan statute. Van Horn v. Watson, No. S152360. The Good Samaritan statute, Cal. Health & Safety Code 1799.102, protects from liability those who provide emergency care in good faith at the scene of an emergency. An intermediate appellate court interpreted the statute as applying only to medical care in a medical emergency and concluded that the statute did not protect a rescuer who pulled someone from a car after a collision because she feared the car would catch fire or blow up." You may search further if so inclined.

So to summarize for MacyM from what most are saying (if not too presumptuous): "What do you think of a Eagle board of review that dares to ask the scout if he believes in a god? No but a question about how the scout has upheld the 12th point of the Scout Law is acceptable. Isn't that a violation of separation of church and state? No because the state is not a participant in scouting - it is a private organization and can ask any question that it wishes (or ban the asking of any question for that matter). Are they allowed to ask such questions? They are encouraged not to ask directly about a belief in God but rather how the scout fulfills his 'duty to God' and/or demonstrates 'Reverence'. The committee is to accept a broad range of responses, there is not litmus test. I can understand questions about scouting stuff, but about a belief in a god is going a bit far, don't you think? Most know that atheists are not allowed but scouting is not a witch hunt. We are to help boys (and girls in venturing) to become successful adults. A youth struggling with his religious beliefs will not be helped by being pushed into a label which could push him in a direction that the questioner may not like. The BSA recognizes this and wants great latitude in answers to 'duty to God' or 'Reverence'. For example, if a boy discusses protecting nature with LNT then that could be construed as reverence for nature and therefore satisfies the requirement. Macy (This message has been edited by MacyM)"

I believe that many of us have had a similar experience. Our brains, if we allow them, perform continual pattern recognition analysis. Whenever the pattern is changed, it comes to our conscience. I think that we should at least respect if not heed those intuitions. It has developed to prevent us from being eaten by the big cats, etc. I would imagine that the mountain lion was nearby else why did the woods become quiet (often happens with a large predator) and that was part of your pattern recognition (it involves all of our senses if we allow it).

That is funny!

Thanks for the post TAHAWK! Maybe I should have been a little more precise. Assume a boy is insistent that he has no belief in a 'higher power' and despite efforts to get him to say that nature is remarkable or whatever to allow the boy to be passed on his EBoR. He should not pass at that point. However, a boy who is obviously not able to pass another point in the Oath is always passed without a second thought. I think that it is better to be more consistent. If we do not go fishing for drug use or other issues, then we shouldn't be fishing for lack of belief in a higher power. As to the marijuana, it is illegal and the youth is committing a crime no matter what anyone thinks. As is smoking and alcohol use in children no matter what we may think of the use or what our culture says is acceptable. Once again, I am not sure that we should go looking for these issues.

As others have noted, many states allow NP's and PA's to perform history and physical examinations. For activities requiring a Class III Medical form, I would recommend a physician (MD or DO) to do the H&P if the participant has any significant health problems. I have worked 2 years at the healthlodge and for those patients with significant health problems it is desirable to have the form completed by a physician familiar with the patient and who understands the rigors to be undertaken.

In a previous thread on asking about Reverence for the Eagle BoR there was a comment that a boy declared that he was an atheist. He was 14 and the poster noted that he needed time to sort things out which makes sense. I was going to post that if a boy is at his Eagle BoR and makes an issue out of being an atheist that he doesn't fulfill the requirements which is an issue. As I thought further about that I realized that a young man who is a weakling or obese is not 'physically strong' - does he get failed? What about a boy known to smoke marijuana or use other drugs including alcohol, is he mentally awake? Should he be referred to the Eagle BoR (since the issue will not likely come up in the Eagle BoR). I do believe that a boy who is clearly known to use drugs should not be passed since he is committing a crime (no matter what others feel). I could list other things where we may not be consistent in what we pass and fail. Unlike sins which are supposed to be all the same to God, are there hierarchies of what can be fudged versus what will be strictly enforced? If so what should it be? Who should decide? Should community standards play a role - being an atheist may be common in some areas and relatively rare in others? It seems to me that scouting should be clear about what the standards are and what is the gray area. I am certain that some Eagle BoR would fail a boy who claims to be an atheist while others would pass him - is that good or bad? Please do not focus on whether or not the BSA should have atheists or not - focus on how we should approach the issues of meeting requirements and what the requirements mean.

On Beavah's points about being overly safety minded - I agree. I put the 10 mile distance in so that if a storm is brewing the hikers should be more aware of the surroundings and avoid obvious dangerous areas such as the top of a steep ridge or crossing out areas as quickly as possible. One should crouch when there is electricity in the air - your hair starts to 'stand-up' which implies that a lightning strike might be imminent. Once again, "Widerness Medicine has a rather long chapter devoted to lightning strikes, myths, injuries, and treatment. I recommend that at least one leader have a copy (the troop may wish to purchase because it is expensive) and read about issues that the troop may be facing.