BS-87

Here's how to handle a Scout who is guilty any or many of the listed transgressions. Is he legitimately remorseful? Has he changed his life as a result of the transgression which put him contrary to the Scout spirit? Has he actively worked to help others avoid making the same mistakes, or discontinue their unScoutlike behavior; especially those who he participated in the problem behavior with? If he hasn't made a marked effort to get back on a track of living the Scout Oath and Law, it's not unreasonable to deny his Eagle Rank. The only thing the new membership policy does is state that a homosexual Scout doesn't have to apologize for existing. And, as any other Scout, he only need feel remorseful for participating in sexual conduct as any Scout of any orientation should be and could be removed from Scouting for.

He's probably a pretty smart kid. He'll be able to tell pretty quickly that his Duty to God does not include turning away from people who need his leadership. He should know that the best way to show that his faith makes him strong is to be the best example of an Eagle Scout that he can be. He can see the inclusion of homosexual Scouts as something that undermines his explicit example of morality, or as something that makes his great implicit example of faith and leadership as more necessary. There is a need for Scouts that set great examples. and I can already guarantee that no Scout that makes sexuality central to their life can set as well of an example as a Scout that chooses not to be distracted by those things at that point in their life.

It's safe to say that the resolution should pass today, and I hope it does. Here is why: - It reflects current practice in a majority of Scouting Units. I have observed, in my decades of Scouting, that good Scouting leaders put their Scouts first in every case. This includes homosexual youth. A good Scoutmaster or Crew Adviser will make it a priority to ensure a homosexual Scout understands not to let it become an open distraction, and suppresses the culture that can lead to bullying of a homosexual youth, instead fostering a more mature acceptance, aid, and understanding. This is very similar to units which include youth with disabilities. This is very similar to youth of a severe minority (think multiracial family in 99% white area). The potential distraction is maturely overcome by the team coming together to help everyone achieve in the way a Troop should. - It prioritizes sexual acts at an age of minority (18 as law, 21 as public consensus, 27 in Obamacare) as something all Scouts should be ashamed of, not their identity. - It realizes that sex as a topic should be defused, not recurring or educational. A minority identity brings great diversity of knowledge and experience, and as such presents a constant opportunity for learning. This is why we seek out Plumbers for Plumbing Merit Badge, Liaison Officers or Counselors to present "A Time to Tell", and Pastors for Religious Awards. Coming together with people of these defining minority identities help us learn in Scouting. When the adult in question has a defining minority identity inextricable from sex, someone of that identity is presenting a constant distraction. Leaders who defuse that identity themselves by not openly identifying sexually are obviously, then, not distracting. While there may be youth that identify as homosexual, they are by no means authoritative on the subject, being completely bound by the fact that no Scout should be discussing sexual activity. - It allows the distinction to be made for youth that attraction does not equal activity. Open courtship is not tolerated in Venturing and so would not be in Troops. - It acknowledges that this membership policy is necessary because sexuality is not appropriate in Scouting and this change reflects a larger consensus to ensure that it is less of a distraction. It simultaneously iterates that Reverence IS appropriate to Scouting, and a personally defined Duty to God is entirely a function of Scouting that will never be questioned and will continue to be championed. This means that sex should always be defused as an issue and personally defined Reverence should always be promoted. I do have one issue... It is seemingly derailed by how to handle quarters. Current policy relies on assumptions of sexual activity and exploitation. There is a heterosexual assumption for youth, and an exploitative assumption for adults and so policy reflects this by separating quarters between male and female, youth and adult to prevent sexual and exploitative opportunity. This does not prevent all sexual activity or exploitation. Youth that are bound and determined to create an opportunity for a sexual encounter together will always find a way, and the policies of keeping them separate and having an understanding that the activity is un-Scoutlike are about as far as we can go as an organization to prevent it in a uniformly enforceable way. Youth on youth exploitation is much the same. Our responsibility is to prevent it uniformly, but those youth bent on taking advantage of another youth will make an active effort to do so, and will always be removed from Scouting. The problem is in the open knowledge of homosexual youth. If we assume a male and female heterosexual youth who have no interest in each other cannot quarter together, it would seem that we'd have to have the assumption that two homosexual Boy Scouts with no interest in each other cannot quarter together. If a heterosexual male youth cannot shower in a group with females he's not attracted to nor they to him, how should a homosexual Boy Scout be allowed to a group shower with his patrol who he is not attracted to nor they to him? I understand that almost every facility now has separate showers, making that a non-issue. However, does this mean tent assignments will necessarily go the same individual way? We cannot be in the business of telling kids they have to be treated different because they're a minority, that would make us incredible bullies. If I'm missing another solution that can be made a rule to ensure uniform enforcement, please let me know. Some of the best experiences I've had in Scouting was sharing a tent with a good buddy or even someone new. It's privacy for a conversation that may have otherwise never been possible. Will we have to lose this because of this policy change, and is it worth it? If it's necessary to remain consistent as a rule, probably (though sadly). I want wholeheartedly for homosexual youth to finally no longer feel that the organization they love and enjoy is forcing them into a secret identity or forcing them out.

Boys behave differently in the presence of girls as a matter of fact. This is simply because girls are different, and even Cub Scouts realize it. They think different, act different, and learn different. A method of Scouting is Uniforming. While any boy of any background can conform to the mores and norms of a group of boys, it is a rare girl that's able to do so. While I agree it can still be fun with girls, and in often cases more fun with the girls present, something is lost in the learning and development sphere when the boys are behaving in a way that conforms to a standard of mixed gender learning instead of only having to conform to the standards of "boys being boys". The best example is the silencing factor girls have on most boys. Because they realize the thoughts of girls are different, there is less blurting out of boy thoughts. Those are often pretty profound in the sense that they show where a boy's understanding of the subject matter lies. If it were that reason alone, I'd continue to wholeheartedly support gender segregation in Scouting.

I think the constituency that matters most in this case is the kids. The Scouters that don't agree something must be done, when you consider that the boys are comfortable having gay role models and friends, are kinda missing the boat here. While there is rightfully concern about gay leaders and scouts, the fact that the boys are heavily in favor of welcoming them to Scouting should mandate that we figure out how to make it happen in a way that makes sure everybody remains safe and respected physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

What can be expected? From a dumb/ambitious DE: He'll come out and do it. From a dumb/lazy DE: He'll tell you he's busy. From a good DE: He'll ask who your Membership Chair is in the Pack so he can work with them on how to build a team in your Pack to focus on recruiting. The rule being that it's better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish.

I'd tread carefully with this one. The SE is definitely the person that needs to know the goal is malarkey. If it's a cruel SE, he'll chew out your DE. If it's a smart SE, he'll pass your suggestion to the Council Membership Chair, and that Council Membership Chair will make sure you're asked to participate or lead a goal planning session. The problem is that the goals don't reflect capabilities for the team in a way that is sort of at the "just-beyond-the-fingertips" range. Convincing the SE that talking capabilities first is probably the smarter way to start a conversation about goals. Though being honest in that sense will probably force your committee to admit there should be an expectation from the Council and SE that your District will plan to increase the capabilities of the Membership Committee over the course of the year to achieve the goals.

Oh man... I agree with Calico... on all those points... The Issues forum has just been turned upside down...

I have never, in my adult life, been so confused as to how I feel about something. On one hand, we are at an inflection point in our organization which may spell a return to greatness or a downward spiral into irrelevance. On the other hand, I feel our National Organization is letting smaller organizations that partner with it take the abuse and ridicule associated with the policy of discrimination instead of helping them defend themselves. In any case, the right thing to do is going to lead to a lot of heartbreak. For those who agree that this is the right thing to do, we now have a responsibility to put our efforts into making this the best decision the National Executive Board has made in recent years instead of the dumbest.

1. Complete and on going Background check, paid for by the firearm owner, thinking every other year. A tax or fee imposed by the government above and beyond that which would be applied to any other consumer product infringes upon the individual's ability to own a firearm and is not constitutional. 2. Mental health evaluations on going, paid for by the firearm owner, every other year. As with number one, this places a significant barrier to gun ownership that is not constitutional. 3. No gun ownership for families with historys of mental illness. Based on how prevalent the instances of mental illness are becoming, and that most every family will be affected by mental illness, this is an absolutely tyrannical position. 4. Complete ban on ownership of all semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines and/or a capacity greater than 10 rounds. Arbitrary limits on types of firearms owned that look to affect the killing potential of firearms in a way that has a historical precedent for constitutionality but still seems to serve no purpose other than to satisfy the need to "do something". 5. National registry of all firearms....gotta know who has them, right Terrifying prospect that could be enforced, but that empowers the government in the case that they would deem complete disarmament necessary. If this isn't the hill to die on politically to prevent tyranny, there won't be a hill to die on literally to defend from tyranny.

This is a tricky subject in general. The traditional conservative approach to this subject is largely credited with allowing the Great Depression to happen, and made the people beg for federal activism and intrusion into the private sector economy. Granted, the crisis was made possible by the availability of credit thanks to the institution of a central bank, which was a very progressive idea itself that conservatives balked at. The system of credit made possible by the progressive movement at the beginning of the 20th century did help usher in an age of the middle class, but also set us on the train tracks that lead to the brick wall we're faced with now. So I largely say it's tricky because traditional conservatism finds its philosophy tricky to operate effectively in a system which requires constantly expanding progressive activism from the centrally located power. In short, I really don't think that the government can get out of the business of insuring private capital so long as our economy is built on credit and money multiplication. And while the economy would be much more stable as opposed to a constant bubble and burst of sectors made possible by the FED and FDIC, getting rid of this centralized power would result in a lower standard of living for the "everyman", which is not something Americans will probably ever be able to support again, as the American Dream is now reliant on the availability of credit. So Beavah, while I admire the notion that conservatism is not long gone and private accountability is the standard, rugged individualism has been replaced in American hearts with the desire to be treated "fairly".

Here's a couple of wild ideas - first, decriminalize most drugs - in fact, legalize them and tax them like alcohol - us banning drugs hasn't stopped people from wanting or using drugs (that should be an argument the pro-gun folks should be able to get behind), but it has contributed a great deal to the violence levels in this country. Second, stop publicizing mass shootings - is occurs to me that, given how many mass shooters take their own lives at the scene, that they are just wanting to go out in a "blaze of glory" - well, if we stop publicizing them so much, we eliminate the possibility of them getting their moments of fame. The first suggestion isn't unreasonable. The second cannot be controlled unless all media is strictly controlled, which is a terrifying prospect. We can hope they'd place that kind of filter on themselves though. However, the first time something terrible happens and one station gets huge viewership by covering the gory details is when the measure would fail. Seems to me people would have to not want to know who the killer is in order for the killer to not be motivated by being known. The only solution to that is to get rid of news and information in all its present forms, especially the 24 hour news. Seeing how that's contrary to demand, we really seem to be stuck in a tough spot on that issue.

Wow! One would think a city of 24,000 would have 3 or 4 Scout Troops!

No patrol activities without adults? I don't know. I trust the boys to be excellent on their own, but all it would take is a single instance of something bad happening and in today's world of information and litigation a boy could be face effects of a mistake he made, which may not have happened under supervision, for the rest of his life. Blue cards only? Unnecessary change and bureaucratic. Journey to Excellence? I think it's great to have REAL and annually adapting standards of measure against ares of success for the Unit. Setting your own goals is just fluff and self-flagellation. If you think Journey to Excellence is useless bureaucracy, it's because you're only bothering to look at it once a year. It's tough for me to say that making a yearlong focus on achieving those metrics isn't going to make my Troop better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&bpctr=1358460086 So you can see what kind of conspiracy has come out of this.

Saying it didn't happen is completely insane. Questioning the official story on how it all went down isn't necessarily so crazy. Stories like this evolve over the course of the day as more information becomes available. In the days after, some other details are confirmed and join the official story. This is where the official story stops evolving to include new information, or omits some subjects that came up that day as a result of some good information getting tossed out that was incompatible with later stories despite still having good information that just wasn't relevant to the new information. The armed guy in camo that was taken away from the woods at the scene saying "I didn't do it." is a good example. What's happened to that guy? We know he wasn't the shooter in the school, but what the heck WAS he doing? That's where conspiracy thrives. When nobody's talking about that guy, conspiracy theorists start speculating that it's a cover-up and that was the CIA assassin there to make sure Adam Lanza carried out his programmed task and died on the scene so as to avoid being questioned instead of escaping like Holmes did. Truth of the matter is the guy may have responded to the shots fired and gone to help with his hunting rifle, then realized it was a bad idea when the police were coming in and he dumbly decided to run. We'll never know though. We'll never know. For the too long; didn't read, Conspiracy thrives when there's a surplus of information and a deficit of understanding.

"Ahh, so the issue is that violent video games are causing mental health problems, is that it? I've only seen one study trying to showing a correlation between violent video games and mental health issues, specifically addiction and depression, and there are concerns about the methodology used to come to it's conclusions, and it didn't try to make a link between gaming and violence." That's rather asinine isn't it? Coming to a conclusion about the subject that ignores the topics discussed by previous posters in order to insinuate that discussion of the topic is silly sure showed us. We get it. You think that people are motivated to carry out acts of mass violence because they have a readily accessible means in guns to carry out acts of mass violence. This thread looks to discuss what role violent culture plays in the motivation for people to carry out acts of mass violence. Your explanation of motivation is the available tool. This explanation of motivation is emulation.

Until the NRA and gun owners understand that guns are part of the real problem and that guns have got to be part of the discussion, then we aren't going to really get anywhere. It's certainly an attractive scent to follow, isn't it? What is sufficient gun control? Would Adam Lanza's mother still have been able to get guns under your idea of sufficient gun control? If so, does that mean the only solution is no legal gun ownership? What other means of murder are available to people? Maybe they'll start driving trucks through parades instead of targeting schools and theaters with a gun. That would be efficient and deadly. Where there is a will, there is a way. The problem is the will, not the way.

People who want to act out will do so in the most efficient means at their disposal. This is why the issue of the attacks does not die when you take away guns, making gun control a red herring when considering acts of mass violence. It's sure an attractive scent to track, but it doesn't lead to a solution. I think violent culture and overmedication are some big picture issues to confront that lead to a more reasonable solution. Leaving the vulnerable and innocent unprotected through gun free zones is similar to the gun control issue in that it changes the efficiency of the attacks, but does not affect the cause of the attacks.

I think Gun Control in general is a red herring in the issue of these mass shootings. When you look at the problem, it's that mentally ill people are making a decision to acquire the most efficient killing tool they can find and cause as much pain as they possibly can. You can look at limiting their access to these tools, but you'll be forever chasing the next most efficient killing tool, hence why I feel Gun Control as an issue in this matter is a red herring. I'm more inclined to look at other factors that these shooters have in common, and that's mental illness. The way that mental illness is handled in this country is predominantly through medication. Well known side effects of many medications used to treat mood disorders, depression, and hyperactivity include irritability (with rage being the extreme outlier), self-destructive thoughts and actions, and in rarer cases psychosis. What this amounts to in rare cases of the mentally ill is a perfect storm and a person who may feel compelled to act out in a violent manner. How does someone overcome the very human instinctual aversion to manslaughter? http://www.killology.org/article_teachkid.htm There's no doubt that the movies and games people are absorbing today are glorifying brutal behavior. Responsible use of this "entertainment" is certainly possible for healthy, adjusted adults, but definitely is not appropriate for young people. The current system of placing warnings and controls on these materials is definitely NOT working. So how do I feel we go about addressing these violence enabling triggers for what ties a majority (but not all by any means) of the recent acts of mass violence? It's really tough to say. Some might call for a national registry of the mentally ill, but I'm definitely not interested in another bureaucratic control on the people as a whole. I'm also leary to allow the government the ability to legislate defining who's mentally ill and who is not. I just know that we'd get a lot further in preventing these incidents having honest discussions about the cause than having discussions about the tools.

First, ad hominem regarding my use of fictional works to justify feeling of malaise towards statism. Second, a straw man equating patriotism and citizenship to being a willing slave of the state. Third, a straw man using the nebulous NWO to make my concern with the power of governments seem ridiculous. For shame Beavah. For shame. Saul Alinsky would be proud though. You're pretty good at trying to shut people down that don't agree with you. The shame is in using logical fallacies to do so.

Thanks Calooh The point I was making isn't that Huxley's advocating a cradle to grave state. Neither did 1984. They actually both address statism as the issue, because the leaders have this notion that everyone is happy in their utopia. What they don't realize is that once people are free to learn what they're missing out on, they will never be satisfied by the "utopia". A good, real world example of a nation trying to be a utopia is North Korea.

I'm looking at the world that a tyrant dreams of creating of of their own hubris and (very Platonic in philosophy) desire to do "good". If there's something I don't need a refresher on, it's the Republic. There's plenty there to aspire to. Even Ronald Reagan seems to hearken back to "the cave" in saying, It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they believe so many things that aren't so. What I think, though, is that Plato takes a little too much license in the Republic to create politics out of philosophy, which at its greatest in Platonic works end in aporia. This caused the abomination of the philosopher king and the noble lie to underlie a lot of western political thought. It helps justify the actions of socialists, and flies in the face of liberty.

Perfectly engineered utopia would be a system in which, from cradle to grave, the human knows no want as the "system" provides everything the human would ever need. I suspect it would look a lot like Aldous Huxley's vision of utopia more than Wells'. "Noble Lie" is a reference to Plato's Republic, in which the system of government and power is sold to the masses as necessary because of the innate predispositions and capabilities of the common folk and the philosopher kings. Tyranny is stopped by revolution, not by social forces. In the cases of a POTUS with his finger on the trigger of nuclear weapons, it seems likely that such an option is impossible for someone whose ambition is to continue ruling. The more viable option is to silence the opposition and appease the masses. Because a minority opposition, like in the American Revolution, can overthrow the government.