CalicoPenn

I prefer the main argument for uniforms, which is not a socio-economic one at all. That is that the uniforms show pride of membership and shows how all Scouts are connected. The uniform say's "I am a Boy Scout". I'd use that same argument when it comes to tents. Which set up most indicates a well run, well-prepared, competent patrol - a patrol with 4 tents that are all the same (hopefully set up in a semi-circular or circular pattern around a center point and not in a straight-line military fashion) or 4 tents that are all different? Think about what it says to outsiders - if you weren't in Scouting and you were visiting a state park for the weekend with your family, will you be more comforted by the site of a well-organized Scout Troop/Patrols in the group site or the site of a Scout Troop/Patrols with a mish-mosh of tents? If your child needs minor first aid for a cut and you know there is are Scout Troops in the park, which will you go visit first - a Troop with a mish mosh of tents, or a Troop that has the same tents? My experience is when a unit has a mish-mosh of tents on site, other things tend to get downplayed a bit too, like noise restrictions, etc. I think the answer is to have the unit supply the tents. If Billy Scout gets a tent for Xmas, he can use it when he goes camping with his family or friends, but when it comes to a Scout outing, he uses the tents provided. Besides, there is a practical matter to consider. If everyone is using the same tent, the tents are each other's back-up. If you have a quick storm come through and one tent ends up with a snapped pole and a second ends up with a tear that renders the tent useless, you're only down one tent as you can use the pole of the ripped tent to replace the other pole. If those are two different tents, you're down 2 poles. Plus it's a lot easier to set them up quickly in the rain or dark of night - especially if your SPL's, PL's and Instructors are bouncing from tent to tent to help new Scouts figure out how to set up their tent. A tent I use regularly when camping I can set up in my sleep. A new tent is going to take me a bit of time to figure out, especially if it's at night, I've never seen it before, and the instructions were tossed out with the box at Xmas. (This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

I'm going to take this in a different direction. Obviously we don't know the whole story as to how a perfectly innocuous comment made in conversation to his brother and not, apparently, as a means of defiance to an adult, about how stupid it is to sterilize the pots and pans if they were just going to be washed at home again anyway (and despite what some may see as sacrilege, the lad has a point - it is stupid - you wash a dish in hot soapy water and then rinse it in hot water, there is no real need to sterilize a dish - not unless you plan to perform surgery on it) turned into a discussion(?) on respecting one's elders that devolved into a Scout being taken home from an outing. But... If it's true that they (presumably more than one adult leader) was yelling at your son so much that he was cowering in a corner, than that is absolutely, unequivocably, no excuses, unacceptable behavior on the part of those adults. Such behavior has crossed the line from discipline to bullying - and yes, adults can be bullies too. If this is really the case, then frankly the whole conversation changes. Though your son still should apologize for his behavior, it must be made absolutely crystal clear to the adults who yelled at your son in such a way to make him cower in a corner that they must NEVER EVER DO SO AGAIN - and that they will apologize to your son for the way they mishandled the situation, and that if they ever emotionally abuse a Scout again with this kind of bullying (and yes - it is bullying) that it will be reported to the Scout Executive. Beyond the whole respect your elders thing, I would be very wary about letting these adult leaders supervise any Scouts on any outings until they can prove that they can handle it. If I were the COR, and it was proven to me that the adult leaders had been yelling at your son in this manner, I would be letting those leaders know that their services were no longer required - yes, I would be firing them.

Recording and publishing the journals of the legislature (now the Congressional Record), paying the President's salary, giving an annual State of the Union, and Congress meeting at least one every other year aren't really programs.

I'm sorry this happened to you - it's always a shame when something planned doesn't go through. If it were me, I would be sending a tersely worded letter to the LODGE Chief with copies to the LODGE advisors (both volunteer and professional) and the Scout Executive telling them how very disappointed a number of Webelos and their parents were when the Chapter failed to show up and perform a crossover ceremony that had been arranged without giving any notification at all that they would not be able to meet their committment and how you hoped that the Lodge and it's Chapters would never fall down on the job again. I would then read that letter to every Scouter attending the next Roundtable, and well as to everyone gathered for the next Chapter meeting. When I was a Lodge Officer, had we received such a letter about one of our Chapters, we would have read the letter to everyone gathered at the next meeting of the Lodge and Chapter officers and been asking some very hard questions of that Chapter Chief.

I think your son should apologize to the committee chair now - not wait for the meeting. Then, you should register your son with the Venture Crew before the meeting - he can still earn his Eagle Scout rank there - just make sure none of the Troop's adults are involved in any way, shape or form with his BOR. Then when they hold their meeting, don't attend. When they ask you later why you weren't there, tell them your son is no longer in the Troop and you saw no point in attending a meeting that was no longer needed. What's your relationship with the COR?

"So wouldn't you agree that by government not being able to charter a BSA unit.. then people who would be in that unit are not being treated equally BECAUSE OF their religion are - in fact having their equal protection violated? They are being discriminated against because they believe a higher form exists." Nope - because the government doesn't have a duty to charter Boy Scout units. They only have a duty to ensure that the BSA is allowed to exist under the same rules that everyone else must abide by. If the rule is that a government agency can't sponsor an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion, then as long as that government agency does not sponsor any organization on the basis of religion, then by not sponsoring a BSA unit, they are providing equal protection. Non-equal protection would be denying the BSA the ability to rent a gymnasium at a school for a fee if the gymnasium is offered to rent to other, non-school sponsored organizations. Non-equal protection would be to rent the gym at $200 per hour to the BSA and $25 per hour to the Girl Scouts. If the school sponsors a Girl Scout unit that doesn't discriminate based on religion and doesn't sponsor a Boy Scout unit that does discriminate based on religion, it doesn't volate equal protection because the organizations themselves aren't equal. However, if both the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts discriminated in membership based on religion and the school sponsors the Girl Scouts and not the Boy Scouts - then there is an equal protection claim as two equal organizations are being treated differently.

NJ - I imagine it's because most people are much more familiar with the 1st amendment than they are with the 14th amendment. Merlyn - punished was perhaps the wrong choice of words - it left an opening for a nonsensical exchange. A more appropriate word would have been "excluded" - then when someone tried to compare religious exclusion versus musical talent exclusion, then one could point out they are apples to oranges comparisons as one exclusion (religion) is illegal and one exclusion (musical talent) is legal, not that the person trying to make that comparison would admit to the difference, if they indeed aren't being disingenuous by pretending not to understand such a difference.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Please point out in that sentence where the word "a" is in it. The first amendment prevents Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion - not establishment of A religion. Without the "a" - that sentence meaning becomes any and/or all religion. And that is how SCOTUS has been interpreting it from the beginning (and what SCOTUS says is important, whether you want to accept that or not). In other words, government cannot have anything to do with religion - any and all religions. When government sponsors a religious organization (and by the BSA's own admission in the Dale case, they are a religious organization) that denies memebership based on a religious qualification (whether that qualification is narrow to a specific religious denomination or broadly to any religion), then they are respecting the establishment of religion. By the same token they aren't denying anyone the right to free exercise of that religion as you still have the right to go elsewhere. If you want to have a prayer ceremony around the flagpole at school, you're allowed, provided the school isn't organizing it. If you want to pray in school, you're allowed, provided the school isn't leading it or providing officially sanctioned time for it (thereby forcing other people to listen to your prayers when they may not want to). Denying the free exercise thereof would be the Government passing a law saying that the Catholic Church cannot exist in this country or that you can't pray to whatever god or goddess you choose to pray to anywhere, not even your own home.

Why are you proving anything? Your Den Leader made the statement that the uniform is required - tell the Den Leader to prove it. S/he won't be able to find anything in any of the BSA literature that states the uniform is required to be in Scouts. The only documentation to be found requiring uniforms will be for specific events such as the National Jamborees - but those requirements aren't translatable for the entirety of the BSA.

You forgot: (3) NO ONE KNOWS what causes heterosexuality. If you want to be intellectually honest about your argument, you must admit that the above is as true as your two statements, and that we, as a nation, have been making huge and sweeping social statements based on ignorance for decades.

Lisa, The target was mainly Bachlorette Parties - it's been a bit of a trend over the past few years for bachlorette parties to head over to gay bars on Friday and Saturday nights instead of the Chippendales joints. Why pay to see hot, shirtless men dance when you can go to a gay nightclub in Chicago on any given Friday or Saturday night and see hot, shirtless men dancing for free - and surround themselves with a bunch of men who aren't going to be hitting on them all night but are considered fun loving and outrageous and will probably take you for a spin on the dance floor if you ask or cajole them enough.

It's been a while and my memory may be hazy but if I'm not mistaken, the appeal to National was about the Troop/District/Council's decision not to hold a BOR - not an appeal because a BOR made a negative decision. If this is the case, then it may very well be that National sent it back to Council with instructions to give this lad a BOR.

I think I would take a Patrol Leaders Handbook, a Senior Patrol Leaders Handbook and a Scoutmasters Handbook then spend an evening or two crossing out every reference to Patrol and replacing it with the word Troop then hand it to the so-called Troop Leaders along with my resignation and son's transfer request (and transfer request for as many of the other boys as I could wrangle) and let them know your final gift to the Troop are these "Troop Leaders Guides". But that's just me.

I belong to the NRA - I disagree with some of their stands but I agree with many of their stands. I belong to the ACLU - I disagree with some of the stands but agree with many of their stands. I believe if you're a member of the NRA you should be a member of the ACLU - and vice-versa as both of these organizations ultimately have a similar goal - the defense of the Constitution - the ACLU tends to concentrate on 1st Amendment issues, the NRA on 2nd Amendment issues - and I can live with that. I belong to many environmental organizations. I disagree with some of their stands, I agree with most of their stands. I belong to a book readers group - I disagree with some of their book choices and agree with most of their book choices. I disagree with some of the BSA's policies, I agree with most of the BSA's policies. One argument I just can't stand is "If you don't like the policies, quit and join another group". You may as well be saying "If you don't like the USA, move to another country". That last I heard an awful lot of from the neocons who worshipped George W. Bush. I've not heard many supporters of Barack Obama repeat the same to the neocons this time around. That is an absolutist view of someone who hasn't progressed intellectually beyond 8th grade playground politics. We do not live in a black and white absolutist world - we live in a world of many colors - and many shades of gray. The groups we belong to or have an affinity with have many shades of gray. Hopefully none of us will ever truly believe in everything an organization believes, says and/or does. Organizations that require such absolute fidelity with no questioning allowed have a word that describes them - that word is Cult. The followers of Jim Jones swore absolute fealty to him and his organization. The followers of Marshall Applewhite swore absolute fealty to him and his organization. The followers of David Koresh swore absolute fealty to him and his organization. Look what happened to them. Hopefully the BSA will never become a cult with only people who believe the same things in absolute lockstep. I can understand James Dale taking a stand - part of the coming out process includes an "in your face, kick butt, take names, and no prisoners" attitude - it's quite likely Mr. Dale was smack dab in that part of the coming out process when he got that letter revoking his membership. It's not much different from a newly minted non-smoker who is militant about people smoking by them for a whle, or newly minted vegetarians who become militant about people eathing meat, or newly minted parents who become militant about what people say or do in front of their children. All of us have likely gone through something like this in some part of our lives. I still oppose the BSA's stance on this. I think they reached a bit far in some of their statements. Declaring themselves a religious organization has done short term damage and it appears they are quietly trying to back away from that position. The loss of public sponsors and meeting places resulting from their declarations and policies has not been good for the organization as a whole. It's allowed people's prejudices - on both sides - to fester. I've seen people not buy Scout Popcorn from Cub Scouts at a grocery store because the unit was sponsored by the Catholic Church. I've seen people not let their children join Scouts because of the anti-gay policy. Someone mentioned that they wouldn't, as a straight person, join a gay club expecting that club to accept everybody. My question is "Well why not?" I believe such thinking is so last century. Such thinking leads to segregated pool communities (as I recall, a pool community that kicked out a day camp because the kids were mostly black which offended the sensibilities of the mostly white membership got their butt kicked all over national television and was universally derided - and that's the way it should be). Such thinking would have continued the inhumanity of racially segregated country clubs - it took a Tiger Woods to pretty much blow those gates wide open - and even then it was a struggle just a few years ago when Tiger was first starting out. It took people willing to buck the system, Jews, Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays - to join or try to join such clubs in order for changes to be made. So go ahead Mr. Straight Person - join that gay club and demand that straights be allowed membership - chances are you're too late though - they probably already do. There was a gay bar in Chicago that decided they were going to stop letting straight people in - the biggest outcry was from the gay community - two weeks of drastically reduced business on Friday and Saturday nights as all the gay men avoided the place like a plague changed that policy pretty quickly. The bottom line is that if all of us decided we wouldn't join a club or organization if we disagreed with some aspect of it, there wouldn't be any clubs or organization - except of course for the cults. I'd find it difficult to believe that anyone in the BSA agrees with absolutely everything the BSA does - sure, you may support their gay policy but if you don't agree with their policy on laser tag, wouldn't the "leave and join an organization more to your liking" meme apply to you too?

There's hope: If the cast iron was protected by a layer of wax before seasoning, it's possible that you haven't seasoned the DO but have just melted the wax and oil together - if it's still tacky/sticky, I would wash the DO in hot water (as hot as you can stand) and soap - which should be the first thing one does before seasoning an unseasoned dutch oven. The hot water and soap will remove most, if not all of the wax (it's a very thin layering). Now I know many people skip this step because of the Hot Water/Soap and Cast Iron do not mix meme - and while that meme is correct 99% of the time, this happens to be the 1% of the time it's not correct - the first (and only) time you should use hot water/soap is before seasoning your cast iron for the first time. Although you'll see recommendations on using beeswax for seasoning between uses its unlikely that beeswax was used by the factory to protect their wares before sale. Scrub it out well - this also happens to be that 1% of the time that steel wool is safe to use (unless you're recovering a rusted DO). You want to get rid of all the wax and now wax/oil mix as you can. Dry it off, then use a very light coating of vegetable oil. Canola oil should be fine - if its a refined canola oil - if it's unrefined don't use it. Unrefined canola oil has a smoke point of about 225 degrees (F). Refined has a smoke point of about 400 degrees. If you're smoking out your kitchen its because you've used an oil with a smoke point lower than the temperature of the oven. Vegetable shortening and just plain old vegetable oil are popular but their smoke points are around 325 to 350 degrees. Put that into a 350 degree oven and you're going to generate smoke. Safflower oil might be the way to go - it's smoke point is about 500%. You want the oil to warm up and infuse itself into the pores of the cast iron - if it's smoking, its pretty much burning. Turn the oven to 350 to 400 degrees, put the DO and parts open face down on the oven rack (with a sheet pan on the oven rack below the rack holding the DO (don't put the cookware on the sheet pan) and cook for 1 hour. 1/2 an hour isn't enough time. Cook for at least 1 hour. Using an outdoor grill is a great idea - make sure though that the cover can cover your cookware completely (a 12" DO would be hard to season on a Weber Kettle (unless its a very big grill) - and you'll be more successful if its a gas grill - the grill regulates the remp itself via a thermostat, just like your oven. The end result shouldn't be sticky/tacky. If you have an obvious layer of "oil" that isn't sticky/tacky but is hard (and you know its not the hardness of the DO itself you're feeling) then hope is pretty much lost - the oil has likely polymerized and created a plastic covering - I've had this happen to one of my pans - it never fully came out - not even letting it bake in a campfire for a few hours helped remove the "oil". If you have a "bead" of hardened tannish oil where the sides and bottom meet - it's polymerized.

Are there any other barriers to advancement that the BSA does not have that your Scoutmaster wants to propose to the Troop Committee while he's at it? Frankly, putting these kinds of "policies" in to play is a sign of sheer laziness and perhaps incompetance on the part of the adult program leaders. There are already mechanisms and methods available to use to deal with participation/attendance issues - use the tools that are already there rather than invent tools. If the BSA thought that participation/attendance metrics were a good idea, then they would have recommended them - long ago - that the BSA has resisted such a recommendation for such a long time should suggest that it's just not a part of the program the BSA wants delivered. There is a mechanism for preventing a Scout from getting full credit for time served in a POR - and that's to remove the Scout from the POR if the Scout is not doing the job. If he's required to hold a POR for 6 months, and after 3 months, he's not done anything in his POR, remove the Scout from the POR - he keeps 3 months of POR credit on the books, and has to prove up that he's ready to take on a POR again and will work diligently on it to get the remaining credit. Once the Scout has served 6 months in a POR - he gets credit for the 6 months of time served - there is no attendance/participation review after 6 months to see if he gets credit - it's too late at that point. The time to deal with those kinds of issues is early in the POR term - SPL hasn't shown up for 7 of the last 8 Troop Meetings in the first two months? Remove him from the position and elect a new SPL. Why wait until the 6 months is up and let his absences damage the Troop's program? Finally - if there are participation/attendance issues, perhaps you should be asking why? Did a Scout take on the responsibility then discover something that takes on more of his time than he thought? Is the program being delivered keeping one interested? Is there a sudden conflict with a Troop meeting night that may be temporary but no one's communicating with each other to determine a solution? A participation/attendance requirement is useful only as a punitive deterrent - A football coach may be able to get away with an "attend all practices or don't play this week" requirement, but exactly what purpose would such a requirement satisfy in Scouts? Tell a Scout he has to attend all 4 meetings every month to go on that month's camping trip and the first time he misses one meeting because of another issue and can't go on the trip may be the last time you see that Scout bother to come anymore.

You can't really go wrong following Lodge's instructions. Keys to remember are to put to oven's, pan's, etc. on your oven rack with the openings facing down not up. Put a baking sheet underneath to catch any drips. Let the utensil cool down somewhat in the oven - but no more than about 30 minutes - you just need it cool enough to handle but warm enough that any excess oil hasn't started to harden - use paper towels and remove as much excess oil as possible. If excess oil is left to harden it can turn into a polymer (basically a plastic) that is near impossible to remove - even reheating the utensil might not work. Of course this is a bigger risk if you use more oil than you really need. Once the initial seasoning is complete, it should be a rare occurrence to have to re-season the pans. I know some sources say they should be re-done every year but I've never had to do so - the "secret" is to care for it properly in the first place - that means no soaking the pan in water for an hour, no scrubbing the pan with aluminium or steel (I use a bundle of tightly wrapped thin sticks as my scrubber), no using soap (soap breaks down oil), and wiping down the pan with a thin layer of oil or beeswax after every use while the pan is still warm. I usually clean my cast iron cookware before I eat - most foods should "rest" a few minutes before eating anyway to allow for a better melding of flavors anyway (obviouls exceptions - eggs - they just get too cold too fast) so I'm usually cleaning my cast iron as soon as I've taken the food out of it. I usually use spray cooking oil (something like pam) because it's quick - a very light spritzing, then wipe out with paper towels and you'll get a good coat. If I'm using bulk oil, I oil the paper towels, not the pan, and "wipe out" the pan. If I use beeswax, it's a very quick wipe down with the block of wa (and only is the pan is warm enough to melt the wax) then wipe/spread out with paper towel. I then put the pot/pan upside down on a towel to cool.

OGE - that's my understanding of sin as well - a transgression against God. (I don't know how well the concept of sin and evil merge - I can certainly see where there are sins that would be considered evil - but are all transgressions against God really evil? Sure - stealing might be both a sin and be evil (I suppose I define evil as an action taken that does, or may potentially, harm others) but does working on the sabbath, which might be considered sinful as it's a transgression against God really reach the level of evil?). My religion doesn't recognize that one can transgress against the Goddess and/or God. Rather, we recognize the dual natures of the Goddess and/or God. Not that the opposite of the Goddess is the God but that both the Goddess and God are two distinct entities containing both the good and the evil (in essence, there is no separate God and Devil as in many religious traditions but that God and Devil are two sides of the same person). The choice then is which side does one align themselves - with the good or with the evil? If the Goddess and/or God contain both sides in one being, then it's pretty much impossible to sin (as I understand the term) because no matter which path you take, you honor the God and/or Goddess. No transgression, no sin. So, if you steal, you honor the evil (or dark) nature of the Goddess and/or God. If you don't steal, you honor the good (or light) nature of the Goddess and/or God. Does that make sense? I think perhaps that the concept of sin only works, or works best, if the God in question is a single natured being rather than a dual-natured being.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

Though it's really here nor there, when I hear (read) someone complaining about things being too PC, I translate it as "It's unfair - I can't be openly bigoted about other people anymore - bring back the old days when I could openly hate people different from me and didn't have to face any societal or legal consequences for my bigoted attitudes".

Rooster - not a question of whose mind is bigger - you always bring an interesting point of view to a discussion and make me think. No, in this case it's a matter of belief. There just isn't a concept of sin in my religion. Good and evil, yes - and free will choice to decide if one will follow a good or evil path - but sin just doesn't exist. At least for me. But I try not to denigrate anyone who does believe in sin, or in any other practices of faith and belief (a Scout is Reverent, after all). What I do oppose, however, is folks trying to impose their particular views of religious belief and faith on others with differing views of religious belief and faith - through force of will, of law, or of violence (including terrorism & war). (And please don't assume I believe this is what you, or any other posters on the forum are doing - but I do reserve the right to claim that people like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Bill Donahue, etc. are doing just that). That's why I support local (read Unit Sponsor) option on the question in the first place.

Mds, Under your proposal, either everyone is inclusive or no one is inclusive. In other words, if 59 of 60 units in a District want to be inclusive and 1 declares that they are restricted, all must be restricted. If that's the case (and that's how I read the proposal), then why bother? Wouldn't a much simpler policy be to just get rid of the discriminatory clauses in the first place and make Scouting available to all - and I mean girls too - without removing the local option sponsors and units have to choose who can be members and leaders of their units which they already have? The argument that some units won't show up to summer camp or district events because some other unit has athiests, or gays, or girls in it is nonsensical garbage. I know people who think Muslims shouldn't be allowed in Scouts but won't dare suggest that their Troop shouldn't go to the District Camporee because a unit with Muslims in it might attend too. They know how stupid and bigoted they would look. Bottom line is this - why should we let anyone's racism, prejudice or bigotry interfere with providing a great program to youth? The bigotry and prejudice of the current BSA policy doesn't enhance the program at all - it just demeans the program and will continue to lead the program down the path of marginalization in the general public's consciousness that it's been on since the Dale decision.

Funny you should mention that Acco - there is a movie from 1997 that asks just that question. A mother to be gets a genetic test, discovers her baby will be gay, and struggles to decide if she should abort the child or not. To make it even more dramatic, her own brother is gay, and HIV positive. I don't figure the Catholic Church would change their position on abortion if such genetic testing were possible - they have that old "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" non-stand stand thing going for them. But I'd sure like to be there when the religious right leader's heads explode as they try to wrap their small minds around the conundrum.

OldSchool - not assuming anything at all - that's why I asked the question I did. I understand how frustrating it can be for the Den Leader - but I stand by my last paragraph - unless you want to lose this child to Scouting (and if we take Mom at her word on the time (single parent??) - then this child may need Cubbing and Scouting in his life), I'd figure out a way to make it work and give him the badge. As AKdenldr said (and quite wisely I might add): "After all, tigers and the tiger parents are learning the game of scouting."

I'm curious as to what requirements you know that some Tiger's are missing, and how you know they're missing. There are 15 requirements in Tiger achievements - of those, 6 are Den activities - and 5 of them could conceivably be completed in one den meeting (how long does it take to make a leaf rubbing? Create a food pyramid? Practice the Pledge of Allegiance and participate in a Den Flag Ceremony?). One of those 6 is a Den Hike - no one's asking the Tigers to do a 5 mile slog up Pork Chop Hill here - the Den Hike could be completed by taking a nature hike to a local pond at a Den Meeting, or by combining a hike to the fire station with a visit to the fire station (Wow - two Go See Its in one trip). Of the other 9 requirements, none of them require that they be done as part of the Den - they can all be done by the family, and signed off by the Akela in the family. There is no requirement that the Go See Its be done as a Den (except for the Den Hike). If the parents have signed off - consider it a done deal. I once watched as a mother, frustrated that her son wasn't going to get his Bear badge with everyone else in his Den, and knowledgable about the process, went through his book and signed off on pretty near every achievement and elective, claiming that her boy did all this and she just didn't get around to doing the paperwork. Did he do all the work? Probably not. Could anyone prove it? No - it was the Akela's word against the CM & DL - and Akela trumps. Was it right? From a moral perspective, most would say no - but from the BSA policy & procedures perspective, yeah it was. Did he get his badge? Yes. Did he get the boatload of arrow points that should have resulted? No - he was given the same amount every one else earned - and Mom didn't make a fuss about it. The boys of the couple of people who grumbled about it being unfair to their sons (and I wouldn't say they were wrong) didn't cross over to Boy Scouts because they just weren't in to it. They didn't even earn the Webelos Badge. This boy? Earned the Arrow of Light and went on to earn his Eagle Scout rank - and did it the old fashioned way - he earrrrned it. I know we want folks to follow the rules - but I've got to say, at 7 years old? Nothing will cause a boy (and family) to burst in to tears and quit faster than watching all his pals get the Tiger Patch at the same time while he doesn't. If it were me, I would give the Boy the patch and get a promise from the parent(s) that he'll complete the missing work for it before the end of the school year.

I've never heard of a Boy Scout (including Boy Scout Leaders in all future mentions) denied a job because they were a Boy Scout. I've never heard of a Boy Scout fired because they were in Scouts. I've never heard of a Boy Scout denied housing because of Scouts. I've never heard of a Boy Scout denied a vote because they were in Scouts. I've never heard of a Boy Scout denied membership in an organization because they were a Scout. I've never heard of a Boy Scout being harrassed by Law Enforcement because they were a Scout. I've never head of a Boy Scout being denied the right to marry the person he loves because he's a Boy Scout. I've never heard of a Boy Scout being denied visitation rights to a loved one because he was a Boy Scout. I've never heard of a Boy Scout being thrown out of military service because they were a Boy Scout. I've never heard of a Boy Scout being denied service at a restaurant because he was a Scout. I've never heard of a Boy Scout being told to sit in the back of the bus because he's a Boy Scout. I've never heard of a Boy Scout unit denied a spot to march in a parade because they were Boy Scouts. If any of the above occurs because someone is in Scouts, let us know. Until then, can we agree not to diminish real, harmful discrimination with watered down complaints about being treated the same as everyone else?