camilam42

@ ScoutLass, You say, "The reason I state your argument is invalid because it is as you say, the teachings of the Catholic church. The reasoned arguments in these teachings are only reasonable within the scope of the specific theology and history of the organization/faith from which they are drawn. Not everyone shares this theology." The ideal which I am speaking of isn't really something that is strictly Catholic. It is just stated most concisely in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is why I brought a correlation between the CCC and the BSA policy. Also, I assumed that you were Catholic, so I was speaking to you as another Catholic. That isn't the case and I apologized for that. Notice, that this isn't simply a theological principle, but rather a philosophical one as well, which has no religious boundarym hence my statement, "This really isn't so much a religious argument, but rather a rational one. I simply used Catholic teaching to show how it is consistent with BSA ideals." For another time and place, but to simply put your mind at ease, you say, "The theological argument you presented argues the "unnatural" side of homosexuality, but I could make an equally rational argument that life-long celibacy vows are unnatural." One doesn't have anything to do with the other, that is a fallacy called poisoning the well. But to speak directly to it, yes, life-long celibacy is unnatural (strictly speaking), however, it is NOT irrational, if one understands the scope in which it is undertaken. I digress.... You state, "No, of course not, but both of our values deserve the respect of equal consideration by the organization that we have pledged our time and resources to forward. I will never convince you of my side nor will you convince me of yours. This is why local option is the only option that will really work." Fortunately or unfortunately that isn't the case. The BSA runs based upon principles which they have determined to be best for Scouts and Scouting. I don't have to convince you nor do I have to not convince you. The choice is clearly yours. Accept the BSA policy and abide by it, or not. You don't have to like it, but regardless of your personal view, it is what it is. We disagree on the idea that a local option is best, because when the direction is diluted to the local level the leadership invariably breaks down. You should know that from your studies. Finally, my handle is camilam42, not camlan. Thank you.

@ Beavah et al., This is the last time I will post on this topic, as I believe that it has become a circular conversation. First, this "model" wasn't my decision. I am merely the counsellor. I don't have any control over how the unit determines the means. I am just working as part of the whole in our Pack. Second, I have a very good grasp on Catholicism and while I am always looking deeper into the Catholic Faith, that doesn't mean that I don't understand what I am talking about when it comes to Catholicism. Third, I agree that there is something inherently good in the Scouts doing the work with their parents/guardians. However, it seems that everytime I bring that up, it is ignored and the idea of "classroom" is just hammered a little more. Fourth, Scouting should be fun, but who is to say that the way I present is dry and not fun? Who says that I am going to do it in the school? Who says that I wouldn't do this around a campfire? The assumption is that I am going to be acting as a teacher rather than a facilitator. We all know what assumptions do. Finally, this has never been about me "doing my own thing." This has always been about the Scouts. This has been about a modification which was determined BY OTHERS, who have been involved with Scouting for years, that it may be a better way to get participation, which ultimately will lead the Scouts to a greater understanding of their Catholic Faith. End of my story.

@ skeptic, I know what you're saying, but in attempting to keep emotion out of it is important. My emotional view doesn't effect the BSA in any way shape or form. My role as a volunteer is to support the BSA. That is what I am doing, albeit through reason and not through emotion.

I am not going to get into a theolgoical debate with another Catholic or anyone else on the boards. Thank you.

@ ScoutNut, "This is not, and should not, be a school type lesson....It is more of a personal discovery for the boy about how his faith is an intimate part of his everyday life, and not something that is only contained in a church, or a classroom, or something that needs a degree in Philosophy, or Theology, to understand." Who said that it would be? Do you know how we are going to be speaking to the Scouts? The assumption is that we're going to do a MB Univeristy type setting. That isn't the case. I've said all along that the parents/guardians are going to do homework with the kids, ie. they will be doing the book settings. What we're going to do is help guide the parents/guardians and the Scouts. As for my degrees, that just happens to lend credence to my being the counselor. As I've said all along, this is about the Scouts and helping them better understand their Faith. As a Catholic, you should know that the age of reason for a child is 7 years old. Most Scouts that I know of are at least 7. Guidance never hurts. But as I've said several times, it is not my call. I'm simply following what is being asked of me.

@ Beavah, You state, "It presupposes a very authoritative, top-down approach to knowledge and faith, where the emphasis is on being taught rather than on learning, on recitin' knowledge of the faith rather than on living the faith." The Church has always had an authoritative, top-down approach to knoweldge and Faith. And yes, there is an emphasis on being taught the Faith, because the Church does know better than any one person. It is a MAJOR difference in philosophy between Catholics and Protestants. But to assume that reciting knowledge of the Faith does not necessarily lead on to live the Faith is a strecth. As Catholics, we believe that to be taught the Catholic Faith is not merely an emotional response to a feeling we have about God. What it is, is a balance between rational understanding and assent of the will. Our emotions are guided by our reason. And if our reason is properly formed, then our emotions will fall in line with being a Catholic. So, being properly formed with regard to reason and assenting our will to that process makes us better Catholics and into a deeper understanding of God. You go on, "Seems like your tweaks of da program make it less likely to reach your goals with the boys, eh? Unless your goals really are all about declaring your own authority rather than leading the children to God." That is a pretty bold statement. And it is one that smacks of Catholic bigotry. Under absolutely no circumstances am I going to impart my own goals with the Scouts. My personal opinion on religion means nothing when I am teaching or guiding anyone, let alone Scouts on a journey to deepen their Faith. The goals remain the same. The parameters make it easier for the parents/guardians to discuss with their Scouts the questions that they will answer when they go home. I will not fill out their books for them, they will do that with their parents/guardians. For Catholics, God is not a personal relationship in the manner of Protestants. We don't base our Faith on our own understanding of what God is or how God relates to our own personal situation. God is objective, not subjective. As Catholics, we know that God is a loving and just God and that he is there to guide and help us to understand Him. But that understanding is guided by the Church, not by a flawed individual understanding. "New Patrol Leaders and new teachers tend to rely more on their own authority rather than focusing on servant leadership, and yeh seem like a young fellow. But why don't yeh try using your NCCS materials and scouting properly for a couple of years before yeh write 'em off and do your own thing?" I'm not that young. And while I am a new leader, I do have a lot of experience in the world. Finally as I have stated, Beavah, I don't have control over this. That lies with the pastor. He has asked that this be the method in which we engage the Scouts and their parents/guardians. I will comply out of obedience and a like minded spirit of understanding the Catholic Faith. You continue, "There's a reason why your own Canon Law refers to the primacy of the parents in the religious education of the young, eh?" Yes, there is a reason, but this isn't it. Canon Law refers not only to the fact that parents have primacy, but also the fact that the Church has a responsiblity to foster and SUPPORT that primacy.(This message has been edited by camilam42)

@ ScoutLass, "Oh, and "Pagan" Rome did not convert to Christianity, it split apart,as empires do as they fall -- Islam and Christianity played major roles, along with all the various small-tribe religions of conquered people that were no longer held under the imperial thumb. Rome was eventually reduced to a city-state. Even Constantinople fell. Historically speaking of course. The decline of Rome also heralded in the dark ages and the crusades -- which most historians tend to agree were more focused on greed and power that religious zeal. So Rome isn't the best example to use here..." Pagan Rome did convert to Christianity, when Constantine as Emperor in February 313, passed the famous Edict of Milan, it essentially converted the Roman Empire to Christianity. Sure it took time to have it disseminated, but that was the moment it happened. Sure the Empire fell, but it didn't fall because of Christianity v. Islam. It fell for a host of other reasons. The Great Schism (between East and West) which you seem to be alluding to didn't occur until 1054AD. And Islam wasn't even founded until the 7th century AD. Islam had very little to do with the Fall of the Roman Empire. The split between East and West had more to do with it and even then, the more important thing to know was that Rome as centralality was abandoned, which is most likely the reason. Moving the capital to what is now Istanbul made it to hard to rule, because it was so far from the center of the Empire. And techinically, from an anthopological POV, the Roman Empire didn't fall until 1453 with the abdication of the crown by Constantine XI. I apologize for assuming that you were Catholic. You spoke of a priest as if he were your pastor, so it was a fair assumption to make, from a Catholic POV. You say, "Most of your argument fell apart once you began quoting scripture and what I assume is church policy(? not sure of proper terminology here). A religious argument, even of my own religion, is based on faith and therefore can hold little weight when being passed off as fact." No, the argument didn't fall apart. There wasn't any Sacred Scripture posted, there was clear Church teaching. The teaching isn't based upon Faith soley, but rather it is based upon reason and rational conclusions drawn from history and logic. This really isn't so much a religious argument, but rather a rational one. I simply used Catholic teaching to show how it is consistent with BSA ideals. As an aside, how is my argument invalid? Everything that I have presented is valid and sound. Just because you don't espouse the belief doesn't mean that it isn't true. You have to show HOW it isn't true. I've given proofs to support the BSA position all along and have, by and large, left opinion out of the whole conversation. That being said, do you actually know what my personal thoughts on this issue are? And as has been pointed out to me by shortridge (thank you, I see your point), legality doesn't equal morality. He is quite right. The legality of homosexuality in the US, Russia, Australia, Canada, most of the EU and parts of South America doesn't mean that it is moral. Again, my statement on morality stands in which I said, "That which was immoral, but purported to be moral can be proven to be immoral. You are attempting to make that same move to prove that which was immoral, purported to be immoral can be proven to be moral. It can't be proven." There are many immoral laws out there which are justified on rocky ground, yet we're quick to expect espousal of an immoral action as legal and acceptable. Bottom line....the BSA doesn't allow for homosexuals who espouse homosexual behaviors to be members, vlounteers or professionals. If a homosexual who is espousing those behaviors wants to support the BSA, which I believe they still could and should, s/he can find another way to do it. What that way is, is not for me to determine. That is the decision of the BSA.(This message has been edited by camilam42)(This message has been edited by camilam42)

@ ScoutNut, Greetings....I don't know if you're Catholic or not, honestly it doesn't really matter, but from a Catholic perspective, our parish has found that some of the parents don't know that much about their own faith. The Catholic Church has very clear definitions on what the Truth is regarding the Faith of her members. With that being said, the parish I belong to is a more traditional one and puts a high emphasis on said Truths. The pastor feels that it is a better thing to assist the parents teach aspects of Parvuli Dei to the Scouts in a more formal setting, as opposed to a less formal one. So, to your point, "The job of the Cub Scout Coordinator is to communicate with, and to help, the parents work with their son on the emblem program." That is just what is happening. It is just a more formal setting. It is to help the Scout and his parents/guardians to better understand the Catholic Faith. It works out well, because alongside a Bachelors in Philosophy, I also have a Masters in Theology from a Catholic University. You also state, "I find it interesting that you, and I assume your parish, are more concerned with presenting a consistent "Catholic perspective" than in helping parents, to help their sons "discover the presence of God in their daily lives as members of their families and parishes, and also to develop a good, positive self-image through the contributions they can make to the group or community."" One of the tennents of being Catholic is that there are objective Truths which exist regardless of personal opinion. As such, as Catholics, we are to assent our will first to the Truth, then we can come to a fuller understanding of said Truth. So, with that being said, it is important that Catholic Scouts understand first that the Truths held by Catholics are paramount. If those who are Catholic Scouters can facilitate that, then there is no conflict or concern that we are somehow interfering. For Catholics, the Catholic perspective on religion is how we are to form our consciences. Not the other way around, which is how many Protestant communions view it. The reason behind having a more formal setting is simple. It is for the Scouts to better understand their faith and to help the parents/guardians facilitate that. Remember the program is designed a certain way, however, there is nothing that says it cannot be modified for the betterment of the Scouts. I am not in control of how or why. I am simply facilitating in the way that has been presented to me. As an aside (and as I mentioned above), I got my Parvuli Dei in the same manner as is going to be presented to the kids this time around. I earned mine in 1985.

@ clemlaw, I've checked several sites, including troop level, district level, and council level and it seems in all cases that if the Arrow of Light has been awarded, then it is to be placed in the appropriate spot. No place says that it can be forgone because of a new shirt. I could be wrong...

@ Scoutfish, You say, "What we have here is BSA telling CO that "This is what you are going to do, to be able to be chartered." That means BSA has determined what is morally righta s far as the rules go. That does not say or indicate that all people agree with them,only that they have to follow BSA's rule in order to charter a Unit. The Co does not have a choice as top wether to allow a homosexual to serve. BSA took that decision away from the CO. IF a CO actually fely having a Gay person be a volunteer, they still couldn't do that per BSA's rule, not their own feelings of morals." And what are we talking about here? We are talking about the BSA and the fact that in order to be affiliated with the BSA, then the CO has to abide by the wishes of the BSA. The BSA didn't take a choice away from the the CO, that is an absurd statement. The CO never had the ability to make the choice that you are ascribing to them. Some CO's attempted to make them arbitrarily, but were told that they were not in keeping with the morality of the BSA. If the CO doesn't want to abide by the rules, then they do have a choice. They can choose to no longer belong to the BSA. So, you are committing a pretty big logical fallacy by going down that road. It is called "An appeal to Consequences of a belief." You say, " never said, indicated or implied either side had the correct view. I only sid that your logic in the - "And if they didn't think that they were morally wrong, why don't they allow for homosexuals to serve as volunteers then? - argument didn't stand up." And I showed you how it does. It does stand up. My logic is both valid and sound. You go on, "It wasn't that long ago that the evidence supported that it was morally okay to think of women as property , that black people were inferior and deaf people were just stupid. At one time, the "correct" view was that the world was flat, that slavery was perfectly moral and that women really didn't need to have an opinion, vote or do anything else besides run around barefoot and pregnant while fixing supper for the man." No, it wasn't morally acceptable to think of women as property, that black people were inferior and that deaf people were just stupid. Those views were accepted, but they were wrong views. This has been proven to be the case. It was the case then, it is the case now. As for the second part of your statement, you're all over the place. There is an argument that certain forms of slavery are moral, however, unjust slavery is not. I am assuming that you are talking about the latter. It is clear that this line of thinking is not nor was it ever a moral action. Because people do immoral things under the guise of morality, mean that it cannot be proven to be wrong. As far as women's suffrage, the same holds true. We have to allow for development of that which was NEVER moral to be proven to be so. However, with homosexual behavior, we are not talking about that. What we are talking about is something that has always being viewed as immoral continued to be shown to be immoral. So, you're view doesn't follow with the conclusion, because your premise is flawed. In other words... That which was immoral, but purported to be moral can be proven to be immoral. You are attempting to make that same move to prove that which was immoral, purported to be immoral can be proven to be moral. It can't be proven. Finally, you say, "My only feeling is this: A gay person's sexual preference should not have any more influence or impact on scouting that my own. And do you know how much that is? ZERO! I do not bring my sex life into scouting. Scouting has nothing to do with sex as far as I am concerned." While I understand that this is strictly your opinion and you're entitled to it, my response to the statement is this... A homosexual person's preference doesn't have much influence, but his behavior does. It is an immoral action in which he is engaging, in direct contradiction to the BSA. A heterosexual person's perference doesn't have much influence, but his behavior does. It is a moral action in which he is engaging, assuming that he is following the precepts of the BSA. As an aside, in defining terms, we have to use the terms as defined by the BSA, because that is the defining body. So, while you may have your opinion, and you do, it doesn't necessarily prove anything. That is why I normally do not give my opinion, because there is no authority in it and it means absolutely nothing to anyone other than me.

@ Eagle92, BOR's were so stressful. I know they are not meant to be cakewalks, but from what I remember, I used to get so nervous....good thing I got over that....

@ shortridge, You respond, "No, they don't. A United States judge would never rule on such a point. What those cases did show is that a private organization has the right to determine its membership. Simple." Actually, Judge Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court with regard to the Dale case. Judge Werdegar delivered the opinion in the Curran case and so on. I don't disagree that the cases show what you say, they most certainly do, but they are also opinions rendered by Justices and Judges. From www.bsalegal.org, "The United States Supreme Court reversed the New Jersey Supreme Court and held that a state may not, through its nondiscrimination statutes, prohibit the Boy Scouts from adhering to a moral viewpoint and expressing that viewpoint in internal leadership policy and that the New Jersey Supreme Courts decision violated Boy Scouts First Amendment right of freedom of association." and "Ultimately, an Illinois appellate court held that the Boy Scouts were allowed to require job applicants to observe the Scout Oath and Law when they were seeking to serve as professionals acting in representative capacities for Scouting." There most certainly was a judgment made on a moral impotice which includes the Scout Oath and Scout Law. @ Scoutfish, You say, "Basically you are saying that the reason the CO doesn't allow gay volunteers is because National DOES NOT LET THEM! So what does that prove about various religions views on what is morally acceptable? NOTHING!" I disagree. The CO is follow the dictates of National. What are National's reasons. I've posted that. The CO is following the "morally straight" viewpoint of the BSA. Again, the BSA's viewpoint, "We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts. Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does not accept homosexuals as members or as leaders, whether in volunteer or professional capacities." There is nothing but consistency in my logic. You go on to say, "Not everybody thinks being gay is morally wrong. Just because SOMEBODY else has a rule on it...does not change individual opinions." I understand that. I really do. And I doubt the BSA thinks that a homosexual person is morally wrong. What they do believe is that because of the actions and behaviors in which they engage, they are incompatible with the morals the BSA espouses. The question then becomes, if an out homosexual were to recant their behavior and promise to live a "morally straight" life according to the BSA, then I believe the BSA would reconsider on a case by case basis. By the way, who says the opinions of individuals who support homosexual behavior is the correct view? There is a lot more evidence to support the contrary. @ Merlyn_LeRoy, My point is that the vast majority of parents will not expose their child to chicken pox. I suppose that if one looks hard enough, one can find the absolute to anything....good on you for finding that one!!! LOL!!!

@ Beaveah, I see your points, I really do. I'm not trying to be difficult, but rather I am enjoying this conversation. That being said; you say, "Yah... the vast majority of da couple dozen scouts that would recognize a silver critter award. Seriously, most adult volunteers don't know what all the knots stand for, eh? The kids are by and large clueless." If they saw it they would most likely ask, just becuase of childlike curiousity. And Scouters should take the time to know what all the knots and awards are, for both Scouts and Scouters. I firmly believe that this is one of the reasons that so many Scouters don't get the recognition they deserve. While I know that Scouting is about the Scouts, the awards Scouters get show that they have given to the Scouts and it should make the boys proud to see their leaders patched. "Of course your church, more than most, places a lot of emphasis on personal humility, eh? Your religious orders pretty much take as a uniform the clothing of the poor at the time they were founded, and eschew any personal award wear. Most Catholic scouters I know are not big-time knot wearers. So yeh might not wear your St. George." Religious orders, yes. Diocesan, not necessarily. We do have a rank system that is in place. Clerics, deacons and priests wear black. Monsignors wear black trimmed in fuschia and/or red, depending on their rank of monsignor. Bishops wear fuschia and Cardinals wear scarlet. So there is distinction. Also, certain awards, medals, and adornments can be worn if presented, earned or awarded. But by and large, you're correct. BTW, I am not eligible for the St. George yet, and if I were, it wouldn't be up to me to have it conferred. I'm just saying. "Yah, except by that logic of "shared insignia" we shouldn't be wearin' knots at all, eh? Because the lads can't earn knots (youth religious knot aside). We should instead keep the badges of rank we earned as youth on our pockets and wear our old MB sashes." I see what you're saying, However, I think that Scouters should be wearing something more subdued. It isn't about us parading around in MB sashes and old ranks. However, we do have a way of being recognized for our good service and that is through the knot system. It should be noted that I support the knot system for two reasons, 1) It shows whoever is looking that the Scouter has done great service for Scouting and Scouts and 2) It is a tool to help Scouts be more proud of their leaders (even if they don't understand that completely). I do agree about the idea of patch blankets....I also agree with your last statement 100%. "That's why the BSA Insignia Guide recommends patch blankets and jackets over excessive knot wear. I think adhering to the BSA guidelines and to the long tradition in Scouting of subdued, tasteful wearin' of select adult awards tied to your program is the "right thing to do."" But that doesn't mean that we don't wear knots altogether. It means that we wear what is appropriate.

@ ScoutLass, Respectfully, I must disagree with you on this issue. You state, "The moral argument doesn't fly, as not all organizations represented within the BSA feel that homosexuality is morally wrong in any way, shape or form." I don't quite understand what you are getting at. What organizations within the BSA are you speaking of? And if they didn't think that they were morally wrong, why don't they allow for homosexuals to serve as volunteers then? The answer to that is pretty clear, because the BSA doesn't think that it is "morally straight" to do so. The cases that I listed are clear examples of this being upheld. As for the anthropology piece, you say, "History shows that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality." And how many times in history have the participants been incorrect? And how do you know, with any certainty (outside of theoretical) that it was considered morally acceptable? You also speak of ideals that have become extinct over time. Why, because they have no legs to stand on. Because something existed at another time doesn't mean that it was correct. So the idea that one is "more powerful" because of dual sexuality roles is what doesn't hold water, precisely because it has been proven to be a false ideal, through the scope of history. You go on to say, "It's these peripheral beliefs packaged as morals where disagreement lies, which is why there shouldn't be an across the board decree made on them by the BSA...Any arguments that homosexuality is not morally straight do not hold water because this is a peripheral moral that is not held by all religions represented in the BSA." These ideals are not peripheral. They are core teachings. To simply say that ideals like the 10 Commandments or the Beatitudes or other major moral teachings are peripheral is not being genuine, when above you're citing ideals proven through history to be wrong as more binding than those which have remained standing through the test of time and in the face of history. There is a reason why pagan Rome converted to Christianity, anthropologically speaking. I will not speak to your personal experience, because it is not in my privy to do so, but I can give you my own understanding of how it is interpeted, from a like minded point of view, since, presumably, we are both Catholic. The Catholic Church teaches clearly through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC #2357) It goes on to say, "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (CCC #2358) And finally, it says, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." (CCC #2359) This is not inconsistent with BSA policy at all. The BSA policy states, "For more than 80 years, the Boy Scouts of America has brought the moral values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law to American boys, helping them to achieve the objectives of Scouting. The Boy Scouts of America also places strong emphasis on traditional family values as being necessary components of a strong, healthy society. The Scouting program is designed to be a shared, family experience. We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts. Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does not accept homosexuals as members or as leaders, whether in volunteer or professional capacities. Our position on this issue is based solely upon our desire to provide the appropriate environment and role models which reflect Scouting's values and beliefs. As a private membership organization, we believe our right to determine the qualifications of our members and leaders is protected by the Constitution of the United States." The two positions are incredibly similar. Neither condemn nor vilify homosexuals. However, both are very clear that the action in which a homosexual may participate in is not acceptable. Because of this, s/he is excluded from serving as a volunteer or a professional. However, nothing is said about a homosexual supporting Scouting in another capacity, which is not as a volunteer or a professional. My point is this, to simply take it to the base level of science doesn't work, because science doesn't take into account the human condition. Science is too narrow and specialized. It simply shows raw data which has to be extrapolated. The moral imperative which is really at question here cannot be mentioned in science, because science is not prepared to answer that question. That is why anthropology cannot work to defeat the ideal of morality or any other ideal.

The Parvuli Dei award is intended for work with the parent or guardian, but there are also parts which can be molded into a group setting with the Scouts so that they are getting consistent teaching from a Catholic perspective. It is both family and parish oriented. Some choose to allow for it to be done strictly with the family, then meeting one on one with the priest or his representative who is the facilitator. Some choose to allow for it to be done in a mixture of class and home work so that the teaching is consistent with Catholic teaching. That is how I did it when I was a Cub. Either method is acceptable. While it can be accomplished in 4-6 hours, it is expected that this will take several weeks to several months, depending on the participation level of the parent and child. With regard to Ad Altare Dei, there are weekly meetings which will take place and the Scout is expected to assist at Holy Mass. There are parts to each step and the final step is to go before a review board. This process is designed to take 6-8 months. This also assumes that the regular conditions are met by the Scout before starting either program.

@ Beavah, "Can yeh provide a citation for the claim that an adult leader who doesn't wear all of his knots is "out of uniform"." If you look to the inspection sheet, it speaks to what should be above the left pocket, correct. It says, "Embroidered square knots are centered above the pocket in rows of three." One will get 5 points for having the knots on the uniform correctly placed. Logic would dictate that if you had knots missing and/or not applied at all, with knowledge that they were to be there, then you would be docked 5 points on your inspection. That seems pretty official to me. While you may disagree, if you are being authentic to the understanding of what the inspection does for Scouting, the only logical conclusion would be, wear all your knots or you are going to be docked 5 points for being out of uniform. Seems to be a pretty clear understanding of knots. "I also agree with other fellows who mention that the boys arent really interested in or impressed by the knots....The boys know if the SM is there for him by other sorts of things, not the uniform." I disagree. I had a new Boy Scout come up to me at the last Pack meeting I attended and say that he and I shared a knot. It was the religious knot, but he noticed and made mention of it. As far as the last part of your statement, I would say that if you had ended it with "not JUST the uniform." I would have no issue at all, but you didn't. I think that Scouts do know that the Leader is there for him because of his uniform. If that were not the case, then why bother with adult uniforms at all? "Humility in not adorning oneself or calling attention to oneself is real humility, not false. Especially at a Court of Honor where the focus should be on the boys, and not on us." Not necessarily. Here is my reasoning...if one uses humility as a crutch to not do what is right, then he is practicing false humility. So if one were to say, "I am not going to do X because it might draw attention to myself, even though I know that X is the right thing to do, based upon the positive example or exposure it could have..." then it is false humility. It defeats the purpose. From reading the posts that I have, this is the attitude that I see many taking about the knot system and that is why I have said what I have said. "Reverence, our 12th point of the Scout Law, in my opinion has nothing to do with revering the BSA or its uniform. In fact, many if not most of our religious traditions in this country would consider that idolatrous, the very opposite of real reverence. Scouting is a great movement, but it is not owed reverence." I think that you misunderstand what I am saying. I am certainly not saying that we put the BSA or it's particulars on the same level as God, but we should show proper respect or reverence to the institution. Under no circumstances am I saying that we should revere the BSA as we do God. If that is how it came across, I apologize. "Obedience I dealt with above, eh? Wearing a full display might be considered disobedient by folks who take the guidebooks seriously, but whatever yeh think about that, it's clear that wearing a full display is not required, and therefore not doing so is not disobedient." I don't necessarily think that you did. I think that if my reasoning stands, then it falls into this category. Doesn't a Scout follow the rules of the family, school and Troop? If the Troop is in line with the Council and the Council is in line with National, then wouldn't it follow that by being properly patched he is being obedient? Just thinking logically on my part. "And I don't even get the Trustworthy claim" We should trust our leaders to do what is expected of them, in order to provide the best example and exposure to the Scouts. "Uniforming is a method of scouting, a tool to accomplish something with young men." I couldn't agree with you more. However, is a dull knife a good tool? Is a uniform that is improperly patched a good tool? "Can I ask what goals yeh have for youth that yeh think are best addressed by adult knot displays?" Sure you can ask. I am going to be leading Parvuli Dei and Ad Altare Dei classes. I wear the youth knot for Religious awards, because I earned them when I was in Scouting. By my having the knot, I can speak directly and forcefully about the program, because I have experienced it. Once I have spoken about this, it will be immediately recognizable that I have achieved what they are aspiring to. It will serve as witness to the fact that I have accomplished the same thing a generation earlier. It is a bridge and hopefully a bond for those Scouts who will be eligible to wear the same knot. BTW, at this point, I only have two knots. I have the Arrow of Light and the Youth Religious knots. I don't have plans for getting any more, as I don't believe in self nomination, but if I am privileged enough to earn another knot someday, I will wear it proudly and I will make sure that the Scouts around me know why I have it. Because it educates them on a different level. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of Scouts who know about the Silver Beaver, Antelope, Buffalo are because they have seen either the knot or the medal on a leader. That is telling.

@ TomTrailblazer, "I believe that homosexual behavior is unhealthy, but I also think the current BSA policy is wrong." First, greetings. Second, I have a degree in Philosophy, so you'll have to pardon me if I come off dry, it is in my nature to do so, based upon my educational background. What I see in this statement is a bit of an oxymoron. My reasoning is this...if you believe that homosexual behavior is unhealthy, why would you expose Scouts to it? What you are suggesting is akin to saying, "I believe that chicken pox is unhealthy, but I also think that the current school policy is wrong." You wouldn't have that child exposed to chicken pox would you, knowing the outcome? Some will say that it is not a fair comparison, because the factors are quantifiable with chicken pox whereas they are not with homosexual behavior. I disagree. It is clear that the BSA has judged the factors related to the homosexual issue are quantifiable. If they did not, they would not have the policy in place. There is discrimination there, but discrimination is not always a negative thing. You don't let girls into the boys locker room after a high school football game. That is discrimination, but it is acceptable. Women who belong to PEO don't allow men to attend the meetings and know what PEO stands for, that is discrimination. Discrimination is a good thing when it is applied to the common good. The BSA has determined that the homosexual issue is one which merits discrimination. Should I find the discrimination offensive? No. Should I strive to understand the reasoning behind it? Yes. "Local units will never be required to accept gay Scouters, but some units may choose to accept help from openly gay volunteers if they sign the "Declaration of family values" and promise to live a morally clean life." Since there is a clear understanding by the BSA of what constitutes "morally straight," and that understanding is incompatible with openly gay volunteers, because of their behavior, then it would stand to reason they cannot be volunteers. That however does not mean that they cannot still and should not still support Scouting in other ways. Several cases which speak to this directly are: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S.640(2000) Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy Scouts of America, 952 P.2d 218 (Cal. 1998) Boy Scouts of America v. District of Columbia Commission on Human Rights, 809 A.2d 1192 (D.C. 2002) Chicago Area Council of Boy Scouts of America v. City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations, 748 N.E. 2d 759 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) These cases show that the Scout Law and Oath are incompatible with homosexual behavior. "The best way for Scouting to shed its current image as a right-wing anti-gay organization is for more liberals to get involved." Interestingly enough, the only groups that think this are left-wing and pro-homosexual groups. I believe that if you were to do a poll about the BSA, this issue would not even come up, unless you targeted the ACLU, MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice, Citizens for Tax Justice, Handgun Control, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, Planned Parenthood, and the like. The reality is this, the BSA has a right to be discriminating in who it allows to be members. It chooses, based upon it's moral code who it believes to be the best example for the Scouts it is charged with teaching life lessons to. If they find that a group is incompatible, they will deny them that privilege. This isn't simply homosexuals, but homosexuals have made the loudest bang about it.

Hi All, @ packsaddle, I grew up in Humboldt, which is about an hour South of Okoboji. I've had many a trip to the Lake, so I get it. @sheldonsmom, I was just in CB/Omaha about two months ago for a conference...go figure.

@ VigilEagle04 and Eagle92, Thanks for the clarification. If that is indeed the case, and I have no reason to disagree at this point, then I would say wear what you've earned. Might it look a little garish? Probably, but then again, there are those that would say an Eagle with all his palms, merit badges, temp badging, den chief cords, etc....would look pretty garish too. This is all a means to an end. It is to promote Scouting and provide an example to the Scouts. Since knots do that, I have no issue with wearing the appropriate regalia. Again, if we are to assume the Scout Law, then we are to be trustworthy and that means that we are to trust that the Scouter with 21 knots is doing it for the betterment of Scouting and the Scouts themselves. I don't see a viable need to go any deeper, unless there is due cause where the trust has been broken by that Scouter.

@ neilLup, "The problem and risk can come when an individual has so many knots that it risks looking silly under normal circumstances. Or when knots, or lack of knots is used to make an individual uncomfortable. I have seen an individual with at least 21 knots -- seven rows. I fear that this did seem to be a bit much. But I kept that to myself. If it made him happy and encouraged him to do good things for youth, more power to him." Hello back, I understand your statement, and I am very well aware of how ego can play into this. However, are we not supposed to espouse all of the Scout Law. We, as Scouters should assume, because it is to be so, until proven otherwise that he who wears the knots is trustworthy, obedient, and reverent. I'll speak to each: Trustworthy -- That he is wearing what he has earned and doing so in a manner that is exposing Scouts to the best possible example. Obedient -- That he is wearing his uniform as dictated by the BSA. This would include wearing all of the knots which are prescribed and in the manner in which they should be worn. Reverent -- That is is showing proper respect and honor to the uniform of the BSA. Not for himself, but for the betterment of Scouting. Now, if those things are assumed which they should be, until PROVEN otherwise, I would say have them wear the knots as prescribed and give no grief. Although, if they are not then not only are they breaking the Scout Law, but so are we, by not holding them accountable. Remember we are to be loyal. Loyalty is not only to the USA, but also to the BSA. I don't think that calling someone out is out of line. An example, if I were to show up at your Roundtable without my Pack numbers on, but everything else, would I be called out on it (in a perfect world)? My answer.... Yes. And I should be. I would be out of uniform. Continuing the example, if I were to show up at your Roundtable without all of the proper knots, which I have earned, would I be called out on it (in a perfect world)? My answer.... Yes. And I should be. I would be out of uniform. Finally, for the fellow that is wearing 21 knots, I believe that is a breech in uniform etiquette. If memory serves, I think that the most that can be worn at any one time is 9. So I would call him out on that. He can choose which 9 to wear, but I believe that it is only 9, although there are whispers that this may be expanded or changing. Thanks for your kind reply to my previous post.

Let me pose this question..... If the BSA intended for us (Scouts and Scouters) to earn the award, but not promote the award or only promote it as we see fit, why bother making the knot system? My answer.... It would seem that the concept of the knot system is to serve as an example for the Scouts. If they know, understand, and recognize the knots, see that they are being worn and educated on the reason why the knot system is in place, then I believe that the knots, no matter how many earned should be worn. The impotice falls upon us, as Scouters, to show the Scouts that we are serious about providing them the best possible experience. This means that we should attend functions in uniform. That means that we should be showing the Scouts that wearing the proper uniform is not only mandatory, but also desired. An example: If I earned a knot and did not wear it on my "Class A" then I would be out of uniform, because I am not exposing the Scouts to the fullness of what I have earned in order to make them better Scouts. Caveat: Does this mean that I am going to wear all of my regalia in the field when camping? No, but I do have a separate shirt for that purpose. That shirt has the basic patching on it, minus any temporary badging, pocket flaps, quality awards, etc. That is pretty standard though and not what I am speaking about. The Scouts see me camp 3 or 4 times a year (I'm a Cub Scouter, not a Boy Scouter). Am I going to vilify someone who doesn't wear all of his knots? No, but if I know that someone has earned a knot and is not wearing it, on purpose, because he is trying to be humble, then I would simply point him to understanding what humility really means. False humility is worse than genuine humility for the simple fact that it doesn't serve the greater good. In this instance, I am of the opninion that if the Scouts are enhanced because they see knots, which they are (even if they won't admit it, they are kids and teens after all), then we, as Scouters, should do all we can to promote proper Scouting in even the smallest measure, which in this case means wearing the knots, as Scouters.

@Jeffrey H, "I wear the full uniform as an Adult Leader in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts for the following reasons: 1) To show that I'm a member of a great youth organization that I believe in. 2) To set an example to the Scouts and Scouters for proper wearing of the full uniform. 3) I paid good money for my uniforms and I'm not letting them sit in my closet just because I'm saving them for a more "formal" event. 4) It is a method of the Scouting program. When Adult Leaders are more consistent with our uniforming, then we will see more boys doing the same." I couldn't agree with you more. The point of adult leader uniforms is to be an example. I realize that many think that the focus should be on the Scouts, but my argument would be that by a leader wearing the uniform, he is focusing on the Scouts in question. He is providing them an example to follow. Thanks, for your post Jeffrey. So, I think that not only should the Scouter wear the uniform, but he should be properly adorned in his patching. Notice that I said properly. He should be wearing what is proper for him as a Scouter and what he is entitled, but I do think that he should be properly adorned. This shouldn't be about anything other than providing an example for Scouts. I know ego plays a part in some of this, but to be honest, Scouters should be proud of their accomplishments because it shows that he's been leading an active and vigorous Pack/Troop.

Hello, my name is Andy Milam. I'm the new Pack Committee Chair for Pack 139 in Des Moines, Iowa. I'm getting back into Scouting after a long layoff. It is going to be great to see a new generation of Scouts go through everything that I did and I'm really looking forward to helping them exceed what I did while a Scout. I look forward to learing a lot from all of you as well.