acco40

I find many of the political ramification of religion fascinating. Kudu seemed to recoil in horror when Christian Scientists practiced their religion by letting "God" heal their sick children with diabetes, etc. In France, the wearing of head scarves in school was prohibited (I think). Here in the USA, some female Muslims were not allowed to cover their faces for driver's license photographs. However, I was able to sing Silent Night in my (public) grade school in the '60s during the Christmas season. My kids sang Kwanzaa songs (and others) at their "Holiday" season assembly in grade school. I noticed there was not Silent Night or other Christmas carols. I think even an atheist could enjoy Handel's messiah without feeling "oppressed." However, even I cringe when I'm at a scouting function and the prayer mentions "Jesus" or any other specific religion. I consider myself very open minded and accepting of others beliefs but I can't really buy into this diversity thrust. I used to have in my office a picture depicting five sterling silver forks. Four were in perfect shape and identical. However one had the tines all bent out of shape. The caption was, just because you are different doesn't mean you are useful. I was told to take it down. (This message has been edited by acco40)

White liberal here. Became a liberal because of scouting. Learned about conservation, the trees, the birds, the wildlife, labor unions, and other cool topics. Been a liberal ever since. Was raised in a conservative/moderate family. I like how study and believing in "conservation" makes one a liberal. Also, the fact that wanting less government intrusion (against laws for gay exclusion, abortion, etc.) makes one a liberal. You'd think folks wouldn't bandy about these talking head labels so freely before thinking about what they are saying/posting first. Mr. Takei is in the same situation as many of us - we feel the core of scouting is a great program for our youth but it does have a few blemishes that we wish to change. Exactly how that is best accomplished is worth debating. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Before we all debate with a bunch of rhetoric, let's get down to brass tacks on some current political issues. Q1) Should pregnancy be treated as an illness? Q2) Is access to health care a "right" or a privilege? For the first question, if an illness, then prenatal care, delivery, etc. should be covered by medical insurance. So should contraceptive devices - they prevent this illness. If not an illness, don't cover prenatal care nor contraceptive devices - for both are choices folks freely make. For the second question, if government laws can dictate treatment, they should be able dictate coverage. I can't walk into a store and get free food just because I'm hungry and stores are not forced to supply food to hungry folks. Why is health care so different? If, as a society, we feel health care is a right, tax folks and provide it. What is a fallacy, either way you feel about the second question, is that we have unlimited resources for health care - we don't and therefore they need to be rationed. The system now rewards health care providers for providing massive amounts, in terms of dollars, of care for a persons last six months or so of life. A huge savings would ensue if we allowed for folks to die respectfully, without extending their lives a few weeks with intrusive machines. Yes, these are tough ethical decisions but when 50% or so of our health care budget is spent on peoples last six months of life, something is amiss.

Read the UNIT MONEY-EARNING APPLICATION you filed with your local council before the fundraising began. It should answer your questions.

Sorry, I guess I'm too old school and don't understand the random capitalization of words. Also, with your proliferation of pronouns, I'm don't think I understand your post. Please edit and clarify the multitude of "they" in our post?(This message has been edited by acco40)

jpstodwftexas, your lodge does not have the authority to "allow" the sash to worn on the belt. If you feel an overwhelming need to wear your OA sash on the belt, in spite of it being pointed out to you in a crystal clear manner that it is incorrect - go for it. For that matter, wear it as a headband - nothing in the OA handbook specifically states that is not allowed.

Advancement is like a suntan - if you dwell on it too much, it can become cancerous. From Acco40's guide to Scouting parental behavior.

Your spelling prowess!

Prayers go out to his family and friends.

I proposed this to our district about 10 years ago and was shot down. The reasons I was given was the sometimes "adult" topics were discussed at roundtable and the roundtable staff did not want youth present. In my 10 years or so of attending roundtables, I did not find this the case. I would much rather have had my SPL attend to hear about the upcoming district jamboree preparation, sharing of scouting themes, best practices, camping ideas, etc. It would have been a hard sell to parents sometimes but well worth it in my book.

Scouting is a private organization - the BSA has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court to fight for that. Scouting costs money. Uniforms, crafts, camping equipment, travel, etc. Scouting has vehicles for raising money - popcorn sales, public goodwill, etc. I don't buy the money issue wrt to proper uniforming. It is all a priority thing. Regardless of how much a uniform costs, I've seen families complain. Heck, in my neck of the woods it costs $450 to play sports for the local high school and not to many blink an eye at that, yet then complain vociferously about the cost of a BSA uniform. One of the things we did as a troop (or should I say, gave the troop the opportunity to do) was to help our county with a program that helped financially distraught families. Each week, area churches, including our CO and the church I attend (two different ones), house families for a week and give them food, shelter, basic services, etc. As a troop, we also serve them, eat with them, interact with them, etc. It was an eye opener for my kids. Some of the homeless men were once Scouts themselves and were more appreciative of the camaraderie than they were of the food, shelter, showers, haircuts, etc. I was very appreciative that my children were able to see that these were "normal" people, just like them and not some sort of pariahs. Race didn't enter into the equation much. The overwhelming majority of the volunteers and recipients were white. I grew up witnessing the phone disconnected, gas turned off, cars repossessed, etc. As a teen, I felt overwhelming embarrassment - even though I had nothing to do with it. Like GWTW, I felt like As God is my witness, as God is my witness they're not going to lick me. I'm going to live through this and when it's all over, I'll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill. As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again. - not very Scout like but I know the feeling. Luckily, no lying, stealing, cheating or killing was needed for me to become self sufficient and support a family. I've been laid off but I also agree with BSA24 - folks with two cars, cable TV, cell phone service, internet connections, computers, etc. claim poverty all too frequently.

I feel that society is slowing having their social skills eroded by - yes, online forums, Facebook, text messaging, email, video games, chat rooms, fear of crime, youth sports run by adults, etc. Therefore, instead of talking to a parent, as I did about their son's behavior on campouts, they would rather have some of "law" state that those Scouts who take stimulants to treat hyperactive disorders for school be required to take them during scouting functions. Come on, if a Scout misbehaves on an outing, I'll have a conversation with the parent (after my conversation with the scout, his patrol leader, troop guide, SPL, chaplain's aide, etc.). As Scoutmaster, if wasn't fond of bylaws. I was in favor of a parents guidebook that stated such things as rudimentary advancement policies, the night we meet for troop meetings, uniform and behavior expectations, suggested personal camping gear, etc. Take for instance something as simple as tents. Scout brings his own or does troop provide? Can he bring his own if the there are troop tents? Not so much bylaws, but useful information for parents.(This message has been edited by acco40)

The BSA encourages the proper clothing / uniform for the proper function. No, the field uniform is not very functional for in the field (while camping). Duh, the BSA doesn't push that. Now, for a Court of Honor - yes, the field uniform should be worn, all insignia properly placed, no sashes on belts, etc. Regardless of how we "feel" - why not just administer the program the way it was intended to be administered? I think what many are really showing with their posts on this thread is an ignorance of the program.

Kudu - What is linking Christian Scientists to the BSA? I don't get the connection. Near where I grew up was Principia College. I was a very respected Christian Science college with a beautiful campus over looking the confluence of the Illinois, Mississippi and Missouri rivers. About every 15 years or so measles, mumps, meningitis, or some other "common" child disease would sweep through the school (most Christian Scientist don't get vaccinated against these diseases). Is that abuse? No in the classical sense in my book. Heck in 50 years, society may look at the fact that we fed our children Pop Tarts, high fructose corn syrup, happy meals, cola, and other "abusive" items and pass judgment on us! It used to be certain religions didn't allow organ transplants, transfusions, etc. We feel that is somewhat antiquated now. Right now, some folks and religions are fighting contraceptive devices - that may be judged as antiquated in the future. My elementary school had a boys show room. Fred8033, please enlighten me. I have no idea what a boys show room (typo for shower??) may be.

Scoutfish et. al. - What is the purpose of a mock BOR? As a Scoutmaster, I would laugh if the committee suggested they ran voluntary mock SMCs to prepare the Scouts. I think the trouble now with the BSA is we have a bunch of parents who want to run the troop for their precious children, who are of course more special than any other children, and they view "Irving" as getting in the way with a bunch of silly rules. For them, just go down to the Scout shop, purloin a few Eagle patches and be done with it.

While I am always against the uniform police bullying people about unnecessary details of their uniforms, I strongly push leaders and scouts to wear a complete uniform . . . So how does one differentiate between "uniform police bullying" and "strongly pushing?" Uniforming is a touchy subject on this forum. It was very tiresome when at almost every event, Scouts would come up to me (SM) and ask, do I have to wear my uniform? I would usually always answer, "It is always appropriate to wear a Scouting uniform to a Scouting function." I had a former committee chair that steadfastly refused to wear / own a uniform. I was always perplexed at the numerous parents that felt slighted if they were not a committee member (usually "at-large" so they had no responsibility except to officially kibitz and cherry pick) but would not dream of purchasing a uniform. I always asked them, how can you sit there with a straight face expecting a Scout to be properly uniformed for a BOR when you make no attempt to be properly uniformed as a board member? But once again, I'm ready for the Irving haters to chime in about how all these nit picky rules get in the way of the program.

There's abuse and then there's abuse. When I was in junior high school, heck even in sixth grade, the boys took showers in gym class. Two points were deducted from your grade if you did not. The gym teacher was there with his clip board checking off your name as he watched you go in (or was it out?) of the shower. It was considered a "teaching moment" about proper hygiene. Now, did I feel that was abuse? No. Did my parents? No. Did anyone? Not to my knowledge. As such, we as young teens learned to develop a little bit thicker skin than the youth of today. If someone read a report of a teacher "watching boys enter and exit the showers on a daily basis" he may believe some sort of abuse was taking place. I'm not trying in any way to trivialize the trauma that can occur when sexual or physical child abuse occurs such as in the Jerry Sandusky case. But psychologically, the more "shame" and attention heap on the incident doesn't do much good for the victim. I think that now, with the availability of the internet, access to all sorts of pornography may make some feel that certain behaviors are more acceptable. Unfortunately, I feel that as a society (in the USA) we've tried to "child proof" our kids - stranger danger, etc. which is totally unfair. I did not want my children to grow up casting a wary eye toward adults. It was my job to keep them safe and monitor their activities. Could I be there every step of the way? No, but they were raised in a two adult household, were not left with day care providers, or join activities without my attempt to get to know the coaches, teachers, youth leaders, etc. Was it 100% fool proof? No, but the responsibility lies with me and my wife - not my children.

I know that above is what the boys want and I know that is the program. What I struggled with during my time as Scoutmaster is dealing with parents who thought my (and the BSA's) expectation that he boys lead and take ownership of the program was a huge over-reach. They were more in the camp that it was the adults role to entertain the boys. Without parental support in the BSA mission, the "job" of Scoutmaster was made more difficult. My biggest failing, in retrospect was that I enjoyed working with the boys so much I didn't spend enough time explaining, lobbying, etc. the parents of the scouts. Granted, I took a struggling troop of about 8 scouts that had not had an Eagle scout in over ten years to a troop of about 30 scouts with a steady "graduation" of about 3 to 5 eagles a year but thought it could be even better for the boys.

Eagledad - and where from the Scout law or oath can you surmise that homosexuality is "unscout like?"

BartH - I agree, some of us have a hard time understanding why some people would not want homosexual leaders in the Boy Scouts. The only type of explanations I've seen from your posts is the "because some folks think it is wrong" explanation. Okay, I know that. Why do they think it is wrong? Because the Bible says so? We don't ban folks who eat shellfish. Because some religions say it is wrong? We don't ban folks who are not circumcised. Because homosexuality is different from what they feel and it makes them uncomfortable? We don't ban folks who have different musical tastes than ourselves. Seriously, why? Is it because we feel our sons may fall victim to a sexual predator? Is is because some feel by allowing gay folks to become Scout leaders we would be giving tacit approval to their existence? Give approval to some sort of behavior? Lifestyle? I think many are in my camp. If we feel certain behaviors are abhorrent, why don't we ban the behavior? Black males are incarcerated at a much higher percentage than whites in this country. We don't ban black males from joining the BSA. Why not? Is it because we don't like certain behaviors? Again, if so, let's ban a behavior. If a homosexual, celibate priest (I do not feel those are mutually exclusive terms. I knew I was heterosexual while I was still celibate) acts as a COR, should we ban that? In actuality, the BSA is sort of hiding behind a few things to ban the behavior, not the "being" so to speak. The BSA states that they do not actively seek out the sexual identity of their members and only self-avowed homosexuals are banned. I'm not sure what this means. Does answering a direct question about ones sexuality constitute be avowed of that sexuality? The whole issue confuses me. I for one don't like this recent trend that we seem to have taught our youth today. Why do we celebrate the fact that folks are Irish, Polish, Black, Gay, etc.? Folks just "are" certain things. I did nothing to achieve my ethnicity. I can see celebrating accomplishments like earning Eagle, graduating from college, athletic feats, musical prowess, etc. but ethnicity? So yes, gay pride activities are not something I relish but I think I get it. Maybe it's just the proclivity to theater in many gay folk? Hey, it's late. The above may just with the daily "most rambling post" award of the day. (This message has been edited by acco40)

Given all the media frenzy about the BSA and CEOs are you telling me that there are actually reasonable men in both organization? Sacr Bleu!

Keep in mind, I think the new app fee is only $1.00 and many times the councils take care of it for you.

and that includes non comittee members such as Den Leaders and Parents who are not registered leaders if your registration on the charter says CC or MC, then you're on the committee. For a Cub Scout pack, I believe the BSA has vacillated on the role of den leaders as being a part of the pack committee or not. They used to be separate from the committee, then they were an integral part of the committee and now once again they are considered separate (much like in Boy Scouts). Can anyone back me up on this?

As a unit leader, I gathered applications for the troop to turn in to council - as a courtesy to those who did not want to drive all the way to the council office. One of the adults leader applications disclosed an arrest record and conviction. Not to get into details but the application was signed by the COR, the council performed a background check (not BSA mandated at the time) and that person became a den leader - and a good one at that. Each case should be judged on their own merit. Sometimes a unit will approve a leader with an arrest record and conviction and disapprove someone due to the wrong religious "flavor." That is their right.

BSA24 - I catch your drift, I really do. But to me it's sometimes like something I saw on the old Truth or Consequences show many, many years ago. A male and female contestant were in the proverbial green room waiting to go on television. The female was very concerned about her appearance and asked the male contestant how she looked - hair, lipstick, etc. It just so happened that the ladies slip was showing quite predominantly. This being the mid-60s that was not the fashion of the times for those who may be wondering. Well the inside "joke" was that it was a set-up. The males contestants wife was previously asked to predict if her husband would mention that fact to the woman contestant (they had never met beforehand). Given the genteel society of the times, most of the men did not. As for myself, if I'm improperly uniformed, much like having spinach in my teeth, I welcome someone politely and discreetly pointing it out to me. On the other hand, I would not appreciate a derogatory comment or comments meant to belittle me in the same regard for the same offense. For myself, I usually would not point any uniforming faux pas out to strangers but sometimes for adults I knew well or for Scouts that I was "Scoutmastering" I would point out in a respectful and discreet way - more as knowledge transfer, not as a means to denigrate the wearer.