DanKroh

ScoutNut, "Dan, remember that if your church charters both a Pack & Troop, the same COR will serve both units. Also, in order to be REGISTERED as a COR, they can NOT be registered in any position other than Committee Chair or Committee Member." Our CO only charters our pack. For some reason, I thought I remembered from training that the only other positions the COR cannot hold is Cubmaster (or ACM) or Committee Chair. I thought he/she could be a den leader as well. I'll have to go check on that, then. In fact, the reg you quoted said that the COR couldn't be the unit leader (CM) or assistant unit leader (ACM). So can the CC be the COR, then? Interesting that it also says the COR is appointed by the CO, but in my experience, it is more often the committee who ends up saying to the CO, "we'd like this person to be our COR" and the CO says yea or nay.

Our COR is a parent and former scout leader who is a member of the CO church. This guy was Cubmster a couple of years back, although I don't think he was the COR while he was the CM. His son as now moved up to Boy Scouts, and even though he has continued to act as our COR for the past year, has asked that if we can find someone else to serve, we should do so. So we are looking at another parent who is currently our Tiger Den Leader to also be the COR. We like to have the COR attend the pack committee meetings (which is usually the case), but as far as I know, the current one, at least, does not attend District meetings. I think it's a good idea to for the COR to be someone involved in the pack as a parent, preferable even as a leader in another capacity, so that they understand the scouting program and what we are trying to accomplish. I was under the impression that the person with a position of responsibility within the church leadership gets to be the Institutional Head?

Ok, this isn't a WB question, but.... It is unusual for a Cub Leader (I'm a Cubmaster) to take IOLS? I was signed up for OWLS, but it was cancelled at the last minute, so I decided to sign up for IOLS instead. Mostly, I'm looking to brush up on (and hopefully pick up some new ones) my outdoor skills. I do a lot of camping outside of scouts and consider myself a pretty savy outdoorsman, but I'm always interested in learning new and better ways to do things. But as the training draws nearer, I'm wondering if I'm going to out of place with all the Boy Scout Leaders. (Especially given the discussion in another thread about Cub Scout Leaders and outdoor skills training.) Anyone have thoughts or experience with Cub Leaders in IOLS?

OneHour, how do you tell a non-BSA kit from the offical BSA one? Last year, the PWD was the first meeting where I was Cubmaster. I'm pretty sure that a couple of boys (brothers) had cars that came from pre-cut forms, but the point became moot because the overeager Dad had grooved the wheels which made the cars ineligible. What we ended up doing was allowing the boys to run the cars (didn't want to punish the boys for something Dad obviously did), but told them that they would not be able to win a trophy or advance to the District race, since we felt that would be unfair to boys whose cars were within the rules. As it turns out, neither car did that well anyway. We have a really knowledgable PWD chair, and I let him handle the situation last year since I was not as familiar with the rules as he was. But it would be nice to know what to look for if the situation were to come up again.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

I can't, of course, confirm my friend's story, and it is entirely possible that either he was a) mistaken about why he was denied Eagle or b) the denial came from a troop "policy" regarding religion and Eagle scouts that was not supported by national policy. It sounds like that if he had known to appeal the denial, he would probably be an Eagle today, since I feel I know him well enough to say that he embodies the qualities of an Eagle Scout. I know a couple of other pagans who *are* Eagle scouts, and they would have also been around that same time period, but I'm not sure if they were practicing pagans when they attained the Eagle rank.

Trev, I don't think I know the specific story you are referencing. However, I have a pagan friend who is a Lifer because he was denied Eagle for being a pagan (raised that way by his parents). This would have been in upstate NY in the early 70's. He seems to think that at the time, one had to earn a religious emblem in order to advance to Eagle, and, of course, there is no emblem recognized by the BSA for pagan religions. Anyone know if that used to be a requirement for Eagle?

Wow, thanks Owl, it's been at least a couple of days since anyone's told me I'm an idiot. I play paintball. It's a fun game, but I can't say it's made me into a "wannabee" anything. I have no desire to learn how to kill anyone. I do it because it's a form of exercise that I don't find hideously boring. However, I also know proper safety with real firearms because I learned how to fire one at a target, and don't intend to ever fire one at anything other than a target. I also shoot target archery, and have no interest in using it to hunt. But I also have nothing against people who do like to bow hunt. Does that also make me a "wannabee"?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"I disagree with the ACLU because I haven't found one thing yet where they argued a point that I was FOR." Not *one*, hops_scout? So then I guess you thought it was ok for school officials to prevent a 2nd grader from singing a religious song in an after-school talent show, and the ACLU should not have filed a suit to protect her freedom of religious expression? Or maybe you feel that a baptist church in Georgia should be denied a zoning permit to build a permanent house of worship, and the ACLU should not have fought for them? I think if you can't find even one point that you think they should have argued for, then you haven't looked very hard. Yes, there are things that they do that don't sit well with me either, but I'm not willing to demonize the entire organization and everyone who works for them because of it.

You know, Cary, I almost edited my post after I wrote it to say, "on second thought, I won't send you a card because I don't believe in using the good will of the season as a club to bludgeon those who disagree with my religious beliefs". Do you really think it is respectful to anyone (including your God) to use the celebration of the birth of your savior as a political tool to harass those don't share your religious beliefs?

"Also tell them that there is no such thing as a "Holiday Tree". . . . It's a Christmas Tree even in the fields!!" Actually, I thought it was a pine tree. Except when it's a Yule tree. If I had your address, I'd be sure to send you a "Season's Greetings" card. How obnoxious.

Actually, what I meant was does the patrol group get to choose their patrol symbol/name, or is that assigned to them? Honestly, the desire to be a Beaver is not so strong that I would buck what appears to be a well working system, judging from the enthusiasm of (almost all) Woodbadgers I have seen. I'm sure that I will be happy no matter what our patrol name; as someone said, it's the people in the patrol who matter most.

mk9750, I don't think you can really proceed until you've had a further discussion with the boy as to the particular flavor of his agnosticism. Beaver's excellent post pointed out that agnostics are not *automatically* atheists, many of them still have a belief in God(s), but simply feel that such a belief can never be proven or disproven. In fact, the minister of my church is a self-proclaimed agnostic. This is a man who went through Harvard Divinity School, was ordained as a UU minister, and continues to this day to believe in the mystery of God. However, I think the boy's own words are telling in this instance "it's very difficult to be reverent to a God you have no proof exists". He didn't say "to a God who *doesn't* exist", but simply that he does not see any *proof* that God exists. Does this boy (or his family) attend church anywhere? If so, you may want to suggest to him to discuss his ideas with his spiritual leader, who may be in a better position to assess and guide the boy's beliefs. If not, then maybe suggest to him to read up on belief systems that are compatable with agnosticism, such as Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, or even Deism. Perhaps he will find something in one of them that resonates with his beliefs.

SueM and Beaver, As I said, I am partial to the beaver as my college mascot (Nature's Engineer), so maybe I can be an honorary beaver no matter what our patrol mascot (is that the right word? or is it totem?). I'm assuming that the patrol members get to pick, yes? As far as other advice, no, I'm not in an LDS unit. And no, I'm not in a union, as I am self-employed in the health care profession. And while paying out of pocket would not be an outrageous burden to me, the feeling of the committee was that "well, we pay for everyone else's training, shouldn't we pay for this, too". I like the idea of splitting it 50/50, since I do think of it as an investment for the pack, since I will probably remain Cubmaster for another 3 years or so until my Wolf crosses over (assuming someone else isn't dying to do it in the meantime). Our pack is well enough off that even paying the full cost would not be a strain, either. I have not heard of our Council having any sort of WB scholarship fund, but then again, I would feel strange applying for such a thing when there are probably others out there who could use it more than I. There are some towns in our Council that are much, much less affluent than our pack's, and I'm sure there are other packs that could not afford to pay for their leaders to go. Thanks again for all your thoughts.

Gonzo, just a couple of pieces of friendly advice about netiquette that you might not be aware of. Typing in all caps traditionally denotes shouting. And it's hard on the eyes to read. If you want to set apart what you are writing from something you are quoting from someone else, try putting quotation marks around things written by someone else. That way, what you are writing will stand out without having to shout. Not trying to moderate you in any way, just trying to pass along something you might not be aware of.

Thanks, everyone for your thoughts. Now I feel like I can go back to my committee with some data for them to make a decision. And to Lisa'bob and John-in-KC, a special thanks. It's exciting to see the enthusiasm for your patrol and patrolmates. I can't wait to experience it, no matter what animal I get. Although I'm partial to Beavers, since they were my college mascot....

Hunt, "While I agree that a teacher shouldn't try to convert grade school kids to a particular religious view, I think the complaint here is that a teacher also shouldn't try to convert grade school kids to one side of a controversial moral, ethical, or political issue." Agreed. But that also includes not trying to "convert" to the other viewpoint, that homosexual is "immoral" and "unnatural". "While I don't think such a teacher should necessarily have to hide his marital state..." But do you think that the homosexual teacher should have to hide his orientation, or is it sufficient that he doesn't "teach about it" (whatever that means)? Zahnada, you bring up some interesting points, as well. I have never encountered the "Christianity is not a choice" argument before, and I'm not sure I agree with it. To get back to the previous point of debate, homosexuality is a biologically defined state. Religion isn't. A much higher percentage of people change their religion that can even claim to change their sexual orientation (assuming you believe such a thing is possible at all). Also, I think there is a difference between "prosletyzing" *acceptance* of either homosexuality or Christianity as "normal" and prosletyzing to convince someone to *practice* homosexuality (which can't be done) or Christianity (which, according to my understanding, *is* a commandment from God to all Christians). But as you say, we do in essence agree on the overall issue, but simply disagree about the semantics of "why".

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive." --Thomas Jefferson "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." --Theodore Roosevelt What does it gain us to have our young men and women die abroad to secure our freedom if we willingly sacrifice our freedom, including our freedom to dissent, at home? "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" --Benjamin Franklin

I'm about to sign up for Wood Badge this Spring, and this question came up in our latest committee meeting. Do units usually pay for the cost of Wood Badge for one of their leaders, or does the leader usually pay for it out of pocket? In our unit (a Cub Scout Pack), we usually pay the nominal costs that may be associated with leader training, such as at University of Scouting, although most training in our Council is usually free. But given that the cost of Wood Badge is more substantial, should the unit pay for it? One concern was that for one or two leaders, it would not be a burden on the Pack, but what if a bunch of leaders suddenly wanted to sign up for it; now, I thought this was an unlikely scenario, given how hard it can sometimes be to get leaders to take the minimum training for their positions. Or should it be on a case by case basis depending on whether paying would be an undue burden on that particular leader? Thoughts?

"If the class (I'm talking about grade-schoolers here) had to read a book titled "It's Normal to be Christian" and then the teacher came out and told the class "I've accepted Christ into my heart and it's made my life better... but that's your choice" the country would be up in arms. Why? It crosses a line that violates a parent's right to raise their children." Zahnada, it's an interesting analogy, but I see several key differences that may make the analogy flawed. First, being a Christian is a choice. Being a homosexual isn't. (Unless, of course, you are one of the deniers about this.) Second, there is the issue of prosletyzing. Christians are commanded to "share the good news" and try to convert those around them. Homosexuals are not (again, unless you believe in the whole "homosexual conspiracy" theory). My concern would be more that this teacher was now going to try to influence my children to *be* Christian. I don't care if he teaches my son to respect Christians, but I don't want him trying to convert my son. Third, there is also the constitutional angle (a minor point). Now I'm not an expert on constitutional law, my understanding is that religion is not allowed to be promoted by the administration (including the teachers) in public schools because it could be perceived as a step toward establishing a state religion. There is no equivalent constitutional law about sexual orientation, never mind the fact that you can't "establish" homosexuality by requiring people to "practice" it. See the "conversion" point above. To me, I agree that the teacher coming out was inappropriate only because it seems he did it in a way that was not age appropriate. It is possible to impress on children that age that homosexuality is normal, but it has to be done with concepts that are not so abstract. My 7 year old has been taught this in his home, and has no problem seeing same-sex couples in his environment, and understands what it means that his two godfathers are indeed married. But I agree that the public school (at this age) may not be the place where such an idea can be conveyed in an age appropriate way, especially if the child is getting conflicting messages from the home environment.

Actually, Gonzo, I was pretty much agreeing with Hunt's point, so I don't think I missed it. As to your point, I might agree with it if I knew what "teaching homosexuality" means.

Hunt, Since in the three pages of discussion so far, no one has vociferously defended or advocated the actions of the teacher in the original article, I'm not sure who "those of you think it's OK" are. I do agree with you that it is a fine line between acknowledging/respecting that there may be students in the class whose families include same-sex parents and teaching a particular moral stance about the same subject (either way, for or against). I don't think it is the place of teachers to teach that a parent is wrong because of their stance on this issue. A teacher can present that there are different sides and opinions on this issue, without making a value judgement about the "correctness" of any of those sides or opinions. I also don't think it was appropriate for the teacher to explicitly "come out" to his students, either. But at the same time, the teacher should not be asked to "hide" his orientation or his relationship with his partner. If other teachers have pictures of their spouses on their desks, I see nothing wrong with this teacher having a picture of his partner on his desk, either. If other teachers attend school-related functions with their spouses, then this teacher should be able to attend with his partner as well. If and when students may ask the teacher about the picture, then he can simply tell them that "this is the person I love", without ever saying the word "gay" or "homosexual". As far as the books themselves, I see nothing wrong with providing alternative reading for any child whose parents object to the books. I do have a problem with parents who want to ban the books entirely, thereby depriving children whose parents do want the books from reading them. I also have a problem with people who object to these books without ever having actually read them! They can even offer "Daddy and his roomate are deviants" as long as I have the option of saying "no thank you" for my son. It's my job, as the parent, to tell my own son why I think such a book is wrong. And yes, I would be equally upset if the school contradicted my teachings on the matter to my son. As I said, every parent has the right to teach their children their particular prejudices. Just as every child has the right when they get old enough to decide their parents are full of horeseapples. See how well my parents' teaching of gay and racial prejudices stuck on me, after all.

"DanKroh mentions twin studies (a small and badly confounded sample if there ever was one), which nevertheless demonstrate that homosexuality does not have the same congruence as other genetic disorders. As DanKroh says, none of us are genetic, neonatal, socialpsych or psych researchers, eh? So talkin' about mechanism is the blind leadin' the blind." Actually, Beavir, that was packsaddle. However, the congruence of homosexuality among twins is similar to the congruence of many other genetically influenced traits and disorders. If homosexuality is genetically *influenced* (and I do believe it is), I am sure that it is not a Mendelian trait. Very few traits are Mendelian, percentage-wise. Oh, and I have done psych research. "But my original point remains: it's dead wrong to claim that the basis for homosexuality is genetic or physical. At best that is only speculative, and the jury is still way, way out. The research should continue, though. If it turns out you're right, it'd be nice to find a cure." I also never claimed that it was *genetic*. My original statement was that it is *biologically defined*, as in there are anatomical and physiological differences between gay men and straight men that can be measured. I never said they were due to genetics. In fact, current theories point more to developmental factors. I don't know for sure what the mechanism of those biological differences are, but I am reasonably convinced by the research I've read that there *are* biologically differences. I think the only specious argument around here is yours. I am not a geneticist, and even though I have an degree in biology, I also agree with packsaddle that the expression and regulation of genes is beyond my ken. And there are plenty of other things I'd rather see a cure found for. Too bad bigotry won't be one of them, either.

"It [homosexuality] often leads to violence, anti-social behavior, and disease, especially among men." Maybe in your mind and limited experience with real people who are homosexuals. But not in my world.

Excellent! What kinds of things are you going to have the SCAdians do? One thing we've discussed is that we don't really have room for a real heavy list demo, but I figured letting the kids touch and try on the armor, weapons, etc. would still give them a big kick. Fencing takes up less room, so I think we will be able to have actual demonstrations (probably highly choreographed to be more fun and interesting). What sorts of arts are you going to showcase? My concern is that most stuff would either take too long to demonstrate (metalworking, leatherworking), be of little interest to the boys (cooking, bleh!), or be too fragile (like scrolls and stuff). Maybe if someone who makes chainmail might bring some to demonstrate, they would probably think that was cool. What are your thoughts?

"It's not a slippery slope." That type of argument of "if gays get marriage rights, then next it will be the polygamists, and then the people who want to marry animals, blah, blah, blah" is called the "slippery slope" argument. Any it doesn't fly with anyone who can see it for the hyperbolic and fear-mongering strategy that it is. "Marriage isn't a civil right, it actually is a priviledge. You have to get a license to get married, that means permission." Actually, the Supreme Court in 1967 reaffirmed a 1942 ruling that marriage *is* a right (From Loving vs. Virginia): "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survive. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)." Seem pretty clearly stated, even to this non-lawyer. When was the last time you heard of *any* heterosexual couple that had to actually get "permission" to get married? See a lot of marriage license applications denied to heterosexual couples these days? Gonzo, if you don't want them in "our" society, where exactly are they supposed to go? Canada? Or maybe you just want them all to go quietly back into hiding in the closet? Do you truly not see the intolerance of that position? Edited to add: Gonzo, I am also a doctor, btw (Psy.D.) I read lots of studies, too. And I happen to specialize in sexuality and gender identity.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)