Conference quark::mennotes-v1

PS  I envisioned this as a discussion of boys in Scouting.  In 
particular, making a connection from a boy's training in Scouting to 
the kinds of men that they become (or can become).



							--Ger

 I was a boy scout. The best part of scouting for me was learning about camping
and wildlife (and wild life), and learning how to survive in the woods with
nothing but my clothes and my pocketknife.

 We had some wild times, many of which are inappropriate to discuss in the
confines of a work environment. :-)

 The Doctah

I was in Boy Scouts for many years (made the rank of Life), and I feel that it
can teach you many things that are useful later in life.  While Ger says that
he's using some of the skills that he learned "to be a radical activist", he
could be using those skills equally as much in a less radical capacity as well.
It just so happens that he has a particular cause which he is able to support
through the use of the skills.

Scouting does promote a certain amount of conformance, which I suspect is where
the 'hate' feelings that Ger has come from.  But more important than that it
teaches responsibility and teamwork.

A few weeks ago I heard mention of the new Scouting manual on the news, and was
somewhat surprised as to how much it is keeping up with the times.  The story
mentioned that the latest edition now has sections on abuse/molestation, STDs
and drug problems.

Rich

    I think the Doctah and I belonged to the same troop..
    
    Boy Scouts was a mixed experience that was largely determined by the
    personality of the Scoutmaster. Our first Scoutmaster was a great guy
    that was good with kids, and understood that we were mainly there to
    have fun, and go on the camp-outs. The next Scoutmaster was one of
    these by-the-book people that was going to have us acquire those
    merit badges as quickly as possible, and was much more of a
    paramilitary type. Most of the troop, myself included, quit at this
    point. He forgot that Scouting is a voluntary affiliation....
    
    I still remember the camp-outs, and the summer camp, both of which were
    great fun.
    
    -roger
    

I'm entering this note on behalf of a MENNOTES noter who wishes to 
remain anonymous.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dads, if you are going to let your son join scouting, you sure
    ought to consider being active in the troop yourself.

    re .3
    <The story mentioned that the latest edition now has sections on
    <abuse/molestation, STDs and drug problems.

    I don't think a discussion about scouting is complete if it doesn't
    include calling attention to the fact that scouting -along with
    probably other organizations- would seem to me to be particularly
    attractive to pederasts.

    I mean, if YOU liked pre-pubescent and pubescent little boys  where
    would YOU go to find them? Maybe the cub scouts if you liked them
    younger? 

>While Ger says that
>he's using some of the skills that he learned "to be a radical activist", he
>could be using those skills equally as much in a less radical capacity as well.

I could and I do.  I use skills such as public speaking,
organizational skills, and teamwork skills to help me do my job here
at Digital. 

...it's just that those applications have no irony and don't give me 
as much enjoyment.

>Scouting does promote a certain amount of conformance, which I suspect is where
>the 'hate' feelings that Ger has come from.  

No.  Please don't put words into my mouth.  I may or may not choose to 
go into more detail.


							--Gerry

    Sometimes, its all a blur....youthful activities, uniforms,
    achievements, whether it was Little League, Y-Indian Guides,
    Kiwanas Boys Choir, Cub Scouts, Altar Boy, Boy Scouts, RYAA Soccer, 
    Marching Band, AFROTC, US Air Force...does anyone detect a minor 
    note of sarcasm in the sketched progression?  On a personal level, 
    (and I really *mean* personal, this doesn't reflect on the individual
    organizations, just my experiences with them) I have some no-longer-
    repressed bitterness about the way I was programmed, collectively by
    all of these outfits...but I'm still programmed none-the-less.  At
    least now I'm to the stage where I recognize many of the forces that
    went into shaping me, and seeing the forces has been the first stage of
    re-examining them, to decide which things within me I'll choose to
    value and to keep in my value structure...and which can be safely
    discarded.
    
    Gone way far afield in that first bitter rush, Ger, so I'll try to
    focus in a little bit.  I was in scouting from the age of 8 onwards...
    culminating in three summers I spent as a counselor at Goshen Scount
    Camps near Lexington Virginia.  I was 15, 16, and 19 those summers.
    
    My troop wasn't a highly achievement oriented outfit; but we went camping
    once a month, and took a big 50-miler trip every summer.  We went to
    various treks along the Appalachian Trail in Va, Md, and Pa; we hiked
    sections in the Shenandoah National Park in Va; the C&O Canal; the
    Manongahela National Forest in West Virginia; took canoe trips along
    the Potomac...those were great experiences.  We learned to *do* things.
    Some of us went after the badges and achievements and offices, and that
    was important, too, then; but not so much so, now.
    
    I spent the summer of 1976 teaching "Pioneering", which might also be
    called "wilderness engineering"; tying knots and lashings, moving heavy
    objects, and building bridges and towers with just ropes and logs.  I
    still do splices when a loose bit of rope comes to hand.  In 1977 I
    taught Handicrafts; leatherwork and basketry and woodcarving; and in
    1979 I was the director of the "Scoutcraft Staff"; the seven of us
    taught those aforementioned skills, and cooking, camping, hiking,
    wilderness survival, and orienteering skills as well.  Each summer I
    was part of a larger staff of around 30 counselors; we moved 300 scouts 
    and their leaders into camp every Sunday afternoon, provided them a vast
    forum for a week of group and individual activities...and moved 'em all
    out again every Sunday morning.  It was an intense way to spend 9.5 weeks 
    every summer; and being part of that staff at the young age of 15 was a 
    heady experience, and taught me a lot.  I had responsibilities; I was
    treated as an adult; I was away from home for the first time; it was
    even paid employment (though I earned less for the whole summer than I
    do now in a day ;-).
    
    These experiences I got from my involvement with scouting are important
    to me and I value the things they taught me, mostly.  yet...some of the
    values this system ingrained into me are unquestionably garbage, or
    useless to me in my personal value system.  For example; one of the
    twelve 'laws'; "a scout is reverent".  This was always accompanied in
    the text with motherhood & apple-pie type statements about God and
    Church.  Hey; at the very same time I was learning about "Citizenship
    in the Community" and "Citizenship in the Nation" so I *knew* about
    the principles upon which this nation was founded, and that reverence
    wasn't necessarily a virtue; so if I weren't reverent, I needn't feel
    bad about it.  That was good, that I already knew that, and felt secure
    in it; I could pay 'reverence' lip-service and not jeopardize those 
    achievements I was working so hard to earn, with a clear conscience.
    Our troop wasn't so unfortunate as to be beholden to a church for a
    meeting place; we used a local elementary school.  The 'reverence' 
    bit wasn't emphasized, except by a few of the old-school style 
    assistant scountmasters.  But from my exposure to many, many troops 
    over three summers at camp, I was absolutely appalled to see the 
    religicos dominating some troops...what kind of nonsense was being 
    drummed into these kids, under the cover of Scouts?  And...is Scouting 
    really about that?  About molding these kids into the worst dogmatic
    behavior patterns of their parents?
    
    [not that I ever gave these concerns voice before; not that I dared
    contradict or challenge the norms of behavior each troop and its
    leaders carried into camp with them.  not that I am so arrogant as to
    deny the possible values inherent in a 'reverent' tradition.  but
    merely to say, I've seen the poossible horrors made real; and it
    denied all the other values that scouting had seemed to support.]
    
    Um...well...I kind of came to the conclusion, in these days of
    platitudes not programs ("just say no") that Scouting is *indeed*
    about reinforcing those old-time values of religion and obedience
    to authority, and I was kidding myself that it was ever otherwise.
    I was extremely fortunate that my troop had lots of concerned adults
    involved who were intelligent and cared about their kids; who nurtured
    the independent sparks instead of guiding us as a herd; and who let us
    draw our own conclusions (which we'd have done anyway).  I've also come
    to conclusions about the nature of our society and our participation in
    the institutions thereof, whereby I believe that supporting
    institutions which seek to indoctrinate our youth is too dangerous;
    too prone to abuse, too inertial to be anything other than a further
    bulwark against the change I belive our society requires to regain it's
    health.  (Does anyone remember my diatribe about how our society isn't
    healthy, a month or so ago ;-)? 
    
    I am who I am, now...but the last 30 months, since I left the AF,
    I've been trying so hard to recover the sense of what's truly
    important, trying to figure out who I am.
    
    I look at my own progression, detailed in the first paragraph, and
    watch my uniformed footsteps, marching slowly through the years...
    cub scouts, boy scouts, marching band...straight into the armed
    forces...programmed...and I shudder.  And while I see clearly and
    acknowledge fully the value to my life of these programs...I also
    know, that I am *not* cut out for obedience to authority, and the
    training that made my path possible did it by twisting and contorting,
    confusing and manipulating, the person I once was, from a very early
    age.  And I don't think, in the long run, that it was a good thing.
 
    DougO

    re .7, Doug, a few months ago I was looking through a boyscout manual
    of some sort that belonged to the son of a friend of mine.  I was
    quite surprised by all the references to "God" that I saw.  It also
    bothered me.  I would not want a son of mine to belong to an
    organization that referenced "God" (and all that the history of
    organized religion and all it has stood for can conjure up) as an 
    accepted fact of life.  I think children can be taught to treat
    other humans with respect without mentioning "God."
    
    I also noticed an attitude that seemed to encourage blind patriotism,
    which bothered me as well.
    
    I also dislike the symbolism of forcing people to wear uniforms.
     Scouting may teach some useful skills but if I had a son I wouldn't
    want to risk his individualism and naturally questioning mind to the
    brainwashing affects of this type of organization.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	I was active in scouting from age 11 to age 21.  I attained the
    rank of Star scout (under the old system - no skill awards).  This was
    in a troup that was more concerned with having fun camping than
    advancement.  This was due in part to having a wonderful scoutmaster
    who was not a retired military type.
    
    	I also spent ten summers at Tuscarora Scount Camp in Deposit, New
    York.  I attended several weeks the first year as a camper, the second
    year I was a counselor in training, and years three through ten, I was
    on staff.  (Mostly as a commissioner - acting as a liason between the
    adult leaders and the camp staff.)
    
    re:  attractive to pederasts.
    
    	This is a tough subject.  I think that Scouting USA is sufficiently
    paranoid about abuse to the scouts.  While visiting the camp several
    years ago the rules for interaction between adults and scouts had
    changed.  NO adult was allowed to be alone with campers.  At least two
    adults were to be with the scouts.  They are well aware and are taking
    action to protect the scouts and the reputation of scouting.
    
    
    	Now as to the campers playing around with each other, that's a
    different subject...
    

    
    
    
    Nice diatribe, Doug. %^)
    
    The scouts, as I recall, had some marching cadences that must have
    come from the armed forces, as they were fairly sexist and obscene.
    We were fairly titillated by reciting these at age 10 or so, so even
    then there was a strong hetero orientation, and we barely or didn't
    understand what we were talking about.
    
    These were not approved, by the way.
    
    It was also my first encounter in working in a bureaucarcy, which
    for better or worse, was an education about the world.
    
    -roger
    

    
    boy people even find things wrong with the boy scouts.
    
    all the time i was in them it was fun and nothing but fun. and god was
    never pushed on me in any way shape or form.
    
    what it did teach me was to "always be prepared" for anything.
    
    i think some people look for things that are really not there so 
    they have a reason not to join any type of clubs.
    
    what ablout the girl scouts do you women feel the same way?
    
    frank
    

    re .11, well, if some people don't want to join any clubs, that's
    their business, isn't it?
    
    Lorna
    

    
    not saying that people have to join any clubs. never mentioned
    that anyone has to join a club.
    but come on the BOY SCOUTS are really not a bad club for kids.
    they don't push god on you at all.what about the pledge algence(sp)
    to the flag it says god in it are we suppose to stop our kids
    from saying that to.the boy scouts help young youth just like
    little league and maybe a little more.
    i feel some people look deep into things to find stuff that is really
    not there so they can say they don't like it.
    
    frank
    

    
>    what it did teach me was to "always be prepared" for anything.
    
Yes!  I am amazed at the number of people who are just not prepared 
for a lot of what happens to them in life.  In fact, in my attempts to 
be prepared, some people have called me "paranoid."  (This was in 
reference to me checking to make sure that we had our keys to the 
hotel room before we left; I don't call this "paranoid.")

>    i think some people look for things that are really not there so 
>    they have a reason not to join any type of clubs.

People can do this at times.  However, I think that all of the 
criticisms (and praise) that I have read in this note have been 
accurate.  Something else to keep in mind, though, is that "Scouting"
varies radically from troop to troop and from era to era.  My
experience of Scouting varies from those of others because of the
uniqeness of time, place, and people.  (I was in an irreverent troop,
in a troop with a large number of older boys, during Watergate, during
the fallout from the Sixties, during the Carter administration, during
an urbanization of Scouting, during an ecology push, during an
internationalization push, during a downslide in traditional
patriotism.) 


I have a lot to say about this topic, but I don't have time to key it 
in.  More later...

I had a dream last night.  I remember this Waterfront instructor whom 
I had a crush on.  (He had a muscular hairy chest, and a nice, thick 
mustache...and he was so gentle, unlike the other macho Waterfront 
guys.)

I remember the odd mixture of fear and exhilaration I felt as I 
dragged him in from the water during the Lifesaving merit badge class. 
I had failed the rescue a few months earlier, and I really, really 
wanted to earn this badge (I had also failed the "stripping in 10 
seconds" requirement; I wore Chinos instead of tight jeans the next 
time).  It was also a thrill to have my arm across this great, hairy 
chest.

...and I was remembering all this in my dream.

But the funny thing is that, in my dream, I was "swimming," rescuing 
him.  I felt my leg that was deepest in the water, and its motion felt 
funny.  It was going backward instead of forward.  When I woke up, I 
kept pondering why this sidestroke motion felt so funny.  Then I 
remembered!  When you rescue someone, you reverse the sidestroke leg 
motion so that your legs don't get entangled in the legs of the person 
you are rescuing.  You use the top leg to balance the rescuee, to keep 
her/him above water, and you use the bottom leg to slice back.

Amazing!  The stuff you remember without consciously remembering it.

Reach, throw, row, go!

I wonder where that instructor is today.  I wonder if he was gay.  
(Unmarried?  Past 30?  Living alone in a Scout camp for a whole 
summer?)

[More later...]


							--Ger

    >i feel some people look deep into things to find stuff that is really
    >not there so they can say they don't like it.
    
    >frank 
    
    I feel that it would do you well to look a little more deeply into
    things, Frank.
    
    In my humble opinion.
    
    -roger
    
    
                                                                         

    I never realized what a difference Scouting had made in our family's
    life until my father passed away.  While going through his things, we
    learned that Dad's Eagle status had also earned him a scholarship
    to Cornell University.  Without that, he would have been trimming grape
    vines in New York state. As it was, he became a research bio-chemist
    with a career, and able to send his kids to college.   
    
    Marge

    
          I was a boy scout for some 3.5 years for Hudson's Troop 2 in
       the early 70's.
    
          The meetings were held weekly in the basement floor of the 
       tall white Unitarian church; a church my parents had joined.
    
          The first camping trip was in the winter!  I came well prepared
       with a "list of essentials" while numerous other boys forgot things.
    
          I slept *with* the flashlight, sure didn't want to fumble around
       looking for it in the wee hours of freezin mornings. 
    
          At the crack of dawn I'd be the first one up and about. Ice in-
       variably lined my "insulated" boots at that hour - ever try to fit
       on frozen boots?
    
          I'd tiptoe dozens of yards outside of camp in search of the 
       perfect peel of birch bark.  Chirping birds would greet this early
       riser in gleeful unison.  Small twigs and assorted sizes of dead
       branches would be gathered as well.
    
          Sometimes appealing pieces of wood would turn out to be useless -
       either too "green" or soaking rotten wet. The latter type would 
       often crumble in my hands.
    
          After clearing out an area, the wood was placed carefully in
       square or triagular fashion in hope that the first spark would 
       ignite the pile.  Never used gas or lighter fluid, though there were
       times I'd be sorely tempted to.  Admittedly I did use a piece of 
       paper (or cardboard) if birch slivers or small twigs were in short
       supply.
    
          By the time the other troopers would rise, the 'Flaming Arrow
       Patrol' would have a roaring fire well underway. It was fun to see
       the jealousy of the other patrols scrambling about to start their
       fires as we were toasting our feet while sipping hot cocoa, and 
       frying those delicious bacon & eggs!
    
          Of course the scouts that wanted to "borrow" from our nearby
       woodpile were "shoed away."  I would "lend" them a match though. :-)
    
          I used to envy the Scoutmasters who'd often simply light up
       their Coleman stoves and lamps. It was so easy for them.
    
          A few months ago I hear a radio newscast that said the latest
       BSA handbook has pretty much done away with fires and suggests
       everyone now use propane stoves - perhaps some environmental thing.
    
         I wonder if the "Handbook" has done away with a scout's learning
       to make a fire - is this possible in this age of environmental
       awareness/efficiency?!
    
          If so I'd be saddened, and inclined to think Scouting has erred
       and lost an important part of what the experience is all about.
    
    
                                                         Russ
     

I had an experience as boy scout when I was a kid.
Having parents who respects us a lot I was very chocked by the attitude
of the people who were responsible of these kind of group.

Thanks to my education I was able to judge very soon by myself and this
experience reinforced my hate of everything which "standardize" the people,
and especially the young people.

At that time (I was 9 years old) I already wanted to be respected as a
person . The only thing I found in scouting was militarisation. I couldn't 
stand it.

Then I had to loose one year of my life in the army. I did it because it is 
compulsory in FRANCE, but it was not easy at all for me and I was very happy
when I could go back to the civilised life.
Compare to my brother who was a boy scout, who willingly entered in the military
air force school at 16, who could learn and become an electronician without 
problem (He is still in the army), I had to fight a lot in my life, during 
several years I had no money and had to work to be able to survive and be a 
student at the university, in FRANCE, GERMANY and then in SWEDEN .
I had choosen this life, it was more difficult than being a soldier and 
getting a salary at the end of each month, having a flat and so on...

But I could think free, make my own opinion.
I lived in other countries and I was the only one who decided for my life,
even when it was difficult, I made mistake also. But today I know that I have 
much more resources to cope with the life than my brother who has always being
enrol in official groups systems. 
At the begining we had the same parents, the same conditions for living. He is
only 16 months older than I.

For me scoutism is the first step to "standardisation" of the man. Then it 
is easier to manipulate the mind and this leads to political enrolment with
the danger of extremism. Remember how ADOLF did, he started with the youth.

I totally agree with the opinion of LORNA  444.8 .

(Sorry for my english, which is not so good, I never lived in english speaking 
countries)
    
    THIERRY

    
    While I agree with some of the observations regarding scouting,
    I must say that I personally learned a lot by being a scout. Maybe
    I was lucky to have a good scoutmaster. I learned to work as part of
    a team. I learned to handle responsibility... things of that nature.
    I don't have any problems with uniforms; I wore one in little league and
    in the high school band. They made me feel part of a group, much as
    my black leather jacket and cigarette did when I was a teenager.
    
    
    Guy
    

    .8 bothers me... that is the complaints about references to God/Country
    and all.  The ATTITUDE that any reference (in an organization) to values
    such as God/Country pretty well sums up some of the things that have
    gone wrong with the U.S.  There are too many of us who have lost our
    sense of value/responsibility to yes, God/Country/Community and have
    become a bunch of people who don't take positions lest somebody be
    offended because of our belief of God or whatever.  People say the
    crime rate is high because of the lack of basic values.  Look at the
    statistics regarding Scouts who have been convicted of crimes vs.
    a similiar non scout sample of the population.  See which kids are in
    trouble with the law more often.
    
    The Scouts is an organization which teaches certain values.  Among them
    are responsibility to others, support God/Country etc.  Mixed in with
    those values other lessons are taught... such as camping, knots,
    swimming etc. 
    
    I thought that the lack of basic values was one of the major beefs many
    people have today.  If this is the case then I suggest that people not
    beef about organizations that attempt to teach responsible moral
    values.   If one doesn't believe or believe their kids should be
    taught these basic values then don't let him or her join Scouts.  If
    you join and stay it implies that you believe in the values taught by
    the organization. 
    
    The attitude that there is something wrong with a VOLUNTARY
    organization which teaches GENERAL religious values FRIGHTENS me.  It
    undermines the entire base this country is built on.  And we wonder
    why people are so lost.
    
    Jeff
    
    
    
    There has been talk of unisex scouting similiar to what the Boys/Girls
    Clubs have done....  IMO there is nothing wrong with certain activities
    (such as Scouts) being sex specific.... BOY Scouts/GIRL Scouts.  Some
    kids need interaction with their own sex in the context of groups such
    as Scouting without boys being legally required to be ABLE to join
    Girl Scouts or Girls being legally required to be ABLE to join Boy
    Scouts. Why do some believe "every" organization HAS to be unisex?
    
    You can probably tell. I was a Scout as a boy and have been involved
    with Troops as an adult leader.  Now my son is coming along and MAY
    want to join a Troop.  If he does, fine... he will benefit greatly from
    it.  If he doesn't, fine, Scouts is not for everybody.
    
    All in all I would sum my scouting experiences up as very positive and 
    a most worthwhile organization for a boy or girl to join.
    

    Re .20, I do not think that a belief in God necessarily determines
    ones moral values.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, the difference between moral values and simply values is not
    clear to me.  But the Scouts are voluntary and teach values which
    relate to responsibility, YOUR choice of religion, and other social
    values.  One could join and choose to leave out ones' emphasis on
    religion, but, in certain situations your son might be exposed to
    hearing others pray or say the Pledge of Allegiance.  I submit that
    if you do not believe in supporting the U.S. (not war, just support)
    or hearing others pray at times that Scouting is not appropriate for
    your family.  Please don't complain about your kids not being given
    the opportunity to join an organization which teaches traditional
    values.  The schools certainly have had religion and any resemblance
    to traditional structure drummed out of them by irate parents.  There
    are a few exceptions (Catholic) but not many.  Jeff

    	My son used to be a member of a Scout group, but when we moved here
    we were told he could only join the local group if he also went to
    Communion classes at the local Catholic church - we decided it was not
    for us. On the other hand, the secular attitude in the schools is such
    that they are not allowed to mention Christ in Christmas songs. That
    must make it rather difficult for the teachers to explain what it is
    all about.

    re: .23 that does not strike me as typical of Scouting.  I would object
    to a Troop trying to tell me WHICH religion I must follow or even if
    ANY religion was required.  But I have no problem with the Troop having
    prayers or whatever as long as they don't try and force it on me or my
    kid.   Jeff

re last two

That would be in direct violation of national guidelines. Faith is encouraged
be it in God, Yoda or the I.R.S (tis the season) but the scoutmasters are 
directed to leave it up to the scout to decide.
This per the Scout Master's handbook B.S.A publishing.

-j

>That would be in direct violation of national guidelines. Faith is encouraged
>be it in God, Yoda or the I.R.S (tis the season) but the scoutmasters are 
>directed to leave it up to the scout to decide.
>This per the Scout Master's handbook B.S.A publishing.

I believe this to be true.  However, what inconsistency!

	On my honor
	I will do my best
	To do my duty
	To god and my country
	To obey the scout law
	To help other people at all times
	To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake,
		and [err...] morally straight
	   

It amazes the the number of organizations that profess acceptance for 
lots of different spiritual beliefs and then riddle their rhetoric 
with Judo-Christian talk of "god."  (For instance, AA talks of a 
self-defined higher power, but many of their meetings end with the 
Christian Lord's prayer.)

In my experience, most Scout troops never "forced" boys to take part 
in religious "beliefs" (though I remember my troop being required to
attend a mass to say thank you to the church that sponsored our troop;
so, sometimes "attendence," not "practice," is required; I also
remember a few of my Jewish friends having an objection to attending
mass).  However, their claim that Scouting doesn't push any
specific type of faith is a liiiiiiittle bit suspect. 


						--Gerry

    re: last few
    
    In some places (eg Canada) the emphasis in non-aligned scout troops
    is on the spiritual aspects of life rather than the religious.
    
    However there are aligned troops, associated with a particular
    religion, where there is also an emphasis on the religious aspects.
    
    No one is forced to join an aligned troop, but may if one wishes.
    This is freedom of choice.
    
    Bob

    
    	When I was a kid, I was in scouting from about 9 till 16.
    	Never once did anyone ever try to make any form of religion
    	or belief in god/whatever mandatory. My troop had Jews,
    	Catholics, protestants and even the atheist (me). I never
    	felt any pressure from anyone to alter any of my (non)beliefs.
    
    	G_B

    I am continually amazed at how some folks find fault with and criticize
    just about anything.
    
    I was a Scout for years, and eventually became an explorer advisor. 
    The goals of both organizations was never, and is not now, to teach
    young boys (and I assume the same for Girl Scouts) about any religion. 
    It is apparent to me, however, that some folks carry chips on their
    shoulders and fairly bristle at even the suggestion of some higher
    being being mentioned in a creed or slogan.  Those same folks would (it
    seems) rather tear down than allow these to continue.  What on earth
    could possibly be wrong with the scouts supporting *whatever* belief a
    child has...
    
    Next thing will be complaints about saluting the Flag during meetings.
    
    Also, how many 11 year old boys (or girls) would WANT to attend
    meetings with girls (or boys) or go camping with them, or hicking. 
    Geez, when *I* did that, it was partly to get away from girls!  And to
    have the Tom Sawyer-like adventures boys have when together!
    
    tony	(who_admits_to_some_stereo-typing_here!)
    
    

    re .29  Right on!  Scouts is not for everybody... especially those
    that bristle at slightest hint that they or theirs might actually
    be expected to follow some group guidelines or actually have to watch
    others salute the flag, or maybe actually even say a prayer!

	Boy Scouts !   Right up there along with Gramma's apple
	pie, and Aunt Millies homemade grape jelly !



	Kits   (former Girl Scout)

    
    
    Cub Scouts does indeed include religion in the 'curriculum.'
    
    In fact, specific religious requirements are included in the
    requirements for a WEBELOS badge.  While it is not 'required'
    that the Cub Scout participate in a particular (organized)
    religion, pins representing a number of organized religions are
    available, and awarded when the cub satisfies the requirements.
    
    Our local BSA officials leave most of the decision making up to
    the individual Packs and adult leaders.  When I objected to a
    traditional Christian celebration at Christmastime, BSA informed
    me that it was quite appropriate to observe the holiday with
    Christian songs, excluding any other religious observations.
    
    I do not object to religious celebrations.  I DO object to limiting
    those observances to 1 religion, excluding the beliefs of those who
    are not members of a particular religious faction.
    
    Deborah
    

    
    
    I was in Cubs and Scouts way back when...my son has gone the
    route..Beavers,Cubs and is now in Scouts...I actively encourage
    him.I work on the fund raising commitee each year.My daughter
    was in Brownies for 2 years and decided it wasn't her thing...it's
    their own choice but I do encourage them to stay. 
    
    Say Kits...we should compare scouting notes next time I'm down...;-)
                                
    

>       <<< Note 444.33 by KAOA01::BORDA "Doraphobic,Pogonophobic Bear" >>>

        
>     Say Kits...we should compare scouting notes next time I'm down...;-)
 



	I sold lotsa cookies !    ;-)                               
    
	kits

    
    
    I'll bet you did.....;-)
    

    
>    I'll bet you did.....;-)
 

	Yup...sold the most one year.  Even earned me an
	extra merit badge.  


	kits   

    	I have been read-only in here for quite awhile, but some of
    	the things brought out in this topic have finally moved me
    	to write.

    	The roots of Boy Scouting are God and Community, and yes, even
    	military.  Scouting was started decades ago in England to provide
    	a military-style outfit for boys to display/practice patriotism,
    	to learn survival and skills, to strengthen moral fiber, and to
    	stay out of trouble.  

    	From its outset, God (some God) was an important part of the 
    	discipline.  Duty to God and Country.  It is still in the oath.  
    	Because it was started in a Judeo-Christian society (and carried 
    	over to USA, another J-C society -- especially at the time), 
    	that is the predominant religious tendency among scouts.  

    	I can remember when I was a scout, there was an incident (I can't
    	remember where) where an avowed atheist was denied the rank of 
    	Eagle solely because of his religious belief (or lack thereof).
    	The supreme court upheld the decision of the BSA.  God simply
    	*IS* a part of the BSA charter.  Nobody makes a boy volunteer
    	to be a scout.

    	I cannot recall all of the requirements of each level in scouts,
    	but my son is now a Cub Scout, and I can tell you that SOME sort
    	of religious aspect is involved in the Cub ranks.  Most recently
    	to achieve his next rank, my son had to talk to a religious
    	leader about what a boy his age could do to serve his church or
    	house of worship.  

    	And there are (difficult and prestigious) awards for both cub
    	and boy scouts that are awarded for religious service by the
    	scouting organization, although they are earned through (or in
    	conjunction with) the boy's church.  There is a different religious
    	award for each faith expression.

    	Scouting and God go hand in hand.  As it should be.

    	Joe Oppelt

    re .29, now that you mention it, I am against saluting the flag.
     I believe patriotism has caused a lot of trouble in the world,
    and is encouraged because it's one of the ways that (power crazed)
    leaders get ordinary people to go to war and kill each other.

    Lorna
    

    	re .38

    	I really have a hard time believing you are serious, although
    	I notice a distinct absence of a smiley face...  But perhaps
    	you are just trying to generate some heat.

    	Patriotism gives one a sense of belonging.  A sense of pride.
    	If you hear that IBM or SUN beat DEC out for a contract, don't
    	you feel even a little sense of loss?  Don't you feel a little 
    	sense of belonging and excitement as you approach the DEC booth
    	at a computer show?  How about a sense of school pride in high
    	school and/or college?  "One planet, one human race" -- well,
    	how about one-educational-system?  No, it doesn't work that way.
    	Most people can't help but feel lifted when they hear on the 
    	evening sports news that their alma mater beat somebody. 
    	Patriotism is really no different.

    	Don't you (even secretly) root for the good ol' U S of A when
    	you watch the Olympics?  Didn't you feel [insert some positive
    	feeling here] when you heard that we bombed Libya?  What do you	
    	do on the 4th of July?  Was the fledgling colonial USA wrong to
    	declare independence?  It couldn't have been done without
    	patriotism.

    	We all have a need for belonging.  It is one of the 4 basic
    	emotional needs (self-worth, love belonging, autonomy).  Patriotism
    	can help us fill our need for belonging.

    	No doubt about it.  Boy Scouting encourages patriotism, and always 
    	will.

    	Joe Oppelt

    re .39, regarding most of your questions: no, not really....
    
    Lorna
    

    I think the people who see any patriotism as a sign that war is
    imminent miss the point.  Joe gives many examples of positive
    patriotism.  I have noticed that many of the people who bristle at
    any sign of patriotism tend to young and have not lived in the times
    when ones' freedom seemed (or was) at risk.  These are the people who
    seem to have the attitude that Russia's life style is just a "good" as
    the life style in the U.S..  I agree that one Planet one people is a
    nice goal.  It hasn't happened yet, and until it does I will be proud
    of the culture I am from and try and change the things I don't like
    about it.  Lorna, how does having pride in ones' culture hurt your
    son?  Don't you want him to be proud of who he is and be proud of the
    good things this Country stands for? 
    
    This vanilla flavored  unisex (no distinction between sexes) trend I
    see more and more people supporting is scary. What do want people want
    in their kids?  Many seem to want a unisex, oneworld, person who stands
    for little or nothing.  Jeff

I also object to saluting the flag.  I object to a lot of traditional
patriotism, because it creates an us vs them situation in which war is
likely.  (For more information, see "Born on the Fourth of July.") And
I think that my objections say nothing about the level of love that I
have for this country and it's people. 

One reaction of folks in this note that irks me is this melodramatic 
"Some people will criticize anything; I can't believe you don't 
like patriotism; can't you see the good things about patriotism?" This
reasoning is like, "let's not try to design cars any better because
what we have already works."  What the heck is wrong with making a
good thing better?  When I criticize saluting the flag, I am not
criticizing bonding, community activity, pride, and other possitive
aspects of traditional patriotism.  I am not advocating tossing out
the baby with the bathwater.  I am only suggesting that we improve
what we already have. 

RE religion

For many people in the Judeo-Christian religions, I don't think you 
realize what it is like to live in a society that requires me to spend 
energy ignoring references to a religion that isn't mine, to forgive 
people their assumptions that I celebrate their religion (I was 
bombarded with "How was your Easter?" and "Happy Easter!"; I even got 
a pre-recorded call from a church on Easter telling me about "the 
momentous occassion that happened nearly 2000 years ago!"  You say we 
have a right to practice our own religion, but can we have freedom 
from invasive religious phone calls in our own home???).  It takes 
an incredible amount of energy and patience to put up with the 
bombardment of religious greetings, discussions, celebrations, 
and "product," and it gets me (and others) tried.  

For people who are Judeo-Christian, all this stuff is hardly noticed
or perceived as "nice"; for many (not all) people who don't celebrate 
like you do, this stuff is oppressive, tiring, and a general pain in 
the private parts.  It takes no effort for Judeo-Christian people to
"be individuals" in this context; it takes us a great deal of effort
and patience for us to maintain our individuality.  And all some of us
are asking of our Judeo-Christian neighbors is to cool it a little bit
with all of the sermonizing (to us), default wording, and assumptions
that are getting mapped onto us.  And what I keep hearing back from my
neighbors is that we aren't important enough to them to stop their
assumptions and cultural bombardment.  That's rude. 

What good is having a country with freedom of religion when the 
society bombards you with only one type of religion?  People would 
think I was crazy to advocate Buddhist chants at the start of every 
child's school day, but folks can't understand that that is the same 
thing as this current crusade to put the Lord's prayer back into the 
schools.  If we are going to have freedom of religion, it would be 
nice to have freedom from "default" religion.

RE religion and Scouting

If indeed Scouting should always be about "god" and should deny boys 
the rank of Eagle if they are aetheist, then the section quoted from 
the Scoutmaster's handbook in an earlier note is a complete lie.  If 
Scouting is a Judeo-Christian-based organization (and I see nothing 
wrong with that), then what's all this garbage about "allowing boys to 
express their spirituality in whatever way they feel"?  Just be honest 
about it, that's all I'm asking.


							--Gerry

    
>    This vanilla flavored  unisex (no distinction between sexes) trend I
>    see more and more people supporting is scary. What do want people want
>    in their kids?  Many seem to want a unisex, oneworld, person who stands
>    for little or nothing.  

Jeff,

I understand that this is what you are hearing and what you think 
might come out of what some of the liberal activists are trying to do, 
but I don't think that this is the goal for most liberal activists.

We aren't asking for people to all become vanilla.  (Interesting 
choice of analogy; ask an African American and she/he might tell you 
that this country has been trying to make people "vanilla" for years.)

You can stand for what you want, just don't assume that I practice
what you practice ("Did you have a nice Easter?"), just don't force me
or my kids to take part in it with you (saying the Lord's prayer in
church or at the end of AA meetings), and don't treat me like an idiot
by telling me that your Judeo-Christian organization supports and
allows different types of spriritual expressions (like the
Scoutmaster's handbook says, and then all the Scouting rhetoric is
filled with "god"). 

						--Gerry

 Warning: ***flame on***

>I also object to saluting the flag.

 I find that to be really annoying. I mean, really, it's such a difficult
gesture. You get all the protections of the constitution, and you can't even be
bothered to recognize a symbol of that freedom and protection. Excuse the
barfing noises.

>And
>I think that my objections say nothing about the level of love that I
>have for this country and it's people. 

 I think it demonstrates all that it needs to.

>One reaction of folks in this note that irks me is this melodramatic 
>"Some people will criticize anything;

 It's true. Far from being melodramatic, it's an accurate portayal of the
lengths people will go to have something to dissent.

>I am not advocating tossing out
>the baby with the bathwater.  I am only suggesting that we improve
>what we already have. 

 Nah...

>For many people in the Judeo-Christian religions, I don't think you 
>realize what it is like to live in a society that requires me to spend 
>energy ignoring references to a religion that isn't mine, to forgive 
>people their assumptions that I celebrate their religion 

 I'm sure this takes such a herculean effort, too.

>What good is having a country with freedom of religion when the 
>society bombards you with only one type of religion? 

 You can bobard them right back if it's that big a deal. Or you can ignore it.
Or you can politely decline to participate. It's not the end of the world.

 flame off

 The Doctah

    Vanilla = white.  Oh!  Not the way I ment it.  Vanilla in my context
    means allthesame. 
    Homogenous would be a better word than vanilla I guess.
    
    Yeah, your probably right Gerry.  The parents of today would want the
    same things pretty much as I do for my son.  The way we achive those
    goals is the debate.  I agree... you probably do get annoyed when
    people assume things about your religion.  I suppose that the religious
    advertising your subjected to isn't much different than the product ads
    we are all subjected to.
    
    I think what I sense in people is an avoidance of traditonal polarity.
    
    i.e.
    
    The U.S is good.
    
    Males are strong.
    
    Women are compassionate.
    
    Sterotypes like those are what I mean.  I see equal rights and all as
    being good goals which are good for all of us.  Sometimes I get put off
    by the  (to me) extremes... such as women MUST be able to join ALL
    organizations.... period.  Scouts would be an example.  A girl joining
    Boy Scouts for example.  Why can't SOME organizations exist for a
    specific sex?  Boy Scouts for boys, Girl Scouts for girls?
    I know the above wasn't a specific point you made.
    
    I sort of see your point... but aren't the people who say "no extremes"
    no patriotism, because it may lead to war... no distinction between the
    sexes because it may lead to the repression of a girl who wants to act
    like a boy (if we admit there is a difference) etc. crushing the very
    thing they pretend to protect?  How?  By attacking the values Scouting
    represents they are potentially denying the people who believe in those
    values the right to practice them aren't they?
    
    I see the failing of SOME of the traditional values leading to less unity
    between us all.  Look at the neighborhoods.. do you know your next door
    neighbor's name?  We are all getting blended together into people who
    don't stand for much of anything except to hold the right to not stand for
    much of anything lest someone be offended.
    
    

    re .45, Mark, that was the most ill-considered posting from you I can
    recall in quite a long time.
    
    Gerry, you spoke for me, too.  re Scouting and "God", some people were
    claiming I was going out of my way to find something to criticize.  You
    didn't read my earlier postings closely enough, particularly .7.  I
    described that I spent 3 summers witnessing 8 weeks of 300+ scouts
    every week; usually 14-20 troops every week.  That's between 104 and
    160 troops every summer, let me round it to 133.  So in three summers I
    saw around 400 troops spend a week at camp.  And how many of you
    observed 400 different troops?  I carefully qualified my remarks in .7;
    I said I'd seen some of the horrors that can come from the troops that
    seem to have these religicos dominating the troop.  Those aren't the
    majority, I never said they were.  Those aren't the only problems
    troops have, either.  But Scouting as an institution PERMITS those
    abuses and Gerry was right when he pointed out the inconsistencies
    between the toleration that's supposed to be encouraged in the SM
    handbook, and the actualities of being different from the majority of
    this dominantly Judeo-Christian society.  I've seen it, it *is* a
    problem, and pretending that Scouting doesn't have that problem is
    a whitewash when I know better.
    
    DougO

re: .44 by --Gerry
    
    Gerry,
    
    There are scout troops which are made up of boys and leaders from
    non-Judeo-Christian faiths.  These troops adapt the promises and
    laws to fit their own particular needs.  The promise and laws are
    not set in stone, they are models (my interpretation based on a
    number of years in the movement as youth and adult).
    
    As for "how was your easter?", easter is a national holiday in most,
    if not all, western countries.  People could say, and sometimes
    do, "how was your holiday/weekend", there is just a tendancy to
    label the particular holiday.  This does not necessarily mean that
    they assume that you are an adherent of any particular faith.  It
    is the *holiday* that has the label, not you.
    
    Bob

    	I am a little horrified by some of the opinions here. I have not
    changed my nationality, but I probably should, since I think it
    important that a person votes in the country in which he lives. The
    reason I have not is that I am lazy, and the government has already
    made noises about giving votes to foreigners. There would be no other
    significance in a nationality change.
    
    	We spent Christmas in a country that has 10000 Christians, 60000
    Jews, and lots of other people. It was very refreshing to go shopping
    on Christmas day, and not see any mention of Christmas in the shops.
    
    	I have seen a lot of good done by a number of religions, but don't
    like them forced at me. I would find it difficult to attribute much
    good to patriotism. Religious code, moral code, patriotism, for some
    people they are indistinguishable. Where they are distinguishable I
    respect anyone who places the first two high in their order of
    priority. Compared with the above two "what nationality am I?" ranks
    about as high as "what record shall I play next?".
    
    	If the U.S. had not had its patriots, then less people would have
    been killed in the first place, slavery would have been abolished
    earlier, and U.S. citizens would not need special work permits in
    France  :-) :-)
    
    {the last paragraph is specifically to aggravate our U.S. friends who
    seem to have been expressing the most patriotism in this note -
    examples for any other nationality supplied on request if I have enough
    relevant knowlege}

    What's this here "beaver" scouts.  Is this a legit sub-group 
    of the scouting frat? 
    
    ie, wolf, bear, lion, WEBELOS, explorer.

    
    
    Yes...believe it or not...in Canada anyway...Beavers is where the
    boys start out in scouting...ages 7-9 or something,my son was in
    it for 2 years prior to Cubs...
    

>    re .45, Mark, that was the most ill-considered posting from you I can
>    recall in quite a long time.

 It's called, and was appropriately flagged as a flame. It is the reaction one
has when the hot button has been pressed for the final time prior to meltdown.

 I cannot tell you how tired I am of hearing the incessant whining from those
who can find personal affront with the words "Have a nice day." (Who's HE to
tell ME what kind of day to have?!!! What right does HE have to say that to me?
Can't I have my own kind of day?)

 And key to this reaction is the way these people couch their feelings. "I
OBJECT to" "I am OFFENDED by" It's always a major issue with them. Talk about
losing dynamics; it's like digital logic fer cryin' out loud.

 Forget it. It's not worth the effort.

 The Doctah

    jjeeeezzz....
    
    so much for valueing differences...  
    
    for the sake of (you put your own words here...don't want to "offend"
    anyone)...what's WRONG with being different than YOU.  why should *I*
    act/believe differently than YOU just because YOU are sensitive about
    it!
    
    *I* thank God (MY god...not YOURS) that we *are* different!  It's those
    differences that provide incentive to change...to improve...to develope
    and to progress!  If everything were so damn "vanilla" or
    un"offensive", nobody'd care and nobody'd change.
    
    you keep yours...i'll keep mine!
    
    tony

    
    Viva la difference!  If we were all the same, what a big, boring world
    this would be.  And no one would be laughing, choking, gagging over
    what someone else was saying.....and there would be no juicy gossep,
    and everyone would be ever so nice...... BLECH!!!!!
    

    .50  hmmmmmmmm the bait is dangled.  Guess I will nibble it.  Thats
    right, alot of lives might have been saved in THAT context.  The U.S.
    probably wouldn't exist either... but thats probably ok, right?  Maybe
    you forget WHY the U.S. was "invented".  Wasn't it so that people COULD
    live in peace and freedom without constantly being killed/harassed
    by the latest coup leaders, or latest country to take over the one you
    live in?

    At least thats the way its SUPPOSED to work. Granted we do have Gov.
    leaders which tend to play the role of World Cops and get us in deeper
    than perhaps they should at times.

    Look at the alternatives to the U.S.  There are only a few countries I
    would be willing to live in.  Maybe Sweden, the U.K., or Europe, thats
    about it.

    Again, I will say... those that tend to dump on the U.S. the most tend
    to forget what the U.S. has brought/bought them.

    Be glad you live in a country where you CAN criticize the Gov. publicly
    and not be shot for it.


    Back to the Troop with my flag.
    
    Jeff

RE Beavers

In the United States, Scouting has the Silver Beaver award, which is 
given to adult leaders who have put in outstanding service.  In 
Scouting, you have to be "hot stuff" to get this award.  

RE My whining

Just as a point of clarification, I was just asking for people to 
either be honest about the exclusion of their groups or to make their 
groups more inclusive.  I ask this in the spirit of neighborliness.  
It seems as if some want to give me the middle finger in response to 
my requests ("It's _your_ problem...").  In a sense, you are correct, 
and I will deal with it.  I just thought it would be more loving, fun, 
and rewarding to work on it with the help of my neighbors, that's all.

Have a day.


							--Gerry

    Scouting, Religious influence, Patriotism...
    
    I never got involved with the scouts, mainly because we as a family
    moved around too much. My older brother got involved with a military
    style variant of scouts (ATC - Air? Training Cadets).
    
    Personally, I'd see nothing wrong with low key religion; I'm not
    offended when asked about my Easter - since in the UK Easter involves
    two days of holiday, it tends to turn into some kind of event - this
    year it was non-religious for me. I celebrated Christmas by attending a
    charol service in London. It was a Catholic church... which is
    interesting for me since I come from a Fundamentalist outlook.
    
    Patriotism, flag waving... here in the UK, they used to show a picture
    of the Queen in the cinemas. We'd all stand, then the film would start.
    That's gone now. I don't feel any loss of nationalism for that.
    
    Where patriotism starts to say "unless you stand whenever the telly
    shows the Queen, you're NO patriot!" I'd say look at the fanatic. Alf
    Garnet is a comedy series I loathe; Alf used to stand. Alf used to
    vehemently defend his home football team as well... I don't loathe Alf
    for standing and being patriotic, just for being a bigot.
    
    Looking in the football grounds, I see 'patriotism' has taken an ugly
    turn - "football hooligans". Abroad, the English have become bad news,
    especially at football matches.
    
    I wonder, how many were Scouts?
    
    Teaching people some simple values, about a higher being, about
    respecting each other, seems to me wouldn't do too much harm. If scouts
    is all about that, then more power to it.
    
    Pete.

    re .57  Somehow Mike I think your missing the points I am trying to
    make.  You seem to think that supporting the U.S. means agreeing with
    EVERYTHING the U.S. decides to do in foreign policy.  To me supporting
    the country means supporting the things you think are good and
    protesting against the things you think are wrong.  I don't view
    protest as un patriotic.  I view lack of appreciation for the good
    things about the U.S. and the benefits you enjoy (freedom for example)
    which were unfortunately bought by others lives as un patriotic.  I
    hope that is clear.  Also protesting the good things the U.S. stands
    for is I believe un patriotic.  Somehow I think that because the U.S
    has done some terrible things to other countries that some people
    completely forget the good things the U.S. has done and criticize
    virtually any stand the U.S. takes. 
    
    The Boy Scouts can only "force" its positions on a boy if he chooses to
    say in the Troop.   The Scouts is a volunteer organization, unless the
    PARENTS (and I have seen this happen) make a boy stay in a troop
    against his will.  This is, of course wrong.
    

    re .59  I don't know how to pull a paragraph out of .59 and include it
    in my reply so I will have to rely on memory.  Anyway the last par of
    .59 said something like there is not too much harm in teaching a kid
    about a higher being or some simple values... 
    
    
    See what I mean?  If there is not too much harm in teaching a kid
    simple concepts of God or respect for others then what IS good????
    
    Values such as these as being good things to teach a kid was taken for
    granted 20 years ago.  Ok so times change?  Then answer this:  What
    which is BETTER has replaced those old values which most considered
    good in the past...  this is the vacuum in basic values which I have
    been talking about.
    
    Ok you people who seem to knock "mother an apple pie" for its' own
    sake.
    
    What can you offer which is better other than stands on only whats
    wrong with the U.S.?
    
    

    What is better? How 'bout religion in moderation? Patriotism in
    moderation? In religion, the recognition that your faith cannot have
    all the answers and there are alternatives. In patriotism, pride in
    your country, but not to the extent that you go to war believing you're
    god's gift to humanity.
    
    In terms of Scout groups, allow the scout to experience 'religion', but
    don't block them in. An inquiring mind will find its own way 'out'
    anyway.
    
    As an aside: "mother and apple pie" means very little to my (UK) mind.
    Care to explain?
    
    Pete.

    Ok Pete... not bad.  I agree with your remarks in .62   Mother and
    Apple Pie is a U.S. term for well..... flag waving...basic U.S. values
    that is, the very things that makes the Vietnam Generation see red.
    
    Actually in this Scouting string I probably come across as a radical
    WW II era patriot which believes the U.S. can do no wrong.  That is
    not the case.  I certainly DO believe the U.S. can and had done many
    wrong things.  I don't like those things any better than the "non
    patriots do".  Its just that I see the "non patriots" going to OTHER
    extreme.  That is, the position that anything which supports the U.S.
    or implies support such as saluting the flag, the national anthem etc.
    is wrong.  I believe the correct position is somewhere in the middle.
    
    Jeff

    	So a bunch of people don't see value in patriotism.  Fine.  Please
    	don't expect the Boy Scouts to change because of that.  That 
    	essence in you, that "thing" that makes you comfortable with 
    	yourself and your values, makes you what you are.  By the same
    	concept, I have a different set of things I value.  I have a
    	different view of things, and that is what makes me what I am.
    	We will not change each other.  Perhaps some day one or the other
    	of us will change our views ON OUR OWN, but we will never change
    	the views of others.

    	In the same way, we cannot ask a given organization to change
    	its principles.  The Boy Scouts will always have religion and 
    	patriotism as a part of its basis.  (The Salvation Army has
    	religion as a part of its basis.)  Perhaps some of those who 
    	don't value these things fail to do so because they were not
    	exposed to it through organizations like Boy Scouts.  Perhaps
    	some don't value these things because they WERE so exposed.  I
    	was so exposed, and it stuck in me.  I will always cherish my
    	Boy Scout experience.  And I don't think that there are many 
    	people who would say that I am a goose-stepping robot.
    			
    	Joe Oppelt

 Joe-

 Sorry, you are just politically incorrect. It is "cool" to crap on people who
believe in the principles upon which this country was founded. It is the
"in thing" to find reasons NOT to be patriotic. Why I knew a janitor who worked
at the Tip O'Neill federal building in Boston; he used to beat his wife. Well,
I can't support a government based on wife beating, you know. So I guess I
don't have to salute the flag or stand while the national anthem is played.
That's only for the uncool anyway.

 Besides, isn't it more fun to pretend that the flag (which is a _symbol_
of the principles upon which the country is based) is considered to be more
important than the principles themselves. Heck- ain't it our duty to desecrate
the symbol of liberty? We're not desecrating liberty itself, so that means
it's ok. We just want to have the appearance of desecrating liberty.

 And it's infinitely more fun to focus upon what's wrong with the government
action of the day than it is to pay any attention whatsoever to the good things.
Wouldn't that be tantamount to encouraging the government? And if I encourage
the government, that means I'm supporting a government headed by a non-liberal;
we all know that can't ever happen.

 So if the government takes an action that means that 200 people got killed,
when thousands were being systematically deprived their human rights on a day 
to day basis for years, why we'll have to focus on the lost lives of those
200. We can't possibly address the systematic deprivation of human rights
by the former government; they were lefties. Besides, the people that were
executed for political crimes were subversives anyway, can you imagine the
gall of those people, wanting to have a say in their own government? How
ridiculous.

 Forget it, Joe. You aren't PC. It's over. 

 The Doctah

Doctah,

What are you talking about?  Maybe more appropriately, how the heck 
did you get from this note string to the last reply you entered?  
Please consider for a moment that you are heaping assumption after 
assumption on a few "liberal" statements made in this note string.  

From "I don't like to salute the flag" you managed to come up with 
"You don't support Grenada/Panama and you are unable to support the 
Bush administration."  Before you get any angrier (please don't; Notes 
ain't worth it), please check in with us before you go off and running 
on your assumptions.  If you were better at communicating with people 
like us, I bet you would come to the conclusion that no human being 
fits 100% into the labels PC or PI.  Not you.  Not me.  Not anybody.

Come on!


							--Gerry

Doctah:
    
> Joe-

> Sorry, you are just politically incorrect. It is "cool" to crap on people who
>believe in the principles upon which this country was founded. 
    
    I believe in the principles this country was founded on. I disagree
    with you about what patriotism is. To me, if my government is not
    living up to those principles that is supposedly stands for, then
    my patriotic duty as an American is to criticize it by speaking up,
    and exercising my first amendmant rights.
    
    You are still using this "politically correct" phrase as a catch-all
    insult that doesn't deal with any specific issues; this is just more
    generalized liberal bashing.
    
    What I dislike is the use of "patriotic" as it is often used, as a
    manipulation technique to stifle dissent,i.e. "Love it or leave it".
    This, in itself, is un-American, to attempt to stifle someone else's
    right to free speech, a basic value of our society.
    
    -roger

    My sons are both cub scouts and I participate as an assistant
    den leader.  Its wonderful that they are both leaning good
    social skills as well as many practical skill for better lives.
    
    jim

	re .66
    
>What are you talking about?  Maybe more appropriately, how the heck 
>did you get from this note string to the last reply you entered?  
>
>From "I don't like to salute the flag" you managed to come up with 
>"You don't support Grenada/Panama and you are unable to support the 
>Bush administration."  
    
    	See .57
    
    
    	re .68
    
    	Thank you!  Your short, concise entry is so refreshing.  Here
    	we are, pompous adults arguing world problems, and trying to
    	solve them by focusing on Boy Scouting.  NOTES can do that
    	sometimes.
    
    	You have put it all into perspective.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

>From "I don't like to salute the flag" you managed to come up with 
>"You don't support Grenada/Panama and you are unable to support the 
>Bush administration."

 Funny. A search of my note came up empty on both Grenada and Panama...

>If you were better at communicating with people 
>like us, I bet you would come to the conclusion that no human being 
>fits 100% into the labels PC or PI.

 No kidding, that conclusion is inescapable. But it has nothing to do with
communication with "people like you."

 I made some statements about some people; if the shoe fits, wear it. If it
doesn't fit, then don't worry about it. If you feel that some parts fit and
my conclusions are unjustified or unsupportable, ask for clarification or
challenge them on an individual basis. I'm tired of the people that are "too
cool" to show patriotism, or who feel that being patriotic means agreeing
with every single specific action by every person connected even peripherally 
to the government. If that's you; take issue with it. If it isn't, don't
worry about it.

 You don't know how many times I've heard people exclaim that they cannot be
patriotic because George Bush is in the white house. Now that makes a hell of
a lot of sense, doesn't it? It's called losing the forest for the trees.

 The concept brought up that I am saying "This is America, be satisfied or get
lost" completely misses the point. The idea that I am out to squash first
amendment rights is a canard, a cheap debating technique which completely
ignores the reality of what I have been saying.

 The problem is trying to communicate with people who have already formed ideas
about the subject; they hear the keywords and the brain gets shut off and the
fingers start their tap dance...

 The Doctah

    ... this concludes this test of the Emergency Broadcast System (now
    back to the topic).
    
    RE: .64 & .69  Amen to Brother Oppelt.
    
    I'm surprized at the passion released in this string.  True, young
    people are highly impressionable but they're also highly resilient.  It
    takes more than saying a prayer once a week and saluting the flag with
    three fingers raised to create a flag-waving robot/religious zealot. 
    If this is the hidden agenda of the Boy Scouts of America then they do
    a lousy job at it.  As a former Scout (and a current non-Scouting youth
    counselor), I guarantee you that a twelve year old scout is MUCH more
    concerned whether we'll get his woodworking merit badge in time for the
    next campout rather than the theoretical implications of mumbling some
    musty old prayer before the start of the troop meeting.  The memories
    which last into adulthood are those which concern his peers, his
    achievements, his high adventure, not Flag, God and Country.  For the vast
    majority of twelve year olds, it's all colorful, vaguely meaningful window
    dressing.
    
    If a kid is getting too wrapped up in jingoism or evangelicalism, first
    look to his parents for clues.  And for those Scout leaders who abuse a
    boy's trust and confidence with his own political/religious agenda
    I say "throw the bums out".  Unfortunately, I get a mental image of all
    of us well-meaning men locked in a room, arguing at higher and higher
    volume about the politics of scouting, while two dozen young boys wait
    impatiently for their mentors to finish shouting and let the troop meeting
    begin.

re.70
You speak my feeling on this matter quite clearly. I see some of the attitudes
expressed here as being somewhat whiney and display an ability to find fault
in anything.
I also find it interesting that some dislike a simple prayer because it 
might influence their child yet they themselves would force THEIR beliefs
down their childrens throats.

I am glad my parents allowed me exposure to many beliefs and ways of life
which gave me a base for my own decisions. One of these exposures was to
a gay individual(my uncle now dead from AIDS) which gave me an acceptance
uncommon in my peers.

Sheltering dosen't solve the problems it only avoids the problem.


-j

RE .70

Thanks, Mark.  I understand that note a _lot_ better.  

I guess I just struggle with your sarcastic notes.  I still don't 
quite know how to take it.  When I sit here are read your notes 
talking about "all the people who whine about America," I think to 
myself, "Well, I did criticize patriotism; is he referring to me?"  
When you toss a note out to hundreds of readers and if you make it 
vague, it can apply to a lot of people to whom you might not have 
wanted it to apply.  

Anyway, I understand you a lot better after your last reply.  Thanks 
for having the patience to enter it.

(RE: The subject: You know, I really do see value in Scouting.  My
deadline is Friday, so I should have time to enter something later.) 



							--Gerry

Doctah:
    
> The concept brought up that I am saying "This is America, be satisfied or get
>lost" completely misses the point. The idea that I am out to squash first
>amendment rights is a canard, a cheap debating technique which completely
>ignores the reality of what I have been saying.
    
    This statement in itself is a cheap debating tactic that avoids dealing
    the point I brought up in my statement, Doctah. The effect of what you
    are saying is to quash free speech, like it or not, by implying that
    those people who disagree with you are unpatriotic.
    
    What is the reality of what you have been saying?

> The problem is trying to communicate with people who have already formed ideas
>about the subject; they hear the keywords and the brain gets shut off and the
>fingers start their tap dance...
    
    Then stop using keywords of labeling like "politically correct" which
    is as empty a phrase as has come down the road in quite a while. If you
    have a point, make it.
    
    And as you have said yourself, being patriotic means different things to
    different people.
       
    -roger
                                                                            

>    This statement in itself is a cheap debating tactic that avoids dealing
>    the point I brought up in my statement, Doctah.

 There was nothing to avoid.

>    What is the reality of what you have been saying?

 If you havne't gotten it by now, I doubt repeating it will foster any further
understanding.

>    Then stop using keywords of labeling like "politically correct" which
>    is as empty a phrase as has come down the road in quite a while. 

 You don't like it because it happens to apply to you more than feels 
comfortable. Life's rough. It is NOT an empty phrase. It accurately describes
an observable phenomenon; that you choose to deny its very existence does
not alter the reality of its existence.

 the Doctah

>It's NOT an empty phrase. It accurately describes
>an observable phenomenon; that you choose to deny its very existence does
>not alter the reality of its existence.

Could you define it, please, Mark?


						--Ger

    I'm not Mark, Gerry, but I'll give what - to me IMHO of course -
    would be considered PC.
    
    I think this example was talked about in V2 of -WN- in the Separatist
    Movement note.
    
    Paraphrased: A women who is a "Real Feminist", and who is heterosexual
    will nevertheless have sex with only women.
    
      Alan

    I think it's an example of radical PC'ness.
    
    PC'ness would be "doing the right thing based on your beliefs" I'd
    guess.  Like if you love dolphins enough you won't eat the wrong brand
    of tunafish because their trawler nets catch dolphins who die as the
    nets are hauled in.  And if you really love equality you'll do
    everything in your power to make it a reality (whatever you consider
    equality to be, of course).  And if you really are anti-drugs you will
    work for drug education and treatment centers in your area.  I think
    political-correctness is making sure your concepts, values, and actions
    dovetail pretty exactly.  I also think you cited an extreme, because
    "real feminist" is defined as different things by different people.
    
    -Jody
    

    Jody, I respect the examples you've given as being your brand of
    PC'ness.
    
    However, in my cynical moments, I see some PC people *saying* they
    buy only the "right" brands of tunafish. 
    
    But if the truth be known, they still continue to buy the dolphin-
    killer-brand because it's a quarter a can cheaper.
    
    It's also become quite PC for every politician in the world to be
    anti-drug nowadays. Yet, in Mass anyways, pols who came of age in
    the '60's are falling all over each other to confess the error of
    their ways vis-a-vis their pot-smoking or pill-popping.
    
      Alan

    Yeah, I get your drift.  It's a dark day indeed when people like that
    can change their moral tune to keep up with the "current drummer", even
    if it's a lie....
    
    Love them social veneers!
    
    -Jody
    

 PC, political correctness is a term that describes several phenomena depending
on the context.

 Used snidely, it can be an accusation that your opponent (it is usually used
in a contradictory situation in this sense) is following a political ideology
in a certain case without engaging in independant thought. This is the usage
that raises the ire of Roger, Doug, and company. However this is not the
only usage.

 The more general case means following a political ideology in actions, thoughts
or words. In this sense, Jody has provided a good example with the tuna.

 PC in the context of politicians can mean quite another thing. It can describe
the tendency of politicians to eschew taking strong positions that are contrary
to what is perceived to be public opinion. In other words, it would be 
politically incorrect for a politician to take the stand that perhaps the
legalization of drugs is a lesser evil than the war on drugs. It is against
the established norm.

 Any challenge to the established norm is politically incorrect. If you hang
around with a group of "good old boys" who "know" that "wimmin are good for
one thing and one thing only" and you say that women are equally capable of
driving an 18 wheeler, that is politically incorrect in that context. You are
bucking the trend.

 Political correctness has alot to do with not rocking the boat. Feminism has
a definition of "an advocacy of social, political and economic equality between
men and women," yet there are some feminists that retain sexist beliefs which
run counter to that stated goal. To call a feminist on a sexist belief is
politically incorrect, because it rocks the boat.

 If you are at a meeting of conservative politicians, and you suggest raising
taxes as a first resort in solving a "revenue shortfall," that is politically
incorrect as it goes against the established norms of making sure all money
spent is necessary before reasining taxes; it rocks the boat.

 Are we gaining comprehension?

 The key thing here is that the concept of political correctness is not limited
to liberalism, feminism etc, but applies (in different ways) to all groups.
It is politically correct for fishermen to practice catch and release, for
example.

 Are we there yet?

 The Doctah

> Used snidely, it can be an accusation that your opponent (it is usually used
>in a contradictory situation in this sense) is following a political ideology
>in a certain case without engaging in independant thought. 

This is what I consider to be the definition of PC.  With PCness, you 
generally start with a label ("Democrat" or "Republican," say).  Then, 
you apply a checklist of DOs and DON'Ts that go with each label, 
including how one should eat, live, vote, and so forth.  If a person 
does not follow the checklist, then the person is not politically 
correct; the person is not, say, a "real" Democrat or a "real" 
Republican.  "Mindlessly following a checklist that belongs to a 
certain label" sums it up for me.

I think that people add a lot of junk to the basic definition and 
misuse the term.

> Are we gaining comprehension?

I don't know, are _we_?

> The key thing here is that the concept of political correctness is not limited
>to liberalism, feminism etc, but applies (in different ways) to all groups.
>It is politically correct for fishermen to practice catch and release, for
>example.

You'd never know it by reading MENNOTES, SOAPBOX, or most notes files. 
I bet that if you added up all the uses of the word, you would find 
that over 95% of its use is a conservative person calling a liberal 
person PC because s/he disagrees.  

How about this checklist: loving Scouting, saluting the flag, honoring
the current administration, arguing for the rigth to bear arms,
arguing against abortion, arguing against gay rights, arguing 
against the ERA, and so forth.  Do liberals ever accuse the folks who 
consistently follow that path of action PC?  Almost never.  But, 
according to the definition, they might be.

The thing that I object to most is that calling someone PC suggests 
that that person is "mindlessly" following a checklist instead of 
coming to political stances through life experience, thought, and 
feeling.  The general trend in the Notes files that I see is that the 
conservatives are the individual thinkers, regardless of the 
predictability of their "checklist," and the liberals are the mindless 
PC folks.  I don't think that liberals or conservatives have enough 
information by use of the net to be able to judge whether someone is 
being mindless or being thoughtful (in general).  Therefore, I highly 
recommend that accusations of PCness not be used, because, in my 
opinion, "mindlessness" cannot usually be determined using this 
medium.

> Are we there yet?

I'm not sure that we both want to go to the same place.  But, hey, 
I'll value that difference.  ;-)   Or is that me being too mindless.


						--Gerry

>I bet that if you added up all the uses of the word, you would find 
>that over 95% of its use is a conservative person calling a liberal 
>person PC because s/he disagrees.  

 This is due in large part to the liberal bent that the media employs when 
discussing virtually any issue. They make it clear what the politically correct
choice is.

 For example, last week, a man who had known suicidal and homicidal tendencies
was released from a mental institution in Georgia. This man was KNOWN to be
dangerous, yet was released anyway. He promptly went into a pawn shop and
bought a .38 snubby revolver, falsifying the attendant documents in the
process. He went to a local mall, and opened fire, killing a couple and wounding
a couple more. When Bryant Gumble did his piece on this event, he talked to 
the physician who allowed the man to be released. He stated "Unless there is
an imminent danger, we must let him out. The simple fact that a man is known
to be a general threat, that he has known homicidal tendencies, is insufficient
for us to keep him insitutionalized." This was unchallenged. The concept that
people must threaten identifiable human beings to remain institutionalized
or else be let go did not garner a second glance. Then Bryant talked to a
policeman. "You mean there's no waiting period in this area of Georgia?" He
repeated the question several times, with the sum total of the words, his 
inflection, and facial expressions leading any reasonably cognizant human being
to conclude that such a waiting period ought to be in place. In addition, he
gave credence to the "call for a national waiting period," and referred to the
revolver in question alternately as a "saturday night special" and "instrument
of death." In total, it amounted to an editorial, a concerted effort to give
certain political views more credence than others, under the guise of reporting
an event. This is what gives rise to the phrase politically correct. It has been
determined by Bryant Gumbel and those of his ilk that unbiased reporting is
not necessary for any event that could be used to further the cause for gun
control. It is Politically Correct to support gun control in the United States.

 Just to show that PC can be used on the same issue in a different way...

 If a member of the NRA were to stand up and say "I think gun control is a 
good idea." He would be politically incorrect vis a vis the NRA. He would
be politically correct with respect to the United States. Get it?

>Or is that me being too mindless.

 Thanks for the snide response. It always warms the cockles of my heart to have
someone be snide to me after I have undergone effort to explain my thoughts
carefully and honestly.

 The Doctah

I agreed that the story sounded as if it were biased strongly towards 
gun control and away from examining release of dangerous 
criminals/patients.  However, this sentence seemed like a nonsequitor 
to me:

>It is Politically Correct to support gun control in the United States.

By your own definition, Politically Correct means that someone follows 
a checklist political agenda without thinking.  You have no concept as 
to whether Bryant Gumbel is being mindless or very thoughtful in his 
slanting of his story.  You have no concept as to amount of individual 
thought people have put into gun control.  You are just assuming that 
everyone who supports gun control is mindlessly following a political 
agenda instead of coming out against gun control after a lot of 
thought.

The way you are using the term PC, it seems to mean "agreeing with a 
group."  I don't think this is an accurate use of the term.

>>Or is that me being too mindless.

> Thanks for the snide response. 

I aimed for a light-hearted joke, and I missed.  Sorry.

							--Gerry

I guess I find it bizarre that anyone who shares a majority opinion 
gets labeled PC, along with its connotation that no thought or 
conviction went into the opinion.  

It seems like such a trap.  A no win situation, for either 
conservative or liberal or in-between people.



						--Gerry

Gerry: A great note.
    
    Doctah:
    
    
>         <<< Note 444.85 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "short term memory loss" >>>

>>I bet that if you added up all the uses of the word, you would find 
>>that over 95% of its use is a conservative person calling a liberal 
>>person PC because s/he disagrees.  

 >This is due in large part to the liberal bent that the media employs when 
>discussing virtually any issue. They make it clear what the politically correct
>choice is.    
    
    No, it is because conservatives have seized upon it as the latest
    label they can sling at liberals, to avoid talking about the substance
    of an issue.
    
    You yourself are using it in exactly that manner, as a stereotype. I
    have yet to see you use it, except in your own subjective definition
    of the word, against a conservative politician, or political program.
    
    This is as an inaccurate label as painting the media with the liberal
    brush. This tactic allows conservatives from confronting any ideas or
    information that might not conform to their prejudices. There are many
    sources of information out there; they all vary on a spectrum of 
    objectivity to subjectivity, from reporting to commentary, from liberal
    to conservative.
    
    Gerry is right that the general usage is by conservatives. It replaces
    the old "L-word liberal" that was in vogue a while back.
    
    As to Bryant Gumble, he is an extremely mediocre reporter, with 
    a barely conceled monumental ego, that shouldn't be taken seriously
    by anyone. He would be far better suited to one of the tabloid news 
    shows. He injects his opinion into everything he does, and is a very
    poor interviewer. I would say send him back to sports reporting, but
    the Seoul Olympic coverage was so awful; we saw more of Bryant than
    the competitors.
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                                                     

re: Jolly Roger

>    No, it is because conservatives have seized upon it as the latest
>    label they can sling at liberals, to avoid talking about the substance
>    of an issue.

 No, liberals are trying to claim it is a label used to sling mud, so they don't
have to deal with the realities of the fact that many people (gasp! even 
liberals!) blindly follow a party line without ever questioning the basic
tenets thereof. And you've got a ton of nerve to claim that conservatives
avoid talking about the substance of issues- like liberals do! Ha! Nothing could
be a greater obfuscation.

>    This is as an inaccurate label as painting the media with the liberal
>    brush.

 You are correct. Both are accurate.

 re: Ger

>You are just assuming that 
>everyone who supports gun control is mindlessly following a political 
>agenda instead of coming out against gun control after a lot of 
>thought.

 I have done extensive research into gun control. I have examined the rhetoric 
from both sides. I have examined the raw data, from DOJ and FBI reports. I have
examined demographic data, cause of death data, crime data. I have made my
conclusions about gun control based upon these observations and common sense.

 You wonder why I feel that people that support gun control are being PC. How
about an analogy...

 What would you think of someone who said "AIDS is the result of sin and 
depravity," and other similarly dumb things? You'd think they didn't do their
homework, that they didn't know or refused to acknowledge the facts. There are
numerous articles and other sources of information about both AIDS and gun
control. AIDS, fortunately enough, is far less political than gun control. Far
fewer people are trying to foist misinformation about AIDS than about gun 
control. There is no national "AIDS is the result of sin" coalition. There is
a lack of political machinery designed specifically to ram that concept down
our collective throats. You want to know why a reporter who slants his story
to favor gun control is considered by me to be PC? It's because the evidence
is decisively against gun control, yet ignored.

 The Doctah

    	So, wading through all this mess, I can't seem to determine if
    	people think that Scouting is PC or not...
    
    	Joe Oppelt  :^)

    Doctah:
    
> No, liberals are trying to claim it is a label used to sling mud, so they don't
>have to deal with the realities of the fact that many people (gasp! even 
>liberals!) blindly follow a party line without ever questioning the basic
>tenets thereof. 
    
    What party line, Doctah? And who are you to interpet whether people
    are blindly following this imaginary line or not? What gives you such
    great vision, where others apparently can't see? How do you read the
    minds of others?
    
    If you are to accuse me of obfuscation, you had better be able to point
    out where it is, or you yourself are obfusticating. Where is it, Doc?
    
>>    This is as an inaccurate label as painting the media with the liberal
>>    brush.

> You are correct. Both are accurate.  
    
    You really are full of it, Doc. The Washington Star; a flaming liberal
    newpaper? The Manchester Union? William F. Buckley? Pat Buchanan?
    Robert Novak? Robert McLaughlin?
    
>It's because the evidence is decisively against gun control, yet ignored.
    
    It's because your interpetation of that evidence is the only one
    possible, and those that choose to disagree with you, are blindly
    following a "Party line" rather than agreeing with the only true
    opinion, that of the Doctah. There couldn't possibly be any other
    reason, could there?
    
    The fact that the gun control notes are both over a thousand replies
    each indicates that there is strong disagreement still, doesn't it?
    Why haven't people been convinced? Is it possible that people can look
    at tha same data and come up with two different conclusions?
    
    -roger
    
    
                                    
    
    Seems they have something to do media, and get access to it on a
    regular basis.
    
    
                                           

>    What party line, Doctah?

 You are prepared to tell me (and everyone else on the net) that no one
ever follows a party line? (I suppose it's so unheard of that I made it up.)

>    You really are full of it, Doc. The Washington Star; a flaming liberal
>    newpaper? The Manchester Union? William F. Buckley? Pat Buchanan?
>    Robert Novak? Robert McLaughlin?

 So what? For every list of conservative media, I can list 5 liberal media. And
the ones I list are bigger. But why clutter up disk space? Even most mainstream
liberals admit that the majority of media has a liberal bent to it. Of course,
I will not mention that the "media" you spoke of were by and large syndicated
writers, people who expressed raison d'�tre is to write editorials (which is 
is supposed to differ from "news.")

 Enough of this rathole.

 The Doctah

    
> You are prepared to tell me (and everyone else on the net) that no one
>ever follows a party line? (I suppose it's so unheard of that I made it up.)
    
    People may or may not follow "party lines" but first the party line has
    to be agreed upon. And who does this? Who gets together and formulates
    these things?
    
    "Politically correct"," party line", and "liberal media" are
    generalizations, and as such, don't deal with specifics, and therefore
    don't deal with truth. They fall into the category of the casual
    insult.
    
>Even most mainstream
>liberals admit that the majority of media has a liberal bent to it. 
    
    Speaking in a very general way, I would agree with you. I find it
    interesting that those who have the closest contact with the events of
    the world as they happen tend to become liberals. Maybe conservatives
    are out of touch with reality, huh?
    
    
    >Of course,
>I will not mention that the "media" you spoke of were by and large syndicated
>writers, people who expressed raison d'�tre is to write editorials (which is 
>is supposed to differ from "news.")      
    
    Funny, but you did just mention it. You are making a point of
    discriminating between the columnists and news; there are many finer
    points to discriminate than even that, in terms of the relative
    objectivity of different sources. You lump them all together as
    "liberal media"; this is incredibly vague. Does this include both
    the National Enquirer and the New York Times?
    
    -roger
    
                                         
       

> Does this include both
>    the National Enquirer and the New York Times?

 As the National Enquirer is entertainment rather than reporting media, I'd
say no.

 the Doctah

Could we please return to discussing Scouting?  Thanks.

			Steve

    
    
    Apparently a bulk mailing has gone out to folks in New Hampshire. 
    Apparently a calendar is included, and they ask for your support.  
    A friend of a friend received one and typed it in.....
    
    I found this really painful to read - it just seems so exclusionary of
    people of difference (different religions, sexual orientation, etc....)
    
    Not sure if anyone in this conference received one, but I'd be curious
    to know what you think of this.....

Letter follows:

    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    
Daniel Webster Council, Inc.
Boy Scouts of America
PO Box 9503, Manchester, NH,  03108-9835

Dear Friend,

	They said it would not work.

    	When I decided to send out these stunning 1993 Daniel Webster
    Council Boy Scout Calendars absolutely free to citizens in the Nashua
    area like yourself, a lot of people here said I was throwing away good
    resources.

    	They said folks would accept this Calendar, featuring beautiful
    scenes of our most cherished national parks -- and that I'd never hear
    from them again.

    	But I said, "That will not be the case."

    	My friend, because you represent the backbone of what's best about
    New Hampshire and this country, I'm hoping I can count on you to
    support the mission of the Daniel Webster Council of the Boy Scouts of
    America.  Your generous gift combined with the support of the local
    United Way will help to sustain the programs of our council.

    	Particularly at this time, when all around us -- even in the Nashua
    area -- a serious ersosion of moral values among our youth threatens to
    destroy our democracy.

    	We see it on television...  we read it in newspapers.  And we're
    often shocked to hear it in out children's music.

    	Now, even the Boy Scouts are under attack for sticking to the
    traditional values you and I grew up with.

    	Some want to remove all mention of God from the Scout Law.  Others
    want to make openly avowed homosexuals Scout leaders.

    	My friend, we need the help of all Nahua citizens to restore the
    values that made this country great.

    	So would you please take a moment right now to return the attached
    Calendar Acknowledgment Form, to let me know that you received the
    Calendar and that you support the work we do?

    	 I hope you'll also enclose a generous contribution to the Daniel
    Webster Council of the boy Scouts of America, so we can concentrate our
    efforts to build strong, moral character in our youth -- and develop
    America's true [true was underlined] leaders for tomorrow.

    	Never before in our 83-year history have we been under such attack.
    But that just means we must work harder to make sure each and every Boy
    Scout is trained to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,
    courteous, and reverent toward God...

    	... qualities that we must instill in tomorrow's leaders, if we
    want our country to remain strong in the 21st century.

    	Unless we are able to provide positive role models and teach
    decent, basic values to our children, we can expect a dim future for
    this country that we love.

    	The Daniel Webster Council has developed special programs to fight
    drug abuse, illiteracy, crime, hunger ...

    	... but we can't keep up the struggle without your help.

    	So, please allow me to put you on the spot and ask:

[underline mode full on]

    	Do you care enough about our basic, tried-and-true American values
    to make a special gift to the Boy Scouts of America today?

[underline mode off]

    	While you are under no obligation to send a donation when you
    accept the Calendar, I hope you'll understand the urgency of our appeal
    and stand with us in the time of great trouble.

    	The future of America reset on your shoulders -- won't you help the
    Daniel Webster Council, Boy Scouts of America today?

			Sincerely,

				[signed]

			William T. Dwyer, III
			Director, Daniel Webster Council

    P.S. Please let me know wheter you received your Calendar -- they cost
    us a bit to produce, and I would hate for any of them to go to waste. 
    We must be able to count on concerned Americans like you to help us
    keep our youth on the straight and narrow.  For the sake of our
    country, and on behalf of tomorrow's leaders, thank you.

#

    re .97

    It's called Freedom of Speech, Jody.

    fred();

    
    I'm not saying it's wrong that it exists, I'm expressing how I feel, and
    asking how you feel.....
    
    I couldn't tell whether that was an honest sigh or a smirk, Fred....
    
    -Jody
    

    re.  .99
    
    File it under "they have rights too"
    
    fred();

    Also file it under "she has the right to comment on their words too"
    
    Ye gods, people are paranoid to the point where publically saying how
    you feel about what another person has said deserves such a knee-jerk
    response?
    
    Sad...

>    I found this really painful to read - it just seems so exclusionary of
>    people of difference (different religions, sexual orientation, etc....)

 It didn't seem very exclusionary of religion to me.

 And, having been a scout, religion was never a particularly prominent theme.
It's not like you were going to catechism or anything.

 I can understand the prohibition on "out" gay leaders.

 While it did seem to have a holier then thou/ sanctimonious tone, I didn't
find it to be a very big deal.

 the Doctah

    re .97, I agree with you, Jody.  The letter is nauseating.  It sickens
    me to think that there are so many people who still equate
    christianity, heterosexuality and patriotism with goodness.
    
    I don't know what I'd do if I ever had a kid who wanted to join an
    organization like the Boy Scouts.  I don't know how I'd ever deal with
    such a dissapointment.  Luckily, my only child is a female, and I know 
    she would recognize that letter for being the same narrowminded bunch
    of crap that I do.
    
    Lorna
    
     

    
    
    > still equate christianity,heterosexuality and patriotism with
     goodness
    
    Lorna,
    
      Is there nothing good about these things?
    
    David

>    > still equate christianity,heterosexuality and patriotism with
>    > goodness
>    
>    Lorna,
>    
>      Is there nothing good about these things?
>    
>    David
    
    David, I think you're unclear on the concept of "equate".
    
    Ray

    
    
    > " Math is hard!"
    
      Ray,
    
     Perhaps I did midunderstand her statement, and I am certainly willing
    to bend the old ego an admit it. So with this in mind I ask for
    clarification of her statement..
    
    David

    re: .103
>And, having been a scout, religion was never a particularly prominent theme.
>It's not like you were going to catechism or anything.
    
    	It could be worse. My son was a scout in England. When we moved
    here we discovered that the local scout troup would not accept him
    *unless* he went to catechism classes. We decided we had better things
    to do at the weekends.
    	Dave
    

    	The ban on homosexuals may have something to do with some bad
    experiences that the scouts have had over the years.  In the present
    legal climate they probably have decided that they can't afford to risk
    having any more of the kind of bad experiences that they've had in the
    past.
    					John
    

	I feel angry and sad about that letter.

	I now have close friends and relatives that are gay.  I support
	people's choice to be gay.  This support goes beyond "hey, they
	have their right".  I support them from my deepest heart.

	I feel angry that the boy scouts organization is speaking against
	homosexuals.

	I feel sad that an organization that could be great for our planet
	and our youth is being polluted by this prejudice against
	homosexuals.

	It's only my lack of energy that stops me from sending a letter to the
	boy scout organization.

Thanks for listening.

/Eric

Where does the letter mention Christianity?

    
    It mentions a lot about GOD.
    
    how it would be bad to remove all mention of GOD from scout laws, how
    every boy scout is trained to be...reverent toward GOD.  It seems
    bundled in with what are referred to as "decent, basic values".
    
    This may not work for atheists, and not for pagans, and not for 
    those who worship the Goddess, or for several other religions.....
    
    It seems spiritually narrow, although it seems to welcome Christians
    and several other very popular religious sects it seems to exclude
    others (or may be encouraging the children to believe differently, or
    feel "different" or uncomfortable for being how they were raised).
    
    -Jody

    I am 'shocked' that mentioning God is offensive.  Maybe 'they' are
    right: The Country IS going to hell because the basic moral values
    like God (yup God) is becoming obsolete, or worse, offensive.  Can
    you BELIEVE this, references to God offend people.
    
    Nope, I am not a Bible thumper.  But God seems pretty basic to me.
    
    Jeff

    Maybe atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, et al could start a "scout"
    organization that has an oath that goes something like, "On my
    moral standards I will do my best to do my duty according to the way 
    I feel about it" rather than, "On my honor I will do my best to do
    my duty to God and my Country...".  

    Which one of these organizations would you turn your son over to
    several hours a week and weekends?  An organization where the 
    leaders at least profess to live by a code of ethical conduct, or
    a group that seems to think that any code of ethical conduct is
    "offensive".

    Also am a long way from being a "Bible thumper", but dismayed and
    saddened that words like "God" and "morality" seem to be the new
    dirty words in our society.

    fred();

    re: .113
    	My uncle used to be a scout master, and used to go to international
    jamborees. There he met scouts who were Buddhist, Hindu, ...
    
    	Some of these you would probably refer to as godless, while others
    would object to you using "God" in the singular. I don't think that in
    either case there was anything wrong with their "basic moral values".
    As I mentioned, here, you *must* be a practicing Catholic to join the
    scouts, but these things do not sit too well with either the
    fundamental concept or the international organisation - they are merely
    local quirks. I can understand people having an objection to the local
    quirk described earlier in New England.

>    how it would be bad to remove all mention of GOD from scout laws, how
>    every boy scout is trained to be...reverent toward GOD.  It seems
>    bundled in with what are referred to as "decent, basic values".

 It is part of the package. If you don't like it, don't join. There's no reason
to make it into a big deal.

 The same goes wrt homosexuals. They don't want out homosexuals to be scout
leaders. That's their choice. If you don't like it, don't join.

 You are certainly free to start a more inclusive club if that's what you want 
to do. The fact that scouting is not an 'anything goes' sort of affair should
neither surprise nor offend anyone. IMO.

    
    I guess what bothers me is a lot of charity money from other sources
    (who knows, united way, whatever) may be going to support a group that
    is discriminatory in nature.
    
    
    -Jody

    
    I guess your're welcome to give your charity money to anyone you see
    fit.  My bigger problem with the "United Way" et al charities is when 
    some special interest group tries to use control of the money _I_ give 
    to charity to advance _their_ agenda.
    
    fred();

If you don't like the organizations that United Way supports, don't support
United Way.  I don't.

    re: 117  ..... an organization which is discriminatory in nature.
    
    Geez.  What ISN'T discriminatory if you want to start splitting hairs.
    
    And what IS wrong with organizations which have certain sets of
    guidelines such as the GIRL Scouts or BOY Scouts?  IMO its is ok,
    even desirable to have some organizations which cater to certain
    sexes as long as its an equal opportunity to ALL members of that
    sex or age group.
    
    Boys need an organization which is essentially all male, just as girls
    need an organization which is essentially all female.  If the
    individual wants a co-ed organization then find one and go for it.
    
    I think the 'vanillization' of the U.S. is going too far.  We have
    'valued differences' to the point where any difference is considered
    offensive.  We can't pray in school because it might offend somebody.
    What about the people who are offended if you CAN'T pray in school?
    
    The Scouts is an organization which has certain guidlines and values
    which it follows.  To me, they are for the most part appropriate and
    attempt to instill moral values in boys and girls.  If an individual
    or parent disagrees then DON'T JOIN.  If its for you then join.
    
    I see the Scouts as one of the last hold outs on traditional U.S.
    mores and values.  For those of you who think the Scouts is too
    restricted and should be more liberal and 'modern' in its thinking
    then look at the MESS our youth are in today following the modern
    'valueless' values the U.S. in general instills in them.
    
    Guess I should get off my soapbox here but I get B.S. when I hear
    people blasting an organization which has and is doing its dammdest
    to help our kids turn out as responsible healthy people.
    
    Jeff       (Assistant Scoutmaster)
    

>    I guess what bothers me is a lot of charity money from other sources
>    (who knows, united way, whatever) may be going to support a group that
>    is discriminatory in nature.

 Of course. That's quite often the case. one reason that I don't give
the United Way a farthing is because they contribute to groups whose
political nature is extremely repugnant to me.

    I don't find the letter obnoxious because it mentions God, or because
    it's pro-USA, or because the Scouts have a rule that their homosexuals
    are supposed to remain officially closeted. 
    
    I find the letter obnoxious because it insinuates that all Good People
    agree with those views and only Bad People don't, and because it deeply
    misconstrues democracy and what's great about this country. 
    
>    	My friend, because you represent the backbone of what's best about
>    New Hampshire and this country, I'm hoping I can count on you to
>    support the mission of the Daniel Webster Council of the Boy Scouts of
>    America. 
    
    What's this mission which appeals to the backbone of the best?  It's
    to fight against the the following:
    
>    a serious ersosion of moral values among our youth threatens to
>    destroy our democracy.
    
    Hmm, it's some kind of attack on moral values which is also an attack
    on democracy.  So it must be fascism, dictatorship of the proletariat,
    intolerance, or ballot-box stuffing then, unless there's a bunch of
    propagandizing Royalists who are still plotting against the Republic.  
    
    But no, it turns out that democracy is dependent on the "traditional
    values you [sic] and I grew up with".  In particular, democracy can be
    upheld by "mentioning God" and eliminating "openly avowed homosexuals". 
    
    It turns out that what "made this country great" isn't liberty,
    freedom, justice, or even Chuck Berry; what "made this country great"
    are the personal prejudices of a New Hampshire no-neck.
    
    I couldn't care less about the Boy Scouts.  But I consider myself very
    patriotic.  In an individualistic way, maybe, but that IS a form of
    American patriotism.  And the creep who wrote that letter is trying to
    take America away from me -- saying it was meant for HIM but not for MY
    friends.  He sounds like someone who'd not only call Massachussetts
    "PRM" but who'd gladly support a summary execution of pervs and
    political dissidents, all in the name of "democracy".  Bet Jefferson
    and Tom Paine would be on his hit list.
    
    Ray

    Those of us from a dirt-farmer heritage take serious countenance of the
    saying "never burn down the barn to get rid of a few rats".

    Prior to the publicity surrounding homosexuals in the Scouts I'd be
    willing to bet that the majority of individuals who were at least
    passively familiar with the BSA/GSA would rank those organizations
    at the very top of the "motherhood and apple pie" lists.  The have done
    a lot of (very) good during their history .. and there's no doubt in my
    mind but that they will continue to do good.

    Make a list of all the "good" that the Scouts have been responsible
    for. Make another list of what's "bad" about the scouts.  I'd be
    willing to bet that the list of "good" is significantly longer than the
    list of "bad".  What's on the "bad" list?  The issue of homosexuality
    and perhaps some elements of religion?  For these reasons there are
    those who would advocate financial boycotts of the Scouts - in the
    hopes that they will either "fold" organizationally or subjugate
    their philosophies to the political correctness of today.  Insane.

    I can only hope that these anti-BSA/GSA people never leave their day
    job and go into farming.  They're going to be in for the shock of their
    life when they torch their barn.

    Bubba

    Ah, but what's wrong with asking that an organization which is doing a
    lot of good and some small amount of wrong to correct that wrong while
    continuing with the good?

I certainly agree with the definitions of "right" and wrong" .. who is
to decide what belongs in what category?

*Irrespective* of my personal belief the BSA/GSA always has been and
always will be a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION!
                 --------------------
    
I never cease to be amazed at those who consider the BSA to be some sort
of ward of the public.  It just ain't so.

As my learned and esteemed associate, Dr. Levesque, says:

.116> The same goes wrt homosexuals. They don't want out homosexuals to be
.116> scout leaders. That's their choice. If you don't like it, don't join.

.116> You are certainly free to start a more inclusive club if that's what
.116> you want to do. The fact that scouting is not an 'anything goes' sort
.116> of affair should neither surprise nor offend anyone. IMO.

Oh and yes .. I was in the BSA and both of my girls are GSA members, not
to mention that I do contribute heavily to them .. so I'm more than
passively interested in their continued success.

Bubba

    No.
    
    	While the BSA/GSA may technically be private organisations, they
    are members of a world Scouting organisation. Anything the U.S.
    organisations do might reflect on the corresponding organisation in
    another country. Scouts in India or Japan might object to being told
    that they should be white and Protestant.
    
    	Think of it like a brand name. We are not careless of the use of
    "VAX" in China or Hungary, even though there are separate companies
    there.
    
    	And for Scouting the U.S. is not the parent company.

    Does the BSA in Pakistan admit Hindus and Jews?  Does the BSA in
    Japan admit Koreans and Philipinos?
    
    ed

    
    
     Does anyone have a right to require and or insist a person pass a moral
    standards litmus test?? ( a new acronym MSLT ) :-)
    
    David
    

.126> While the BSA/GSA may technically be private organizations...
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this like "almost pregnant"?

.128> Does anyone have a right to require and or insist a person pass a moral
.128> standards litmus test??

Any private organization most assuredly has the right to do so!  You may not
like the test, I may not like the test, but, you may rest assured that any
private organization does most certainly have the right to require the member-
ship to pass any such litmus test that they so desire.  Organized religions
do this all the time.

The Fraternal Order of Rednecks (of which I am a charter member) doesn't
want any long-haired-dope-smokin-myn who wear earrings as members!!!

Bubba

    
    
     Bubba,
    
     As always, there is no missing your point :-)
    
    David

    re: .127
    	In the British Scouting organisation there is no discrmination of
    race or religion. There is a segregation of the organisations based on
    sex for all the younger members.
    
    	In France it appears that you must be Roman Catholic (or at least
    give the impression by attending confirmation classes). In France the
    undesirable minority (about 10%) is of arab (North African) origin, and
    is mostly Muslim, so the religious discrimination is also effective as
    a racial discrimination.
    
    	My son was a member of the Scouts in the U.K., but because of the
    religious requirement never joined the French organisation, so I know
    little more of the French organisation than the above.
    
    	Can anyone else in the conference give us information about the
    Scouting movement in other countries? As I mentioned, my uncle used to
    attend international jamborees, and there at least there was a mixture
    of all races and religions, but I am not sure what restrictions there
    may be in other countries - I assumed there were none until we moved to
    France.

RE:  Note 444.104 DELNI::STHILAIRE 

>    re .97, I agree with you, Jody.  The letter is nauseating.  It sickens
>    me to think that there are so many people who still equate
>    christianity, heterosexuality and patriotism with goodness.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^
>    I don't know what I'd do if I ever had a kid who wanted to join an
>    organization like the Boy Scouts.  I don't know how I'd ever deal with
>    such a dissapointment.

Then, I for one hope your kid grows up to be a confused, homosexual, commie.
                                               ^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^
That seems to be what you desire.

RE:  Note 444.110 HANNAH::OSMAN 

>                      -< what's wrong with homosexuals ? >-

Some people feel that it's perverted, like some homosexuals and straights feel
that men having sex with young boys is perverted.

>	I now have close friends and relatives that are gay.  I support
>	people's choice to be gay.  This support goes beyond "hey, they
>	have their right".  I support them from my deepest heart.

Charles Manson's mother probably loved her son.

>	I feel angry that the boy scouts organization is speaking against
>	homosexuals.

Their club.  Their choice?

>	I feel sad that an organization that could be great for our planet
>	and our youth is being polluted by this prejudice against
>	homosexuals.

And MANY feel that the homosexual life styles are polluting our planet.

But I'm sure you're aware that many people feel this way.

RE:  Note 444.120 SALEM::GILMAN                                        

>    We can't pray in school because it might offend somebody.
>    What about the people who are offended if you CAN'T pray in school?

Heck Jeff, I learned that at CXO, a group wanted to sing Christmas carols in
the cafe at lunch time.  Personnel denied them, saying they 'might' offend
someone. One of the guys made reference to the DECPLUS signs being offensive to
him and the Personnel rep patted him on the shoulder and said, "Better get use
to it."

    what's DECplus?

    To my understanding, its a group within DEC which consists of
    G/L/B.  It has an agenda of getting acceptance of DEC employees towards
    their life styles.
    
    The 'plus' in DECplus stands for "people like us."
    

    ic

    re: .133
    
>And MANY feel that the homosexual life styles are polluting our planet.
>
>But I'm sure you're aware that many people feel this way.
    
    	I personally feel that homosexual life styles are essential to life
    on our planet. I wouldn't adopt them for myself; I wouldn't encourage
    them in my own kids, but the fact is that excessive breeding has become
    a worry for the environment. Homosexual life styles, monasteries,
    nunneries are ways of reducing the breeding population, and might just
    be a natural response to the problem. It has been shown that rats tend
    to be more homosexual in a crowded environment.
    
    	I know there are other ways of avoiding breeding, but you should be
    supporting ways of avoiding breeding (and that people are still happy
    about) that don't pollute the environment. Homosexuality in itself
    pollutes nothing, while manufacture of contraceptives does.
    
    	Overpopulation has not reached the stage where we need to actively
    condition children to be homosexual, but a happy homosexual is a lot
    better for society than a frustrated heterosexual (my opinion).

    
    -1
    
        God I hate it when people use the " Gays are doing us a good public
    service by not breeding, and oh it's better for the environment"
    explanation... How about they are what the are and they do not owe us
    any justification..
    
    David

    Well, I have known people with "holier than thou" attitudes about their
    use of contraceptives or vasectomies. If you can think of any lifestyle
    less harmful to the environment than a stable homosexual relationship
    (either sex) then I would be interested.
    
    	We have had a number of homosexual friends (both sexes) with a
    stable relationship, and I would prefer to trust any of my children
    (both sexes) to them rather than to some of my other friends. For a
    Scoutmaster (or mistress) I would be much more concerned about whether
    they had a stable sexual relationship than the exact nature of the
    relationship. The fact that they were prepared to be open about it
    (regardless of its nature) would be an encouraging sign. A closeted
    pederast or rapist is a lot more dangerous to your kids then an overt
    homosexual.
    
    	Was your invocation of God an indication of your approval of the
    Scouts' religious bias, or was it just a throwaway word?
    
    	I think this was about Scouting, and who were suitable members,
    originally, but since someone else introduced the word "pollution"...

    
    
     -1  Why none of my words are throw away :-)  My previos note was not 
    a effort to expose your note as a " Holier than thou" attitude. I
    simply meant that, I as a heterosexual do not justify preference with
    or by examples of such in the animal kingdom. I do not believe that
    Gay people need to carry around a placard saying, " It's okay folks the
    rats do it."  Now as far as God is concerned,heres my view, if you
    believe the bible to be the innerant word of God, then homosexuality is
    a sin, if you do not believe it to be so, then party on :-)
    
    David  

    
    But then, if you believe the Bible, aren't lust, envy, pride,
    covetousness, anger, gluttony & sloth also sins. In fact, DEADLY sins?
    Seems like sinning is pretty easy to do. And the first person to throw
    a stone at "homosexuals" should be the person who has never felt anger,
    lust, envy or pride.
    
    I'd like to meet that person. Moreover, I'll bet that person has better
    things to do than sit around pointing a finger at gay folks and yelling
    "Sinner!".
    
    As for the Boy Scouts, I can really see why a lot of people are
    bothered about the exclusiveness of Scouts. Yes, its a private
    organization, but its also the best known place to learn scouting
    skills, spend time with other young men of your age, and develop
    camaraderie and responsibility. If you did create a parallel
    organization, you wouldn't attract as many people; it would be "second
    best", at best. I think it is the very fact that the scouting
    experience in its international scope and flavor cannot be wholly
    duplicated except through YEARS of hard work is the reason why the ban
    seems so unfair.
    
    I wish there was some relaxing of the rules so that, if nothing else,
    gay scout leaders could participate. I can understand that parents
    might have fears; but some of these could be alleviated by having
    "co-leaders", where a gay leader was always teamed up with a straight
    leader.
    
    I guess I'm just thinking about how traumatic it can be to discover,
    midway through adolescence, that you're attracted to your own sex
    instead of the opposite sex. To then have multitudinous doors slammed
    in your face strikes me as a pathetic response to a young person's need
    for understanding and compassion from society. Especially when such a
    youth may be desperately trying to find other means of being "same". In
    your teen years, few kids want to be "different". The best acceptance
    is "no special treatment". Setting up "Gay Scouts" wouldn't seem to
    solve the problem.
    
    Oh well. I think its sad that homosexuality gets this huge SIN label
    slapped on it, and then nobody gives much thought to the human beings
    who are being traumatized and ostracized by society's taboos. Its
    almost as if there are men, women, and "Gay people". As if "they" are
    distinct and seperate from "us". Not so. Aside from who they love and
    lust after, there are no automatic differences. Sure, you can SAY that
    "gay men swish..." but we know it isn't true of all gay men. You can
    SAY that "lesbians are all mannish thug-like women whom no sane man
    would be attracted to", but I've met some totally gorgeous, "feminine"
    women who were lesbian, so that theory is blown as well. It is similar
    to the legends of "the enemy" which we create during war, so that we
    can justify killing them. We depersonify gay people, think of them as
    less than human, gay men being less than men, lesbians being less than
    women, so that we can justify treating them as less than human.
                 
    NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT SINNERS HAVE NO RIGHTS OR ARE NO
    LONGER HUMAN.
     
    I think the Boy Scouts are making a horrible mistake.

    Gay scout leaders can and do participate.  Believe me, there are plenty
    of gay scouts as well.  It's just that they have to "officially" pass
    as het.  
    
    For that matter, they are also "officially" free of lust, envy, pride,
    covetousness, anger, gluttony, and sloth. 
    
    I agree with your first couple of paragraphs: Hyprocrisy and
    self-righteousness are the real points here.
    
    Ray

    
    444.142 ( Foster )
    
      Soapbox indeed :-)
    
    Rdavis,
    
      Is not!!
    
    David

>    Rdavis,
>    
>      Is not!!
>    
>    David
    
    OK, so they _aren't_ free of lust, envy, pride, covetousness, anger,
    gluttony, and sloth... so sue me...
    
    Ray

    
    > so sue me
    
     Is not about hypocrisy and self-righteousness, and I do not want to
    sue you. 
    
    David

.104> me to think that there are so many people who still equate
.104> christianity, heterosexuality and patriotism with goodness.
    
    Well, I equate those things to goodness, for the most part.
    
    I also equate atheism, homosexuality and apathetic politics to
    goodness, for the most part.  I know good people whofit into some
    or all of those categories as well as the first 3 (from .104).
    
    Why must one be bad if the other is good?

.109> The ban on homosexuals may have something to do with some bad
.109> experiences that the scouts have had over the years.  In the present
    
    " ... I haven't had this much sex since I was a Boy Scout troop leader."
    
    					Lt. Frank Drebin, The Naked Gun 2 1/2

RE:  Note 444.138 PASTIS::MONAHAN 

Wow!  I thought I had heard it all..... but your comments had me choking
on my soda!

    	"Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners? I
    am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things
    that it were better my mother had not borne me".
    
    	-Shakespeare.
    
    I never claimed to be an original thinker, or completely sane.
    	Dave
    

Re: .150

Are you aware that in Shakespeare's time, "nunnery" was a term which meant
"brothel"?

			Steve

I think the problem a lot of people are having with the Boy Scouts nowadays
is that for so many years, the public image of the organization has been
that Scouting was an activity open to any boy who wanted to join, that they
promoted "good deeds", civic responsibility and taught boys about the
environment and outdoor skills.  The religious aspect, at least in the US,
was minimal (indeed, when I was a Scout as a boy, I didn't consider BSA
to be any more religious than I thought the Pledge of Allegiance was.  Of
course, both make passing references to God, but it was never intrusive.)

Now, perhaps Scouting hasn't changed that much, though from the contacts I've
had with it recently it seems that the focus has changed towards fundraising,
which turns me off.  However, our society HAS changed - to one which is more
openly tolerant of those who are "different than us", and it seems that BSA
hasn't changed accordingly.  This, coupled with the repeated sexual abuse
scandals, is causing much of the public to feel "betrayed", in the same manner
that many have been turned off to certain organized religions by the
celebrated sexual offenses committed by clergy.  The BSA is not the 
egalitarian and accepting organization so many of us thought it was, and
this makes some angry.  That the public image may have been false doesn't
matter.

I don't mind if the Boy Scouts decide who they do or don't want in their
organization.  But if they're going to insist that they're a private club,
then they should disassociate themselves from our public schools and be
treated as, oh, say, the Knights of Columbus (not meaning to pick on the
KofC, just wanted an example of an organization with an obvious religious
connection.)

				Steve

    re: .151
    	I was aware of the alternative meaning, but in the context of
    advising someone not to breed the "brothel" alternative is meaningless.
    A brothel had no more facilities for contraception than a real nunnery,
    and considerably more opportunities for conception. It is likely that
    Shakespeare's audience would have enjoyed the double entendre.

    Steve ..I agree.
    
    I also believe that many people, right or wrong, considered scouting a
    'safe' place for young boys. Those same people may feel that allowing
    homosexuals to actively participate will remove that same safe feeling.
    There's also a sense that homosexual men will migrate to scouting and 
    change what has always been considered to be already ok.
    
    I'm not sure that I want to have my son participating in a scouting
    organization where the leaders are homosexual. I'm not liberal enough
    in my beliefs to chance exposing my son to something I don't want him
    exposed to yet, in his young life. 
      
    I'm also not convinced that boys at that young an age have really made
    up their minds as to sexual preference. Those boys who are hetrosexual
    pretty much don't care much for girls at that age anyway. I don't think
    that any undo influence should be exerted that might cause a young boy
    to misread his own sexual signals.
    
    Ken

    
    I wish I knew why about how this boy scout thing came about anyway.
    
    Someone said something about "scandals" and I don't know anything about
    it. I would think that ANYONE who was willing to uphold the Boy Scout
    codes of honor and integrity, who had the skills and the interest,
    would make a good leader. If Scout Leaders aren't supposed to discuss
    sexuality, then that should be across the board.
    
    But: I guess I think about the older scouts, those in high school. And
    many of them DEFINITELY have some idea about their own drives, even if
    they aren't sure which sex they're driven towards. Kinda like turning
    the key and revving the engine before you've really looked at a map.
    
    Ken: if a lot of young men shared their adolescent experiences, would
    you be a bit more convinced that SOME people recognize and struggle
    with being gay in their teens? I think the high gay teen suicide rate
    says a LOT. Obviously, it would be hard to go and find out whether any
    of these boys were "influenced" by an older gay man, but I have to
    wonder whether it was the ABSENCE of any "influence", i.e. the lack of
    a role model, or an older person who acknowledged the pain of
    discovering their "difference" which drives these kids to want to take
    their own lives.
    
    And Ken, would you rather have a living gay son or a dead son who
    couldn't face the possibility of being gay?
    
    I honestly hope that if it does happen in your immediate or extended
    family, that you will feel some compassion for the bewilderment and
    anguish of someone discovering that s/he is different, and that that
    difference is considered disgusting and morally repugnant by a large
    part of society.
    
    All that said, I *do* understand what you're saying. In the end, it may
    be best to simply agree to disagree.

            <<< Note 444.155 by ASDG::FOSTER "radical moderate" >>>
  
>>  But: I guess I think about the older scouts, those in high school. And
				   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>  Ken: if a lot of young men shared their adolescent experiences, would
                     ^^^^^^^^^
  
	I specifically stated young boys....Nothing about older scouts.
  I did this purposefully to eliminate misunderstanding. As was expected,
  my statements were again twisted.  Don't do it again.
  
>>   And Ken, would you rather have a living gay son or a dead son who
>>   couldn't face the possibility of being gay?

    This is from the same book of guilt quotes that my insurance agent gets 
  his sales pitch from. Don't try to get inside my head, you couldn't handle
  or deal with what's in there.   

>>  I honestly hope that if it does happen in your immediate or extended
>>  family, that you will feel some compassion for the bewilderment and
>>  anguish of someone discovering that s/he is different, and that that
>>  difference is considered disgusting and morally repugnant by a large
>>  part of society.
   
	How do you know I don't?
 

    

    >I'm not sure that I want to have my son participating in a scouting
    >organization where the leaders are homosexual. I'm not liberal enough
    >in my beliefs to chance exposing my son to something I don't want him
    >exposed to yet, in his young life. 
    
    If they're in the scouts, the already are.  They're also exposed to
    heterosexuals -- 
    
    					andrew

    
    Ken:
    
    First, I can't know what "young boys" means to you. I don't know how
    old your son is.
    
    As for the rest: sure its hypothetical, but I don't see why you get
    indignant when I ask you to expose what's going on inside of your head.
    
    No one wants to know EVERYTHING that's in your mind. Maybe I couldn't
    handle it. I accept that. But I'm trying to understand how you would
    deal with hypothetical situation X.
    
    What's wrong with telling me the answer? I am NOT trying to sell you
    any insurance.

    re .122 (Ray), This is how I feel, too.
    
    re .132, Dwight, in regard to your wish that my kid grow-up to be a
    "confused, homosexual, commie" I think you're going to be dissapointed. 
    Melissa is 18 and a freshman at Boston College, and while I wouldn't
    mind if she were a Lesbian, she has definitely already exhibited a
    rather strong preference for men.  She's definitely liberal, but I
    wouldn't call her a Commie.  She hopes to have a good job someday, and
    be able to buy herself a few nice things.  She's also fairly
    level-headed, too, so it looks like you may lose on the confused part,
    too.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    	From 11 years old my son knew homosexuals, knew they were
    homosexual, and accepted them as friends of the family. He was not
    seduced by them, any more than he was seduced by any of the female
    friends of the family. He has currently been engaged for two years and
    intends to marry next summer, so he appears to have the average sexual
    orientation.
    
    	The Scout leader here is female, heterosexual, Catholic, and
    doesn't permit members in her troup who do not attend confirmation
    classes. Her prerogative, but we decided that my son wouldn't join.
    Since I know her personally through other contacts I doubt that she is
    seducing her troup, but would it be better if she were homosexual, or
    worse?

I'm afraid a lot of this discussion about how involved someones private 
love life is to tehir ability to fulfil the role of a scout leader keeps 
making me wonder if there's a sex badge the scouts go for that I've 
never heard of; and if so what it looks like... 

Given that a lot of people seem to think someones private sexual preferances 
are relevant where's the line drawn? Should a man who likes playful 
spanking be barred in case he spanks the kids? How about someone who 
prefers his wife to go on top because it reflects that he likes to be
dominated therefore won't be able to be a strong role model and keep 
the kids in order?  How about celibates? 

How about smoking?  Would you want your child exposed to a person who
openly uses a harmful drug, even if they didn't use it around the children?
After all, the scoutmaster might be secretly teaching your kids to become
closet puffers!

			Steve

    re .142  Co Leaders (a straight teamed up with a gay leader)  Scouting
    already does that, sort of, that is, scout leaders are not allowed to
    have one on one 'relationships with boys'.  That is, no Scouting events
    are sanctioned by the BSA unless there are at least TWO adults present.
    That includes camping trips, meetings etc.
    
    Jeff
    

    I have a 2 year old daughter.  Our friend S. often babysits for her. 
    S. is an open lesbian.  She is a happy, normal, well adjusted person
    who likes men (hangs out a lot with my husband), women, kids, dogs,
    birds, and life in general.
    
    My husband and I have no problem with our dear friend S.  We appreciate
    her babysitting our daughter and are not worried about our daughter's
    safety in her care.  As my daughter grows up, she will learn to accept
    S.'s sexual preferences as just another way of being a person.  We
    don't judge S. and are happy to entertain S. and her lover.  
    
    Neither of us believes that our daughter will be influenced toward
    homosexuality by her relationship with S.  If S. provides a positive
    role model of a lesbian, well, my daughter also has many positive role
    models of heterosexual women.  My daughter will discover her own sexual
    preferences as she grows up.
    
    Parallels?
    
    L
    

	Laura, GREAT note! Keeping prejudices out of your childs eyes is a
great thing to do. :-)



Glen

    Laura, sounds like a healthy attitude on your part, and your daughter
    is and will continue to benefit from it.
    
    Jeff