Eagledad

Personal attack? Scoutmasters refuse to sign because they either didn't agree the scout did the work or they didn't approve of the counselors interpretation of the requirements. Our council only requires the signature at the begining of the process. After that, it is out of our hands, so we have it better than the blue card. I like the first signature because it gives us the opportunity to guide the scout in filling out the card and helping contact the counselor. Most people don't realize that the vast majority of 11 year old boys have never contacted a stranger for the purpose of making arrangements for working together. It is very intimidating. However, I could figure out a way of continuing such guidance without the signature. Barry

You have only pointed out that National doesn't go into details, It is the elephant in the room Merlyn. Why would it be worth going through all this hassle otherwise? Barry

Based from what? Your own values? Where did you get your values that you can judge someone else's interpretation of good ethical and moral behaviors? When two scoutmasters disagree, where could a scout go to find the true answer? God is the only consistent unchanging source of ethical behavior. God is all that holds the law and oath valid in the definition of character that defines the scouting program. So if you want to brush off a scouts experience of god to a rock, fine, that makes it easy for you. But when he comes to a true moral decision, did you really help him become better than he was? Barry

God is not in the program for personal reflection. Reflection is the place to find God, but not justify His purpose. God is in the program to anchor morality and ethics. As for some of the atheist permitted to earn Eagle, well I'll let National fall over themselves trying to justify their spirituality. But remember, the BSA has already one the suit against them to allow atheist. So even National draws a line. The problem for atheist is when the question is asked of the source of morality, man is not a good answer. Barry

It seems that after all the bragging, defending, posturing and preaching, the place where the rest of us are sitting on this "what-if" question has been found. Adding that SM's holding up MBs is pretty common nationally and is brought up often on this forum, removing unit responsibility from the MB process might be worth an intellectual discussion. Barry

Ah, and that is everyone's solution to what? Anybody read the BSA Vision and Mission Statements lately. How in the world can and organization base itself on teaching boys the values that guide morality and ethics without God, or some made up god? It seems the answer to my question of do you want to allow atheist to be eagles is a resounding yes. But you want to do it by suggesting atheism is a religion? Where do they get their morality? Pretty insulting to folks who take worshiping God seriously. Personally I don't see National going that direction because what is the point of a moral values program when god is just made up for the convenience of going camping and getting some badges. I think that will create a greater exodus than adding a requirement to ask the scout about God. I had several scouts of atheist parents in our program. They were very up front that they wanted their son to make his own choice based on observing believers. They knew that Duty to God and Reverence was a part of the program. Watering down god to nothing is an insult to them. I'm not suggesting every scout has to worship my God, but to make up spirituality and gods to pacify a few people who struggle with Duty to God is not going to fix the problem in the long run. Either scouting is a values program, or it's not. Right now it is a values program. Barry

Maybe it's out of date, but it is basically the document we referenced for our counselor training. http://www.scouting.org/Home/GuideToAdvancement/TheMeritBadgeProgram.aspx The first 10 paragraphs is over the part we are discussing. Barry

I guess I must ask the right question because that the second time with no answer. My grandpa used to say, lets just shuck this down to the cob, shall we. Did I reach the cob? Barry

Notifications purposes only? And what if the SM refuses to sign for any reason? It seems the program isn't so independent. Hey, it was just a discussion of what ifs. We will note that you vote to maintain adult control. Barry

The Scoutmaster signature requirement, TWICE! Barry

I'm still trying to understand your point in all this, So again, are you just wanting to allow atheist to be Eagles? Do you know someone that quit scouting because of the elaborate requirements? And, have you considered that taking god out of scouting would drive more families away than the families you say leave because of the god part in scouting? I'm just curious because to me this is a big over reaction to nothing. But I will respect that you just don't like god in scouting. Barry

We had a discussion here a few years ago of someone proposing the idea that the MB part of the program become independent of the unit. I'm really growing on the idea. Barry

But Stosh, you never have a full buy in with all the scouts in the troop. It's rare to have a full buy in at the patrol level because boys of this age have different things going on in their lives. And you do have a PL that represents their patrol if a patrol wants to bail out. So that doesn't make it adult run, which is the reason you gave. In fact, if the adult poo poos the PLC's idea, isn't that adult run? As for MBs being an individual activity, sure. But the scout still has to contact and work with the counselor to show his understanding of the requirements. OR NOT. A scout just may want to participate because the activities are interesting and fun, but not get the badge. In fact, for boy run troops, that is usually what happens. The activities at the meeting is just a learning experience for the skills, it is not working the badge with the counselor. MBs are OK by me for meetings so long as there is growth in the experience. The problem comes when the scouts lean on MB themes because they are lazy and unimaginative to be creative and plan. That usually leads to boring meetings. I say that knowing our PLC never planned a meeting with the intention to earn MBs. But I wouldn't have any problem with it if they did. I'm a character and leadership guy, if the scouts are growing and having fun, all is good to me. Barry

I'm perplexed by your comment Stosh, if the boys decide to do a troop MB, how is that adult run? Our PLCs rarely plan a troop MB course for a meeting. But they often use MB course books as a source to help them plan activities for the theme like First-aid, pioneering and cooking. A Scout could not pass all the MB or First Class requirements from the meetings because that is not the objective, but they could get a few out of the way if they want. And many times scouts choose not to get signed off even though they completed a requirement during a troop meeting. Some are lazy, some just don't care because they aren't interested in that MB at that time. What I'm saying is that it would be unsusual for all the scouts to come back if they are given total independence to controlling their scout experience. It would not be a waste of your time if one scout completed all the requirements. In fact allowing the scouts the freedom to pick and choose when they wanted to complete their requirements would be indicative of a truly boy run program. Barry

First of all, don't belittle the challenges of scout skills in a BOR because they aren't challenging to you, the smartest guy in the room. They are the perfect comparison because even the simplest of skills can be a challenge to both the adults and scouts. Second, stick with your point that these changes are going to give all adults permission to challeng a scout in his faith. You have a personal grudge against god in scouting and use every extreme example to imply its harm. Adults have always had the permission to ask the scout a question in his reverence through living the oath and law, this is not some new boogy man that will change the program. The real problem for you is as long as the BSA keeps god in the program AT ALL, adults have permission to use spiritualality in each scouts experience, just like the last 80 or so years. You consistently try to paint scout leaders and the program as a whole under the worst possible situations to push your bias, but my experience is the vast majority of scout leaders have nothing but the scouts best interest as a priority. They will handle this requirement same. This is much ado about nothing and will not have an effect one way or another. It's that simple. I don't see National taking god out of scouting before your great grand kids are of age, so you have some tough choices a head. Barry

Yep, and I think I've said something to that over and over. Barry

Sure, just about every troop uses them to prep the BOR committee. Just take a look on the web. This is more realistic; "Johnny, what knot would be best to pull a log out of the road? Umm, I'm not sure, I never heard of that." "Ok, we'll tell us about the meal you planned and and prepared to sign off the requirement? Umm, well a bunch of us planned and prepared that meal. I don't remember specifically my part, but it was good." See, pack, we can also make this stuff up to based on real experiences. Only my examples are more realistic to everyday scouting. For some reason you think reverence is the hard part and that all scout leaders are looking to "ambush?" Innocent young scouts. I you tell that reverence is easy and the other requirements are hard. Oh, now the requirement forces adults to ask the question. And I say it only encourages those adults who dodge the responsibility in the first place to think about how to approach the question just like they have to think about the others. In fact, maybe now they will try to understand how reverence benefits a boys personal Scoutlike experience instead ignoring it out of ignorance. And, I really don't think those adults are the predators you fear anyway. As for the adults looking to trap a scout, not about knots, cooking, first-aid and so on, but on reverence, you have already shown us that those adults didn't need the requirement in the first place to behave badly. So as I stated, very little is changing except for more paperwork on the unit, which I think is a much more practical and levelheaded reason to challenge National. In fact I propose we make a deal with National to trade the "bring a guest to a meeting" requirement for this requirement because that one really is stupid in the context of developing men of character. Barry

Who measured those actions (or lack there of) and what were they measure against? Barry

Is that is all about, you want to allow families who believe god is a rock? Shesh, sure bring him in and move on. Unlike the atheist, I can see the oath and law working for him, I think. That being said, I would have a lot of concern for the mental stability of a scout who had such a belief and I might consider it abuse by the parent who encouraged him. But then, I had experience with very thing while I was a SM, so maybe it's just me. Barry

Hi Fred. Trying to understand where you are going, are you just wanting to allow atheist scouts to be Eagles? Barry

The program struggles. It also drives the unit to be less boy run because how can the blind lead the blind? Growth is difficult without role models, so the adults have to step in to fill the gap. This is just an example of the unforeseen consequences of change. Can we put the Jeannie back in the bottle? Barry

Sadly I think this is true. The First Class First Year program (FCFY) started in the early 90's drove scouts to get their leadership requirement out of the way as soon as possible. All my Patrol Leaders when I was a scout had their drivers license and I grew a lot from their maturity. I did strive for older Patrol Leaders while I was SM and succeeded to some degree that we had many 15 year old patrol leaders, but it was tough getting the families to have the patience. Well done. Barry

Well as I said at the beginning, these proposed requirements is just a numbers thing for National to shore up their conservative base. Self-serving leaders who push their personal beliefs on scouts are going to do it anyways, this requirement isn't going to change that fear very much. I live in a very conservative and religious part of the country and most of the scouters here take respecting a scouts personal religion experience very seriously. If you know of a situation of an adult behaving badly, that is anomaly to the general trend of scouters. I don't understand the attempt to pigean hole National in to committing themselves to the Judeo-Christian God, that is a leap. While I think National is trying to hold support with the conservative, it would be silly and really bad business to burn all the other bridges. They are not that shallow minded. However, for those who want to go on that rabbit trail, I'm curious to what you are going to do about it. Barry

A Jewish mother approached me during my first year as a Cub master and told me her family felt left out of our the unit prayers because they typically ended with In Jesus Name We Pray. So to be respectful we asked the persons saying the prayer leave that part out. When I was SM, the Scouts did all the praying and I reminded them of that experience, so they also tried to be respectful. But from experience, it is hard to change a habit, so it slips out now and then. It is up to you, but who knows, maybe the response will be what you would consider reverent. Barry

Agreed, that is why scouts should be pointed to their parent's for guidance. And if the parents don't have a direction, the scout should be asked to be open minded during his experiences in scouts. Yes, I am a Christian. Barry