fred johnson

Now all you need to do, moosetracker, is show that the peaceful black liberation activists (who filed lawsuits), and the peaceful gay rights activists (who filed lawsuits), are different from the peaceful atheist activists who file lawsuits. Where's the atheist equivalent of the black panthers?

 

So basically the group that was totally ineffective..

 

Moosetracker, I got about 10,000 public schools to drop BSA charters and end illegal discrimination against atheist students. I don't call that ineffective.

IMHO, people aspire to the labels assigned to them whether those labels are good or bad. I really hope I never talk about Eagle Scout being too common or awarded to bad kids. That's wrong thinking.

Essentially, I've seen many people that remember they are Eagle scouts and they have tried to act better. Having that rank influences behavior to be better. It's a mark that they are stuck with and many any spend their entire lives trying to live up to the ideals of Eagle Scout.

I'm with Sentinel947 on this. Encourage and develop a value to the ideals of Eagle Scout. But don't try to guess who should or shouldn't earn it. It's a checklist. If they complete the checklist, they get the rank. Then help them value the accomplishment.

As people on this forum know, IMHO, I think the concept of "troop shopping" is a broken BSA concept. Hurts troops and damages relationships and just gives cubs an excuse to quit. Heck why promote a big decision after five years of scouting? If ya don't like the unit the charter org had you in for Cub Scouts, you are welcome to switch at any time. Instead, you offer a big decision after five years of scouting. Heck, the best decision I know after five years of Cub Scouting is to try something new. Karate. Sports. Other.

I feel hard on this one because our local DEs get good reviews if they start a new troop. The result, we have more troops than our packs can support. And from what I see, all the troops are "fairly" good. What I really get frustrated at is that "troop shopping" doesn't show you what the troops are really like. What's good. What's not. Instead what you see are the troops that look good on that day and that market themselves very hard. I fully believe in recruitment and helping packs. Fine. But we have a perverted over-emphasis on recruitment and troops marketing to all packs in our city. In fact, one of the troops that markets the best and looks the best is a troop that I would not want my sons in and that never actually helps any of the packs. Mainly because they recruit from ALL the packs in the city. Frustrating.

Den Chiefs .. yet another mostly broken concept. It's a great role for boy scouts to have because it's almost an automatic advancement role. I have yet to see a den chief that makes the program less work. And they are essentially undependable. My experience is that at best you learn a week in advance if they will be there. Often you never know in advance and they may or may not show up. I fully understand. If the pack and troop met on the same night in the same place, it might work. But different locations, different nights, etc. It's another idealistt

Little league? It discriminates because it splits genders into "separate but equal" groups. The gender groups are NOT equal in focus, resources or performance. When was the last time the "girls" little league championship made national news. Seems like Little League would need to hold gender-less try outs to see who can play in which group. I know many 2nd grade girls that could out-hit 2nd grade boys.

...

IMHO, it is arrogant to assert who discriminates and who doesn't. Heck, most high school sports teams discriminate strongly because they favor the kids who've been in the sport for years and years. Newbies are generally unwelcome.

...

All the more reason BSA should adopt a local option. BSA can be in-reality non-discriminatory and leave unit specific membership choices to their charter organizations. It is really a meaningful two edge sword and BSA is almost there now. And BSA may be able to weather this one better than others. Most units are "owned" by other groups, i.e. churches. To really hurt BSA, California would need to strip non-profit status from discriminating churches. Mormon. Catholic. Baptist. Protestant.

Then, you need to decide which church discriminates.

It's also a hole to fill. Years ago, the hole to fill was communication, personal mgmt, budgets, health, fitness, leadership, etc. Schools have really geared up to handle those since the the 1920s.

In fact, it's embarrassing that many of the eagle required badges are much better handled by the school system. BSA has it's twist, but those topics are now covered most years in school.

So where can BSA fill in a gap and where do boys want to experiment? Welding. Wood working. Many of the hands on merit badges.

IMHO, I would like to see a merger the badges covered in school (i.e. merge the citizenship badges, merge the personal mgmt & family life) and gear up more on the physical badges that require lashing, hiking, physical skills and movement.

I don't feel I am a hypocrite for looking for ways that we can all get along, and be respectful of each other.. It is wrong for the religious sector to not want to find a way to include your group.. But it would be equally wrong for the atheist to come in and then make BSA exclusive to only them, and be disrespectful of the religious sector, and their beliefs.. Inclusiveness means finding ways to have everyone resepectful and tolerant of each other.

 

It isn't respectful to assume atheists are likely to act like that. It's like claiming you're not racist, but adding that any black kids that join have to respect the white kids, while not mentioning anything about how the white kids have to act regarding the black kids. You're singling out one group for potential bad behavior and taking for granted that the other group is all sweetness 'n' light.

 

I understand that the oath would be troublesome for some atheist. But, I feel there are solutions for compromise. Such as having two oaths, similar in all but a single line, and allowing public school charters and other charters that are hosted by public places to have the one that doesn’t incorporate God. Have religious chartered orgs keep the current oath, and those who are private charters of non-religious orgs will have their choice of which oath to choose..

 

And the UK Girl Guides certainly could have done that, if that's what they decided, but they didn't. They seemed to think that having one promise for everyone was preferable (maybe they considered it more uniting than having various promises).

 

So why is the above decision suddenly the fault of atheists? It isn't. But you sure seem ready to place the blame on them, when, in this particular case, it's some religious members who are not following the rules, and not even allowing a new leader to take the official promise.

 

Perhaps there are better ideas on how to compromise and be welcoming and respectful of all.. Finding compromise is not being disrespectful of either group.

 

Well, you don't get there by scapegoating one group as always being the troublemakers.

 

Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?

 

I don't. Why are you lying about me?

Merlin Leroy - No, I got the sarcasm.. It is just that I also sense you are pointing to the GG troop as the only one acting wrong in this story.. Since the story indicates that the atheist is not trying to find compromise, either by asking that both pledges are said, or looking if there is a different troop in the area that has conformed.. I do not see the GG troop as the only one acting incorrectly.. Also my comment is based on the fact the promise was changed by National to only respect the atheists and not the religious base that has been their original base group and I assume is still the greater portion of the group.. The change was made because atheist came into the group and instead of looking for a compromise that would make each group happy, they disrespected the beliefs of the group they were entering and lobbied National to only placate to their beliefs.. This action of atheists is why I am much more vocal about supporting the inclusion of atheists in BSA, and only slightly siding with you about including atheists..

 

Homosexuals want to be in scouting to be part of the group, and though homophobias will claim that they will insist that we all become homosexuals, or are joining in order to rape us all in our sleep, (which is pure bunk), They may push hard to be accepted equally, but they do not push that everyone become homosexuals. I can respect that. I have no problem with a group that just wants to be accepted..

 

If this was the only reason behind atheists wanting to join, I would be behind them also 100%.. For all atheists who this is their only agenda, I am behind them 100%.. But there is the faction of atheist who want to enter, then kill the religious tradition of BSA, by stamping out any religious aspect.. That group I am NOT welcoming, because they will NOT be respectful of others.. Therefore I can only see my support for this effort as somewhere between 60 to 75% based on what I estimate is the "normal people" atheist group and the "activist" atheist group..

 

With homosexuals, I also do not believe in local option.. Meaning that no unit should be forced to accept homosexuals if they are totally against them. I don't see it healthy for either party. The homosexuals should want to go to a group where they are welcomed and made to feel part of the group.. Obviously this group and this atheist are not a good mix. The atheist should look for a group that accepts her with open arms, then force compliance by a group that does not want to change.

 

(The comments above are based on the article as written)

 

OK Cambridgeskip.. You have stated the story is not accurate.. Is this because this rag has a reputation of never having a correct story.. Or do you happen to know the true story.. Have more respectable news agencies debunked this story, where you can give us the more accurate story?.. Even FOX can every now and then do a story that is not debunked.. Or is just corrected for their snarkiness or biased on the subject.. I did not really see which side they were pushing in this story. It seemed more like a report really created a demon or an angel, it just seemed to report both sides of the argument. So I wasn't able to pick out the pure bunk..

Very true. Look at the YMCA that in the name itself has Christian and started as a Christian fellowship for men. Continued that way. When I grew up, our YMCA had a Cross and religious pictures. Now, they are all gone.

You see your problem here is that you've taken something written in The Daily mail at face value.

 

It's also in the Telegraph and on the website of the National Secular Society, but you apparently aren't interested in doing any checking or you'd know that already.

 

It is just that I also sense you are pointing to the GG troop as the only one acting wrong in this story..

 

Hey, they're disobeying the rules of a group they freely joined; if they don't like it, they can start their own group. That's what many BSA members have pushed on atheists and gays for years, but I guess that "rule" only works for rules you prefer.

 

But there is the faction of atheist who want to enter, then kill the religious tradition of BSA, by stamping out any religious aspect.. That group I am NOT welcoming, because they will NOT be respectful of others.

 

Just like you're not being respectful of atheists right now. Hypocrite.

FOR THE SCOUT ....

"The boy is now a life and working on his Eagle project but in no way whatsover is representative of an eagle scout."

... That is wrong thinking. Period. Leaders support the scouts. It would be WRONG for the scout leaders at this point to work to STOP the scout from earning eagle. That is not what we do. BUT ... the leaders can and absolutely should work to solve behavior issues.

IMHO, his behavior is a memership issue. Same with the dad. But the troop has lived with the behavior for years and the scout is now a life scout. At this point, the scout pretty much can finish his Eagle requirements to earn his advancement. Leaders can work to get behavior improved but should not stand in the way of advancement. And to be honest, the scout has earned five ranks with his current behavior and now you expect him to change?

Behavior problems need to be dealt with when they happen but especially while scouts are in their early ranks. And IMHO, it is a membership issue. If you want to behave within the boundaries of the program, you are welcome. We all want scouting to be there for the kids that really need it, but those kids drive away dozens of other scouts and makes a bad name for the program.

=================================================

FOR THE ADULT ....

Committee chair. You are hosed. You need to take this up with the charter organization. If they don't remove him, I'd switch immediately.

Earlier advice is very applicable. For kids, the scouting years are short. Switch your scout to a fun behaved troop and move on. Suggest to other kids that they switch too.

Report the issues to the charter org, the district exec and the scout executive. And get your kid to a safe fun unit.

Our troop has gay adult leaders, gay scouts, and scouts with gay parents. They should all feel equally welcome to participate and be part of our community. We've reiterated child protection policies, particularly in light of the fall 2012 release of documents about BSA's hiding/protection of child molesters. Quite frankly that was far more concerning to parents than gay scouts, men, & women in scouting.

When I think about the family membership of my troop, you would lose half the members if any of the direct contact leaders were publicly gay. And to be honest, I'd switch my own children out of the group too. Not because of a youth protection risk but because of lifestyle marketing that automatically happens because every adult leader sets an example by how they lead their lives and by what the youth see.

With that said, I hope BSA changes their policy so that your troop can publicly do what you are doing instead of having to skirt the values expressed in the Scout Law to choose the your troop leaders.

I have an "interesting" den this year. I have multiple older brothers in the den who are in boy scouts and those boys could often attend. I was thinking about "asking" that if they want to attend they are welcome, but that they should wear their boy scout shirts and that they would be serving at the direction of the den chief.

For example, we are doing the athlete pin. I'd like to see the adults planning and the den chiefs and boy scouts putting the cubs thru the push ups, pull ups, etc. Perhaps even doing them with the Webelos.

What do you think of this idea?

I mostly agree with you. There is a slight difference though from the perspective of not actively reaching out to open a can of worms.

I've seen five charter orgs. I've moved units between charter orgs too. Only one requested to get monthly copies of the bank statements and did an annual audit. With that single charter org, I'd absolutely ask how they want to handle the money and equipment and closure of the unit.

In the other four charter orgs cases, the charter org was never involved in any way other than providing space and signing the recharter form. They never asked to see anything. Likewise, they never helped raise funds or purchase equipment or adminster the program.

They stil absolutely have the right to be involved in the answer. But I would not change course as part of closing the unit. If they were not involved in decisions up until dissolving the unit, I would not "reach out" to bring them in now. If they asked, absolutely yes. But I would just not reach out to open a can of worms and create more work for myself.

********************************

But this discussion is moot without knowing any details of a specific situation.

Focus on what is fair. Who owns it, the charter org. BSA has zero ownership. Who has a right to it, the scouts in that unit.

*****************************************

Usually I tow the BSA line 100%. But in this case, I think about what is fair. Plus ... BSA Article XI has two sections that seem to contradict each other. The second starts with "in the case of a chartered organization"? Isn't that all units? They all have chartered organizations.

Fair ... IMHO, if BSA is not responsible for the debts and did not raise the money, it has no claim on the money. And, it is rather arrogant to think so especially after how much money local units route to the councils.

If a council rep came to me asking for the money or a statement of accounts, I’d tell them to go fish.

Chartered orgs are a little different. But not much. In most cases, the chartered org has no active interest in the unit. The chartered orgs usually have zero involvement in fundraising, using or maintaining the equipment. But if everyone in the unit “quit†scouting, I think the chartered org clearly has rights to everything … if they want it.

*********************************

So what is fair?

If a unit effectively dissolves and scouts transfer to a new organization, the money and equipment should transfer too. If they go to two different troops, apportion the money and equipment to the units.

*********************************

In my case, I'd ask the charter org exec to sign a letter "releasing" the unit. I would not even mention money or equipment.

Then, I'd get it chartered under the other charter org and after six months to a year dissolve one of the two units at that location.

Heck, I might even do it faster and ignore all the details. Often, when scouts transfer units, scouts take their scout accounts with them. I could see treating this whole situation like a scout account transfer. Just let the new unit know that some of the stuff is for the scout and some is for the general fund of the new unit.

Both servant leaders and advancement leaders happen. That's fine. People do things for many different reasons. That's fine. That's the scout's choice and the scout's option.

 

I sort of view it as at work. I know some managers who like helping their employees. They really like developing people and helping their people succeed. That's great. I also know managers who are only there because they get a bigger check or it paves the way for the next rung on the ladder. As with scout advancement, both are fine. We can never expect that every person out there will be altruistic.

 

My issue is when leaders manipulate the system to help a kid advance or manipulate the system to slow a kid down because they don't think he's giving enough back to the troop. Both are 100% inappropriate to me. Our job is to support the scout. Paving the trail and blocking the trail are both 100% wrong.

It's not a one versus the other. And in fact, even self-less leader and ladder climbing isn't mutually exclusive.

Obedient? I hate seeing leaders fall back on that one. I'd like to remember that a scout is not submissive. Scouts is not the military and not a dictatorship. Too many leaders confuse obedient and submissive. Too many leaders confuse leadership and dictatorship.

Sounds like by BSA by-laws, the issue is really the troop should not have accepted non-Catholics as members. If you want to be a faith based youth program (which BSA scouting can be), then you need to only accept scouts and leaders of that faith.

More specifically, you can't make a deal with the devil where you have an agreement at the start that members of other faiths agree to attend your faith services. Eseentially, if you accept other faiths into your unit, you can't make them agree to attend your services.

I reality, I'm 100% fine with charter orgs that would run their units as a church youth group. 100% fine with it. That's what later day saints (mormons) do. But, I've never seen a unit chartered by a Catholic church do that. All Catholic units I've known are open to anyone and very accepting of multiple faiths. The funny thing is that while I've seen the church and the units very accepting of members of other faiths, I've seen multiple members be down right rude and disrespectful to the church that charters their own scouting unit.

Both servant leaders and advancement leaders happen. That's fine. People do things for many different reasons. That's fine. That's the scout's choice and the scout's option.

I sort of view it as at work. I know some managers who like helping their employees. They really like developing people and helping their people succeed. That's great. I also know managers who are only there because they get a bigger check or it paves the way for the next rung on the ladder. As with scout advancement, both are fine. We can never expect that every person out there will be altruistic.

My issue is when leaders manipulate the system to help a kid advance or manipulate the system to slow a kid down because they don't think he's giving enough back to the troop. Both are 100% inappropriate to me. Our job is to support the scout. Paving the trail and blocking the trail are both 100% wrong.

By merit badge class, I meant a special opportunity such as a Saturday morning in a local field to discuss the requirements and do the initial measurements. I did not mean during troop meetings. Essentially a special unique opportunity.

Scouting is best when it offers unique opportunities.

My son enlisted in the Marines last year. Thru that, I've gotten to know a local military recruiter. That recruiter is probably the most physically fit person I know and the leading expert I know on nutrition and health.

QUESTION #1 - He has volunteered to come in and lead the Webelos Athelete pin. What do you think? Is that a good idea?

QUESTION #2 - He probably would volunteer to lead a Boy Scout Physical Fitness merit badge class? Is that a good idea?

I have a lot of respect for the man. But I'm not sure how other parents would view it.

How long do you keep a den chief? How do you switch if a kid from another troop who needs advancement wants to be den chief and your current den chief doesn't need it and made less than 50% of the den meetings last year?

When I say advertisement I don't mean playing commercials. I mean promotion, Boy Scouts go to Cub Scout packs for recruitment of soon-to-be-aging-out Cub Scouts. Why don't Venturers do the same thing at Boy Scout Troops? There are no where near as many Venture Crews(or Sea Scout Ships for that matter) as there are Boy Scout Troops.

Make the patrols be long lasting patrols and let the scouts pick. Initially, put all the new scouts in a patrol. If they want to switch to be with a friend, fine. But let them pick.

People voluntarily get together with friends and people they enjoy. People will not long-term (years) socialize in forced groups.

Commitment? Support? I'm not sure what that means?

Advertising? It is pushed plenty. Far more than the percent of scouts in it. But BSA is not cash rich for advertising. They can't do commercials everywhere on every program under the BSA label.

It's not that BSA is trying to kill Venturing.

BSA is trying to fix multiple programs that are broken in multiple ways.

***********************************

Venturing brand is just not there

***********************************

Everyone knows about Eagle scout. Eagle scout is almost legondary. It has a myth about it. Venturing awards are meaningless to most everyone else.

***********************************

CANDIDATE POPULATION is very limited.

***********************************

- Boys - A 14 year old boy has probably tried scouts if they ever would. Cub scouts. Boy scouts. If they have not or quit a previous scouting program, they are not going to try another scouting program. But if they are still in, you want them to switch to yet another program because it's different? Another transition? Right when they discover girls and work and entering high school? And Venturing is not a dating program ... right?

- Girls - Same thing. Been thru Girl Scouts. Or still in. If they did not want to be in Girl scouts or had a bad experience, they won't try another scouting program. Then add high school and puberty and jobs and .... ..... ...

There are relatively few at that age that will try yet another scouting program.

***********************************

Challenging times

***********************************

BSA has political fights going on. Plus competition. Marketing. Etc.

IMHO, BSA just needs to get back to the basics and do a bunch of redesign. One of the biggest is getting back to focusing on program materials and camping and letting charter orgs run their program. Maybe co-ed or not. Maybe multiple orientations. Maybe 100 kids or 10 kids. Maybe ONE unit for kids 5 years old thru 20 years old.

Get back to the basics.

Noted outdoorsman, canoeist, and distinguished Eagle Scout Cliff Jacobson recommends using the ground cloth INSIDE your tent. He says it's not a floor protector, but rather a way to insure dry gear inside your tent. Sounds logical, but I've yet to try it....

As is well known here and elsewhere, I have been one of the harshest critics of the run up to this Jamboree. I'm not a naysayer, but I saw the staff issues coming when they made it impossible for a guy like myself (overweight, but can carry my weight around) to staff Stamp Collecting Merit Badge. Having said that, I have heard nothing but positive responses from the kids and leaders who attended. Yesterday, I had chat with supervisor who came out to check my new air conditioning system. He noticed my Scouting stuff and said his two sons, 12 and 15, had just returned from the Jambo. They were very pleased with the whole thing. Yeah, they had complaints. The younger one didn't like the food and was not understanding of being unable to fire on the pistol range. Long lines and didn't get to do everything they wanted, but woudl they do it again? In a heartbeat, he said. And he would happily pay the $1800 per boy to get them there. So, I've come around a lot on this issue. They now have four years to work on after-action from this one. One issue I was not wrong on was the cold showers. If they don't fix that or allow some way for staff to live off-site, I won't be at the next one except as a guest. Presumably, though, they will by that time find enough qualified people to staff everything. So, I've become something of a Summit booster. Even sent them a donation.

If scouting markets excitement and thrills, that is how it will be graded and it will fail.

My troop has By-Laws. They were written by a committee that had been in place for several years. This was done more to ensure that "the way we've always done it" stayed that way. I would say that our most important "Law" is that to be a voting member of the Committee you have to attend a minimum of 3 of the last 6 Committee meetings. This way the committee can't get ambushed by a disgruntled group of parents. By the way parents of registered Scouts are invited to come to Committee meetings and are eligible voters (obviously if they satisfy the 3 of 6 rule).

 

I would be happy to email a copy of our By-Laws to anyone interested.