GaHillBilly

Things have come to a head with my local troop. We're going to 'talk about it' and 'cool down' (not that it ever really got 'hot'), but most likely my son and I are going to move on. We'll probably hook up through camp with a troop that meets only monthly; this'll leave us plenty of time to visit around, plus my son wants to explore volunteer opportunities with the local ScoutReach.

But, the whole 'discussing it' process has caused me to think a lot about our participation. I'm sure I've exhibited some characteristics of the "over-involved" and "hovering" parents I've seen discussed here. And, I've definitely misunderstood what some of the boys wanted to do. On their part, the (A)SMs (or at least one of the them) acknowledge that they've under-planned and over-assumed. It looks like we'll be able to part on pretty good terms, which pleases both my son and myself.

But, all this 'conflict' has made me think a LOT about differing goals, expectations and values, and it's raised a lot of questions. So, I'd like to 'think out loud' and invite you do so as well. I'm not just interested in finding the 'right' or 'best' answer, but equally in finding out what Scout leaders may be thinking. So, even if you can't offer an argument supporting *your* answer, I'm interested in what it is. I'd also appreciate some indication of your role in Scouts, whether it's as a Scout, a parent, a SM, or another flavor of leader.

Any of these questions could spin off into its own thread: feel free to do so if it seems warranted. I've got to go on our final (probably) camping trip with this troop, where we're scheduled to (1) have 4 boys doing 1st Class cooking (my son's cooking for the adults), (2) go on the 5 mile 2nd class hike, (3) complete the 1st class orienteering course, & (4) do an emergency drill a la the EP MB . . . all between Friday PM and Sunday noon!!!. No doubt, all this will be completed successfully! ;-) But, it will be Monday before I can take a look at the forum again.

Anyhow, here are my questions:

1. My troop's lead ASM recently said, of the overall program, ". . . as long as it's fun. After all, that's what's really important!". I would have expected him to think of 'fun' as necessary, but not a program goal. Is his view typical of most SM's and ASM's?

2. B-P refers to troops and patrols as a "gang of boys". Granted, the term didn't mean, when he used it, what it means now. But it seems to me he had in mind the sort of bonded social grouping that criminal gangs today exhibit, as do high school peer affiliation groups (the Goths, the nerds, the "emo's", the jocks, etc.). Exclusive membership, initiation, bonding, loyalty, identifying dress and vocabulary, affiliative activity, etc. are characteristics of all these groups. What seems (from what I've read) to really draw kids into these groups is the sense of identity, purpose and community that they offer -- not 'fun'. Of all the military branches by all reports, the Marines have the worst conditions, equipment, and missions, but the highest levels of morale and commitment. And they are the branch that most strongly exhibits this social affiliation group pattern, adding to it of course, a very strong message of common purpose and shared commitment to honorable values.

Should Scouts be more like that, if the goal is to influence boys?

3. Such peer affiliation seems to become possible in early puberty, but not before. Thus, I gather "fun" IS in fact essential to Cub Scouts, since that Cub ages, the other forms of commitment and interest aren't yet possible. Obviously, given the way the program is structured, rising Webelos are going to expect 'more of the same', and thus more "fun".

Does the use of Cub Scout packs as 'feeders' for Boy Scouts end up by compromising Boy Scout values?

4. I was corrected, when I pointed out to a 14 year old 2nd Class (about to be 1st Class) Scout that getting more camp and MB college type badges (ie, non-Eagle) won't help him move up (he only has one Eagle badge). I was told that "Not everyone should be Eagle, and we don't need to focus on that. If they want to be an Eagle, they should figure that out on their own." I confess, I may have been pushing when I shouldn't have. On the other hand, there has been absolutely discussion at either the troop or patrol level of setting goals, of what's required to progress, etc. Figuring out "on their own" seems to mean that if they don't, after reading the Handbook, decide 100% on their own, and without outside encouragement, to pursue Eagle rank, they should be left alone. Regardless, advancement as a goal shouldn't be mentioned, unless a Scout asks about it.

Is this a typical approach? Is it a good approach?

Any response you'd care to make will be appreciated, at least by me!

GaHillBilly

"care to share a brief outline" . . .

Yeah, I'd also be interested in seeing that, even if though it's just for future reference.

GaHillBilly

Hm-m-mh. Asked one question, but got answers for it, and another question I'd thought about, but hadn't asked.

Question #1: Is it practical for my son's small troop, with somewhat disorganized leaders, to run its own camp.

Answer: No way in h___!

Question #2: Can it be worthwhile for a larger troop, with proper planning, resources, and organization, to run its own troop?

Answer: Absolutely!

Question #3 (implicit, but unasked): Do I need to move quickly, to get my son and myself into another troop, before we get caught up in the train wreck?

Answer: Yep!

Thanks, all.

GaHillBilly

Yeah, pretty much what I thought.

This is a small adult-run troop, with the oldest functional boys only 13, and most 10 and 11. The leaders, fresh up from Cub Scouts, are long on official "training", but short on planning and follow-thru.

A successful troop run camp, given this group, is pretty doubtful.

Time to accelerate the search for a new troop for me and my son!

GaHillBilly

I''ve got *another* question! How hard is it to run your own summer camp?

Three weeks ago, my son''s troop was told they could pick their own camp, then given them 15 minutes to study handouts from 20 different camps and vote. The SM took half that time to tell them why they should pick a particular camp, which they (of course!) picked. As far as I know, it is a good camp, cheaper then the in-council camp and nearly as close.

Then, at the last meeting, they were told that the troop had access to a large farm south of here, with hot showers, and that we''d be doing summer camp on our own, there.

Keep in mind that the SM who has made this decision, is the same SM who has asked me, 3 hours before a meeting, to prepare a training program, and who at a recent meeting asked the PL and SPL, with no prior notice, to train the boys on several advancement skills, for which he provided inadequate materials. (Fortunately, I had some stuff in my truck!). He also failed to notice that one of the skills was one almost all the boys had checked off months before!

My theory is that doing summer camp on your own *could* be a great opportunity, but that it would take a huge amount of planning and prior work to be successful. Given that advance planning is not these guys strong area, I''m guessing that we are facing a small disaster. My son is pretty upset to have this happen, after they ''allowed'' the boys to pick their own camp.

As some of you know from my other thread [ http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=168816 ] I''m already considering moving to another troop. But we''d planned to wait till after camp. Now, I''m thinking it had better be sooner than that.

Am I wrong? Is it reasonable to expect that these guys can pull it off?

GaHillBilly

Curiouser and curiouser!

Lots of interesting and potentially helpful responses, for which y''ll have my thanks.

But, I''m also intrigued and even puzzled. I''d gotten the impression that the "Wood Badge" was the Holy Grail of Scouter training. I thought I was being daring by questioning the value of the square-knot ''chest soup'' I see so much of, but no one even noticed. Now, to have the supreme value of Wood Badge training questioned stimulates even more thought and ''ponderment'' on this end.

I know things always look different on the inside, than from the outside. The question with respect to the BSA is "how different, and how much different?".

The answer, apparently, is "in many ways", and "substantially".

This all leaves me with a single burning, but unanswered, question: "Given that all the standard BSA training produces troops and leaders that predominately do NOT work as advertised, where should I go to learn how troops that really work, became that way?". This question leads to all sorts of unanswered niggling details, like, "How would I find out which of my neighboring councils offers superior training?"

GaHillBilly

PS: Message preview is *still* broken, at least in Firefox. It worked find when I originally started this thread.

Thanks for the suggestions -- some have been quite helpful.

But, to clarify:

+ I have ZERO intention of discussing the current troop with any other SM, ASM, UC, DE, or ABC ;-) until it becomes necessary, because we are about to commit.

+ I also have no intention of discussing things with the DE or anyone else at Council or District, because I''m nearly certain I''ll end up stepping in stinky if I do. (To reiterate: there was NO eval form at the training!)

+ Some of the ''don''t explain'' suggestions, with respect to the current SM, are helpful, but can only go so far, because the SM knows enough about our circumstances to recognize some of the suggestions (if used) as BS. We have a lot of time flexibility.

+ Also, please keep in mind that I''m not at all sure that there actually IS a better troop within reach. Frankly, some of the comments and reactions here leave me with the impression that bad training and disorganized adult-led troops are much more common than good training or effective boy-led troops. So I have to be careful not to burn any bridges. My son has pretty much decided that he wants to Life by December 2008 and Eagle 2 years later at 15, with or without the troop. That wouldn''t mean much, if it had been me at his age. But he''s a little like a train in a switch yard: it takes a long time for him to make up his mind and get on a track, but once he does, he''s usually there for the long haul. And, given his decision, it''s easier to Eagle in a bad troop than in no troop.

GaHillBilly

Scoutnut wrote:

"a course evaluation sheet is given to EVERY participant at the end of EVERY training course. "

Nope. I guess they forgot about that along with forgetting about lunch.

GaHillBilly

John-in-KC wrote,

"Make sense??

Yes and no. I agree with the list; but how -- precisely, step-by-step -- do I find such a troop without either PO''g the existing SM and troop (after all, we''ll see them with some regularity) or taking my son out of scouting while I look?

GaHillBilly

Lisabob wrote

"What you wrote in response to me is exactly what I think your district and council training chairs need to hear."

Maybe, I don''t know. But more importantly, some people at the district and council level are my local troop''s leaders close friends. Some are, some are not, but I don''t know which are which. And if I say something to the wrong person, it will boomerang big time. I''m not the most tactful person in the world, and my social navigation skills aren''t the best. I do better in print than in conversation.

So . . . looking at the situation from a risk/benefit perspective, I still have to conclude that, if I try to ''say something'' the risk of a disaster is much greater than the likelihood of any benefit. I think in this situation, if perhaps silence is not ''golden'', but at least it''s not big s___ storm either.

GaHillBilly

LisaBob wrote,

"GaHillBilly, when you''''re feeling less burned by your rotten experience, it might be helpful for you to provide some constructive, written, feedback on the sessions you attended."

I''m not sure what sort of positive feedback I could offer. Everybody already ''knows better'' then to do what was done. So far, my experience of local council training is that it''s a very ad hoc process, often made up on the fly. Obviously, this particular training is largely standardized by BSA National, so there''s some reliable content. But no one ''learns lessons'' from what happened. This failure to learn is especially discouraging to me, because it represents such a complete failure to implement the sort of boy training SM-LST establishes as the standard for BSA troops.

Epalmer84 wrote

"I''m afraid that those types of troops are often referred to as "Webelos III" troops. You do seem to have gained a lot of information from what seems like a tortuous session."

Actually, I''ve been to bad meetings before, and can benefit from skipping lunch, even though I don''t yet seem to fully measure up to the common Scoutmaster ''profile'' ;-).

But what''s really lingering is the terrible contrast between what''s being discussed so enthusiastically, and what''s actually being done in the troops.

I''m afraid that what I''m facing is a BSA troop within a troop, consisting of my son and myself. The SM doesn''t want me to move the older boys along, and doesn''t want me to provide training that less than 95% of the troop attends . . . even if he doesn''t have to come, and even if it''s open to everyone. The lack of training, coupled with the desire to have the troop progress is leading to half-a__ing the requirements, since the kids don''t know how to do what they are supposed to do.

Just got a new example this AM. My son had sent the leaders a plan for some specific requirement fulfillment on an upcoming camping trip. This is something both he and some other boys need to do. There has been ZERO troop provided training for this skill. The plan my son sent was simple, but fulfilled the requirements 100%. We''d made arrangements as a family to provide him with the training HE needs. Yet, the leader reaction was to ''suggest'' that he go to a more elaborate version of the plan, though again, there''s no troop plan for training.

I''d tell him to ignore the ''suggestion'', except that I think it would negatively affect his advancement. So, I will train him myself, to the point that he can actually do the things he''s supposed to do, plus the additional things the leader wants.

The other boys don''t have anyone at home to train them. So most likely what will happen is that they''ll get ''help'' (= an adult will do it for them) while ''completing'' their requirement. This not only devalues the requirement and the rank, but it deprives them of both the skill and the earned self-confidence.

The existing troop leadership is deeply embedded in a web of close personal relationships with the district leadership. I''m coming to suspect that this is what really motivates and drives them, and that they are bored with actually working with the boys.

More "square knots", more ''leadership recognition'' and so on! I''m about ready to vow I''ll NEVER wear a square knot! In truth, I don''t think that they realize what they are doing, or that they are deliberately short-changing the boys. It''s just what''s evolved over time.

. . . the real question is, what should I do?

Trying to ''reform'' this troop seems like a highly doubtful goal. Even when I''m ''helping'', I tend to come across in an overpowering manner. Trying to ''reform'' a troop, without provoking war, is probably outside (way outside!) my skill set. I''d very much like to avoid, both on principle and for my son''s sake, leaving behind a bunch of nuked relationships.

+ Am I likely, among the 20 or so troops within driving range, to find one that really tries to DO the stuff the SM-LST training teaches? Or, are these goals just ''ideals'' that are very, very rarely realized?

+ If such a troop does exist, any ideas on how to find it? (I can''t ask at the Council office -- this troop was their answer to that question. -- I''d already read up on the ''boy-lead'' concept BEFORE my son entered Boy Scouts.)

GaHillBilly

Hi All,

I spent this past Saturday doing BSA "Essentials" and "BS Leader Specific" training. It was not an entirely happy experience. I''m sure some of you here are in the position of either asking people in your troop to attend training, or else in providing training. So, I have some comments, based on my experience this weekend.

1. It''s not OK, nor an example of BS ''preparedness'', to ask an adult volunteer on Thursday to attend training on Saturday, even if you say "you don''t have to go, if you really don''t want to go.", especially when you add an remark about, "Of course, that will hurt our troop''s effort to get X award". I hadn''t heard of the award he mentioned, and can''t recall its name.

2. It''s not OK to tell said adult that the session will run from 8 - noon, and allow him to discover on his own that it won''t start till 8: 30, nor end till 2:45, with no lunch break between.

3. It is not OK for training staff to act as if this this YouTube video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HLpjrHzgSRM

is a BSA training video on using PowerPoint. (Argh! The "Essentials" training staff not only ran over their allotted time by an hour, but also hit every point in the video they could, given that most of the PP slides were BSA provided!)

There was some value to the training.

+ The "Essentials" trainers were all associated with Cub Scouts, so and I learned that in Cub Scouts (1) the boys advance by age, (2) Dens are volunteer and parent led, not boy led, and (3) the parents are always, or mostly, present. That bit of information explains a lot about what''s happening in this new troop, given that almost everyone (leaders, adults, boys) moved up from a Den they''ve been in together for 3+ years. Apparently, old habits die slowly, even when the SM has a Wood Badge!

+ The LST trainer seemed very honest and open, and if he''s to be trusted, there is at least one troop in Georgia that actually functions according to the BSA / Baden-Powell plan. I was beginning to have my doubts.

+ I actually found the LST training very apropos, informative, and helpful. Unfortunately it also was a comprehensive catalog of all that our troop is NOT doing the right way; the list is much longer than I had realized. Given that the SM is Wood Badged, and ''square knotted'' to the point that his shirt looks like a quilt from some angles, this is rather discouraging. (Plan, what meeting plan? I''m asking if you can teach knots tonight. - call received 2 hours before a meeting - nothing unexpected had happened; last minute planning seems to be the rule, not the exception.)

Color me somewhat disillusioned.

Moray

I can''t spend time here today -- just discovered some server problems that have to be fixed posthaste -- but I''d better clarify something I said rather awkwardly.

"A real religion can be true, or false, but not made up! As I said before, a made up religion is just play-acting, in every sense I can call to mind."

I haven''t quite figured out what I should have said, but what I was trying to get at is that a religion that the adherent EITHER made-up himself, or ELSE knew to be made-up by someone else is only play-acting. Someone might well not know that a religion was made-up by someone else, and so be deceived into become an adherent of a religion that is false.

This still doesn''t quite express what I need to say: I''ll have to think about it some more.

And, Trevorum wrote:

"You can not deny the reality of a religion just because you do not like the way it was founded."

Uhm, yes, I can. If it''s a manufactured fairy tale, unrooted in any facts, then it''s "reality" is PRECISELY what I can, and do, deny. Such a ''foundation'' is just exactly -- by definition! -- nothing more than fiction.

I suppose one might, at least in theory, imagine a religion which by accident asserted as objects of belief actual truths . . . but I doubt that you have any such case in mind.

Finally, DanKroh wrote:

"I think you can have faith in the "facts" of your religion, even if you have not experienced that knowledge in a personal way."

I would agree, with the understanding that if those facts you have faith in are in actuality false; then you have faith in a false religion.

What I thought you were saying is that the majority of Wicca (thanks for the correction) KNEW the objects of their belief to be manufactured out of human imagination, and that they lacked even a supposed basis in knowledge for giving their credence to those objects of belief. If you are saying that most Wicca DO believe they have knowledge, then I would agree that yes, that could be a religion. Of course, in that case, I would think it to be a false one, and would anticipate that the ''facts'' of their knowledge can be shown to be without foundation. Of course, I''d have to look at the ''creed'' which encapsulates the ''faith'' of that individual or group of Wiccan practitioners in order to validate my anticipation.

GaHillBilly

"And, if there''''s nothing you revere in actuality, then it''''s possible for you to be reverent!"

Oops! I hope it''s obvious I meant ''impossible'' where I had ''possible''.

BTW, can someone tell me

1) If it''s possible for unprivileged posters to edit there own posts?

2) What HTML or edit code is allowed . . . and what that code is? (How did Beavah get those italics?)

3) How smilies are entered in this forum?

I haven''t been able to locate a posting guide that covers those quesions.

GaHillBilly

Merlyn_LeRoy wrote:

"I would say they do not differ at all, with the further observation that ALL religions are devoid of (supernatural or spiritual) knowledge."

I''m not sure to what your "they" above refers, so I''m not sure what you are saying. If you mean to say that all religions are devoid of knowledge, well that''s quite debatable, but not what''s being debated here.

"I am not sure, but it looks like you are objecting to agnostics following some religion that they agree is not based on knowledge of the supernatural, as opposed to people who follow a religion that they believe IS based (rightly or wrongly) on knowledge of the supernatural."

Well, I don''t know that I objected to anything. I was trying not to ''object'', but to analyze and describe. It''s true, I think following a made-up religion is silly, but I don''t think I said that. What I did say was that I couldn''t see any fundamental difference between a child''s, or teen''s imaginary play-reality, and a knowledge-free religion, like the version of Wiccan DanKroh described.

"There are some people who do not care if their religion is made up; Jedi appears to be turning into a real religion."

I guess I would say that that''s just what it''s NOT turning into: a "real religion". A real religion can be true, or false, but not made up! As I said before, a made up religion is just play-acting, in every sense I can call to mind.

People forget what the word ''reverence'' means, and think that it refers to the actions and motions that people might use to express their reverence. But fundamentally, to revere means to acknowledge your inferior station (in the sense that a knight acknowledges his vassal state before the king) and the superior station of that which you revere. The motions used are incidental to the thing itself; simply folding hands doesn''t constitute reverence. And, if there''s nothing you revere in actuality, then it''s possible for you to be reverent! To ''revere'' what you made up yourself is impossible, for how can you acknowledge your inferior state before your own mental creation?

GaHillBilly

I think the confusion here is that many people today are so immersed in post-modern conceptions of religion, that they completely misunderstand what the original and orthodox believers were actually claiming.

Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Judaism all claim to describe a set of facts about people, God, the universe, and the relation between them. For an orthodox believer in any of those religions, to reject an element of their faith because you disliked that element is simply silly. For orthodox believers, to do so would be EXACTLY like rejecting the idea of ''gravity'' because you don''t like falling.

Post-modern thinkers are so far from this, in their conception of truth that it is apparently hard for them to wrap their minds around the possibility of someone asserting a set of religious claims because they were factually true.

By contrast, post-modern practitioners of many religions see their ''faith'', more or less consciously, as an expression of their psychological state. There is, fundamentally, no claim of knowledge of the supernatural. This is true, at least in the US, of most groups of people among liberal Protestants, Jews, and Muslims.

But the waters are muddied here by two facts.

First, liberal theologians discovered that the LANGUAGE of orthodoxy produced larger emotional and psychological effects, than language expressing their actual thinking. Since the goal was a greater ''spirituality'' -- which in the post-modern sense is a purely INTERNAL and PERSONAL state of emotions and desires -- and since the LANGUAGE of orthodoxy was more effective in producing these psychological states, it was retained, but redefined.

In other words, in the early 1900''s liberal theologians who no longer believed in the Resurrection as a historical fact -- which was virtually the only core meaning it had had for 1800 years or so -- continued to preach about it, while redefining it to mean something else, like the ''resurrection of hope within the hearts of each believer''. This sounds good, but is really psycho-babble, void of any cognitive or moral content. But, due to the fact of linguistic inertia . . . it worked. Many words carry a potent psychological wallop because of the history of their use within a society. Of course, the wallop arises from the original meaning. Once that''s abandoned, not only in conscious, but also in subliminal and cultural memory, the words loose their ''umpfh''.

But a side effect of this use of language for its psychological effect, rather than it''s meaning, is that it made it hard to tell the difference between people who were using the words the old, orthodox manner, and those who were using them in the new psychological manner.

Second, theology is a discussion of what people OUGHT to think. In practice, even orthodox Christians think, and behave, quite differently. Thus, individuals who in theory, and maybe even mostly, in practice believe in the facts of an orthodox religion will still sometimes, or even often, condition their belief, not on evidence but on preference. This is not a great surprise, at least within orthodox Christian theology, in which ''love of truth'' is held to be attained only with great practical difficulty.

But, again, it does muddy the waters, since those who are generally orthodox often speak, or even act, as if they were not.

Now, back to agnosticism.

I guess, upon reflection, I was really making 4 claims, only one of which you reject.

1) Agnosticism, generally, claims that knowledge of the supernatural is unattainable. I understand all to have, essentially agreed with this.

2) If agnostics are correct, and such knowledge is in fact unreachable, all ORTHODOX religions are false, since they all claim, and indeed, depend upon such knowledge. I''m not sure all understood that I was saying this, but I assume all agree.

3) If agnostics are correct, no religion which continues can claim knowledge of the supernatural. Again, I understand all to have agreed.

4) But, (and here''s the rub) a religion without knowledge is not, in any fundamental sense, different from a child''s game based on imagination.

I understand some of you disagree with this claim, but I''m unable to see on what grounds you do so. Frankly, it seems to me you reject this claim, not because you can challenge it, but simply because you don''t like it. (How very post-modern of you!)

The problem is that rational speech of this kind -- if this is indeed what you are doing -- rapidly ceases to become rational speech, or even speech at all. My observation, made before, is that post-modernists return to an orthodox view of truth when they collect their change at Walmart. For the sake of an intelligible discourse, I''d prefer to stick that the orthodox view here, as well.

That said, there may be legitimate and rational grounds for your rejection of my description of post-modern religious practice as childish games played to ''have fun'' (or feel better). So, let me pose the question: precisely how do Wiccan beliefs (or any other religious beliefs) which are devoid of knowledge differ from a child''s play-acting?

GaHillBilly

In the absence of knowledge, how is a "cohesive set of beliefs" different than a Dungeons and Dragons set?

There may be a basis for a rationally valid exception to the rule that belief without knowledge is just play-acting* . . . but I can''t think what it might be. So, pending correction, I see no reason to abandon to my original assertion that a Wiccan agnostic is walking exercise in irrationalism.

GaHillBilly

* In case it occurs to you: I would immediately agree that believers within many (all?) religions have ''belief without knowledge''. Certainly, this is true among orthodox Christians. I would (of course) grant that such a person might happen to believe what is true, even if they don''t know it to be so themselves. In this case, they are STILL play-acting, but it just happens that they are playing at ''the real''.

But, if the general case is that all believers of Wiccan, Xianity, whatever, are without knowledge, then it would seem that such a ''belief system'' is really ONLY play-acting.

It may also occur to you to note that many modernist ''Christians'' today implicitly deny the possibility of knowledge about God when they deny that supernatural revelation has occurred, and that this denial would put them in the same boat, epistemologically speaking, as Wiccans. I could only agree, and note that there have been quite a few prominent agnostics over the past century who abandoned such churches with some form of the parting question, "What''s the point?". I think the answer, for many who remain, is that participating in their particular form of Christian play-acting, makes them feel better.

Typical* agnosticism claims that trustworthy knowledge of the supernatural is inherently unattainable; a Wiccan claims to have just such knowledge*. The fact that Wiccan beliefs claim knowledge of supernatural entities and powers other than the God of Christianity doesn''t change the problem. The blade of agnosticism does not stop cutting as soon as the God of Christianity has been excised: if it''s wielded consistently and equally, it will remove reliable knowledge of all that is supernatural. All that remains after the sword is done, is a mechanical naturalism**, that offers no basis for ANY belief in the supernatural, whatsoever.

Interestingly, during Baden-Powell''s era, British scientists were much interested in spiritualism and theosophy as an approach to the ''scientific'' analysis of the supernatural. Unfortunately for them, most of the claims of spiritualists and the like were eventually debunked by Houdini and others.

Thus to claim to be a Wiccan agnostic is first to assert knowledge of the supernatural (whatever its kind), and then to immediately turn about and deny that any such knowledge is possible.

The chuckles come from the fact that there''s such an ironic contrast between the rather austere intellectual position of agnosticism, and the sort of touchy-feely believe-anything posture of the Wiccans we have encountered.

GaHillBilly

* The full case is much more complex, because there are so many ''flavors'' of both agnosticism and Wiccan ''belief''. It''s probably worth mentioning three other common flavors.

1) A man might claim to disbelieve in automobile engines, but we wouldn''t bother with his belief if he was unwilling to take a look under the hood of his car. More than a few agnostics are like this, disbelieving because they are unwilling to take a look.

2) Some people disbelieve in this or that God, often the Christian God (YHWH) because they could ''never believe in a God like that'', who does this or that thing they don''t like. But this is the height of silliness: if there is a transcendent God at all, then what we think of Him (or Her) has no effect whatsoever on His nature. He (She) is what He is, no matter what WE think!

If there is such a God, we can''t change or affect His nature. Rather, it''s our business to try to ''make peace'' with whatever God there is, whether he''s the God of the Bible, or Allah of the Koran, or the demon-God of the Aztecs. Whether we LIKE Him or not is totally irrelevant. As Cortes found, many of the Aztec tribes did not LIKE the Gods they worshiped. They worshiped them because the believed they were real, and incredibly dangerous.

3) Some enthusiasts of various ''New Age spiritual'' movements, including Wiccan, seem to pick a religion based on what they think will make them ''feel better''. But such ''belief'' is simply play-acting for psychological effect and no more has a legitimate claim to be respected as a ''belief-system'' than does playing (imaginary) cowboys and Indians. It may well make them feel better, but it''s just a placebo with no real content!

** Such a naturalism has, in turn, its own inherent self-contradiction, for it offers no basis for trusting that language conveys, at least substantially, concepts in my mind across the void of ''external reality'' to the interior of another''s mind. Among other problems, "minds" (as opposed to brains) are NOT a reality which can be verified by science. The problem with embracing the scientific analysis of observable and repeatable reality as the only basis of knowledge . . . is that that the very concept of science itself depends on knowledge of principles, rationality and language which science cannot itself validate. It''s sort of a problem of the cat trying to catch it''s own tail. Naturalists end up being forced to make a blind leap of faith, in order to accept, as unproven axioms, a host of assumptions about mind, meaning, language, the persistence of knowledge, non-randomness of observation, etc.

"Bright, beautiful September afternoon, calm quiet water on a lake, and the only sounds are canoe paddles and students splashing around making measurements, looking for new things and learning about their environment. ...and maybe venting a little about some humanities courses, heh, heh. Your college-age child might enjoy this for a change."

Actually, due to heavy rains in NE Georgia, he missed out on a chance to snorkel the Conasauga with his biology teacher this weekend! He was quite disappointed, but they''ll probably try again. Interestingly, it turns out that this teacher who has a Ph.D in entomology, is involved in Scouting himself.

GaHillBilly

"Sometimes if students would set aside what they perceive as the ideology war, they might actually get something much more valuable from the material, in return."

Actually that would be more of a problem if I was in his classroom, than it is for him. My son is much less combative than I am! His Wiccan teacher was not so much of a problem; her philosophical and religious views came up more incidentally, than anything else. But his current teacher grew up in an evangelical home, and as often the case with apostates, is virulently -- and avowedly -- anti-Christian. He''s stated in class that one of his central goals is to ''help students see how stupid Christianity really is'', and has engaged in some pretty aggressive intellectual bullying during class.

My son''s goal is primarily to help some of the students who have fewer intellectual skills, and who have been bullied, feel some confidence that the evidence is not quite so one-sided as this professor would indicate. (It''s true that he likes to ''show off'' as well, but he''s consciously trying to avoid doing so.) Some of his professor''s arguments are pretty weak, but most of the students in the class don''t have the skills or background to recognize just how weak they really are. For my son, having grown up with a former agnostic (me!), who has struggled with the content of orthodox faith, much of this stuff is already familiar territory for him. And of course the fact that he''s appropriated for himself my books by CS Lewis, and now has a greater mastery of CSL''s oeuvre than I do, doesn''t hurt, either.

But again, unlike some things I did in years past, he''s not trying to take his professor off-topic. He''s only setting up the questions in preparation for predictable off-topic anti-Christian tirades: if the professor doesn''t go OT, my son leaves the questions in the box! As a literature teacher, my son feels this professor is fairly good when he can remain on topic.

GaHillBilly

Well, this thread has wandered so far from the original topic that I don''t feel guilty for posting this quote, from a US News & WR article entitled, "The Most Overrated Careers". It''s in the section on teaching:

"In many public schools, classes are grouped at random, which means one class can include special ed students, gifted kids, and foreign-born children who speak little English. Trying to meet all their needs can be difficult and frustrating. Government rules often put pressure on instructors to teach all students high-level material, even if it''s over their heads. And summers aren''t sacrosanct: Increasingly, teachers are required to work, or "volunteer," for part of the summer."

[ http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/061218/18overrated.teacher.htm ]

It happens that even though we home school, I''m also in very close touch with public schooling, and can absolutely verify the total accuracy of this quote, at least with respect to Georgia elementary schools. I can even add that "It is common for teachers with personal integrity to struggle with the ethics of submitting to administrative requirements that they manage classrooms in ways they know are destructive of their students, educationally and otherwise." Some of you might think this is a ''right-wing'' issue, but it''s not. I could, but won''t, name a local gay man who is a huge Al Gore fan, but who is also a great elementary school teacher*, and who struggles almost daily with this very issue.

To be fair, it''s probably impossible for any large bureaucracy to avoid the development of systemic irrationalities. But it seems to me that public education is in an especially bad place, trapped as it is between teacher unions; educational training colleges dominated by the latest fad in educational theory; national ''guidelines'' that reflect BOTH political correctness AND ''corrections'' to that correctness; less disciplined kids coupled with a lack of effective means to control disruptive behavior; parents who have been taught, and now believe that schools can ''raise'' their children, ad nauseaum.

And just to reiterate, even though WE have, and still do home school, I don''t believe home schooling is the ideal solution for every family. Bad results are, statistically, less common with home schooling than with public schooling, but such results do occur: I''ve seen them myself.

But then, nothing in this life works as it should!

GaHillBilly

* He is a good teacher, but that doesn''t mean I''d want him to teach my younger son. Teachers teach more than the ''subject'', and the better they are, the more they tend to teach besides the subject. This man does a great job with his subjects, but also effectively and persistently communicates political, social and moral values I consider wrong. If my younger son was in his class, I''d almost certainly have to do nightly ''deprogramming''. This would be much less of a problem with weaker teachers. On the other hand, my 20 year old is finding the steady stream of hostile ''values education'' coming from his college humanities teachers entertaining and even amusing. We''ve both gotten chuckles about the intrinsic irrationality of being "a Wiccan and an agnostic", as his first college literature teacher described herself. He describes his current literature teacher as an "atheologist", and has been very carefully -- after all, he''s still trying to get an "A" -- monkey-wrenching, with carefully planned questions and quotations, some of this teacher''s set-pieces on how stupid and irrational the Puritans, Wesleyans, and other American Christians were.

Just a couple of notes, pending my receipt of the actual book:

1) Although the book and articles by Epstein are currently being discussed in home schooling circles, my strong impression is that Epstein''s only association with home schoolers is in recognizing that they represent a likely marketing target for his book. Put another way, if his work turns out to function effectively as an apologetic for homeschooling, I''m pretty sure this is an incidental and not deliberate effect. (If I find out differently, once I receive the book, I''ll let you know.)

2) Although home schooling could presumably be carried out in a manner more consistent with his conclusions than could conventional public or private schooling, I don''t think that was a focus of his research. Things he DID mention as contributors to the development of ''adolescence'' include the educational ''recapitulation'' theory and US-style TV and movies.

3) I don''t get the impression that he was focused on ''educational excellence'', or the lack thereof. I believe the adolescent pathologies he considered were more social and integrative in nature. When he compares non-Western tribal cultures favorably to American culture, I don''t think success in AP calculus is one of the metrics being considered!

GaHillBilly

PS. One aspect of Epstein''s analysis that would be very attractive to home schoolers, is its utility in demolishing the ''what about peer socialization'' argument so often leveled against home schooling. This argument is both intrinsically weak and highly ironic, since the effects of peer socialization (ie, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, bullying, teen pregnancy, teen culture, etc.) are the VERY things that seem to show up most in public school parent dissatisfaction surveys!

Historically, the ''inadequate education'' argument stopped being used against home schoolers ONLY after massive research showed that, on average, home schoolers out performed public school students, both nationally and state-by-state, on the order of 10 percentile points (I didn''t dig out the research, and don''t remember the figures exactly). Epstein''s research and analysis has the potential to do the same kind of damage to the ''peer socialization'' argument. Nevertheless, my strong suspicion is that such was not his intention. For all I know, it''s not even an effect he''d welcome, even though I gather he does welcome book sales to home schoolers.

Very interesting summary of how BSA ended up with the youth developmental philosophy it currently exhibits!

Assuming that you are accurate in all you write (and I have no reason to assume otherwise), those sort of tensions explain some of the patterned inconsistencies that I seem to have glimpsed in the BSA as I''ve experienced it. Keep in mind that my son and I have only been in Scouts since March 2007.

Speaking only for myself, I''m not interested in being ''true'' either to Baden-Powell''s vision OR to the modified US version (any of them!) of the Boy Scouts. Rather, I''m interested in what will actually and effectively most help my son, and the boys around him, live lives in accordance with what is actually true. This doesn''t mean I''m trying to ''deconstruct'' Baden-Powell''s vision, or any of the competing versions.

Rather, it is my intention and commitment to ''go along'' as with local council practice so far as I may, but at the same time attempt to both measure and modify practices and ideas according to what appears to be true and accurate. Epstein''s work fascinates me, because it suggests that there may well be a strong observational basis supporting a number of ideas and suppositions that were already floating around in my head. His analysis appears to greatly extend some ideas I was already considering, so I''m going to be examine those closely to see whether his conclusions appear to be valid. The pattern of Amazon reader reviews already strongly suggests that they may be correct, since virtually all of the negative reviews appeared to come from individuals who validated his research and analysis, but found his conclusions very distasteful. Since it''s my personal belief that the truth, when it comes to most of us, will OFTEN be found to be rather distasteful, these reviews seem at least as corroboratory as the positive ones!

One tension that may exist -- I''m not sure, because I''m not sure I understand Baden-Powell''s vison well enough -- is that Epstein seems to say that youth can successfully carry tremendous responsibilities *in the context of adult supervision and mentoring*. Keep in mind that Epstein (as far as I''ve read him to date) seems to say that observation leads to the conclusion that the pathologies of adolescent behavior arise when youths are primarily in the company of their peers, and are avoided when youth are primarily in the company of adults. I''m not sure that this observation supports the Patrol Method as you''ve outlined it. I may be wrong, since I''ve not yet read either Epstein''s book, nor any of Baden-Powell''s.

But, for myself, I''m inclined to think it will take some extensive and focused adult mentoring before a Patrol will be capable of even selecting leaders effectively. Some other current threads on Scouter.com appear to provide strong anecdotal support for this conclusion. Nevertheless, I''m very ready to accept that the *goal* of this mentoring is to develop youth leaders, and that if there is a danger of too little mentoring, that there is also a serious danger of too much hand-holding.

Perhaps fortunately for all, my control of the situation is fairly limited for now!

GaHillBilly

Good ideas, all.

Thanks

GaHillBilly

PS: Hadn''t thought of calling the police (rangers) first. But, if he''s on duty, the senior guy is an amateur naturalist, and would probably enjoy the excuse to show up.

"Teens have brains? That is a myth!"

Trouble? Yeah, I guess posting in such a way could cause trouble, in a forum where quite a few posters care about facts and reasons.

Let''s start with your ad hominem attack on Aquila. Now, I have no idea whether he did or did not move his son in or out of a patrol. But, that issue is so totally OT in this thread, as to boggle the mind, or at least the minds of those who have brains! In case you are unfamiliar with the term ''ad hominem'', here''s a link: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=ad%20hominem

But, the Wikipedia definition (as of today, anyhow) is excellent: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem, ... consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

Yep, that''s it.

My original post was about a book and a thesis argued by a (I believe) secular psychologist that adolescent incapability is not intrinsic, but a by-product of modern Western culture. The issue of "negative peer association" is precisely OT, because Epstein argues that Western adolescent peer culture is one of the primary means by which adolescent incapability and irresponsibility is created. He notes that in most cultures even today, and certainly throughout history, teenagers primarily associated with non-age peers, mostly adults.

There is an irony here.

When I went to Amazon to order the book, I found something very interesting. The reader reviews fell primarily into two groups. Either they considered the book great, (and several reviewers reported professional experience in related fields) or they thought the argument great, the writing great, the research great, the reasoning great, but the book terrible, because he suggests that corporal discipline is shown to be effective and helpful. In other words, the book was bad, because it reached a conclusion unacceptable to them.

My impression is that Epstein''s thesis may be unacceptable to you, too. Why that would be is not clear to me. You write, "my job is to provide a safe environment as much as I can", but then berate home schoolers for wanting (supposedly) to "protect (their) children from the outside world". It would seem the difference is only in degree, and you apparently think they go too far in doing what you yourself also claim to do!

But, let me respond more directly to your ridiculous initial statement.

For over 20 years, I was involved in providing support to commercial swimming pools. These pools are typically staffed by ''kids'' aged 15 to 20, have very complex equipment that baffles ''the adults'', and complex social demands, as well as complex safety demands. In those years, I have proved -- REPEATEDLY -- that those ''kids'' COULD operate such facilities well if

1) they were trained to do so (which I did),

2) supported in doing so (which I did), &

3) expected to do so. (and there''s the rub!)

I saw operations crash and burn repeatedly because ''the adults'' did not think they could do it, and thus, did not expect them to do it. The facts are otherwise: many teenagers -- even Western teenagers -- CAN and WILL rise to the challenge of serious responsibility if they are supported in doing so. I know this to be true and I''ve demonstrated it to be true repeatedly.

It would, and should, stun many to learn that the lead on the Linux 2.4 kernel, when Linus shifted focus to the (then) new 2.6 kernel, was a Brazilian teenager! Now, I''m no expert on kernel hacking, but the reports I''ve seen indicate that he has done a very good job . . . maintaining a operating system kernel used by thousands and thousands of operations world wide to carry out mission critical tasks!

Less exceptionally and more personally I have, more than once, had to manipulate and connive to keep the ''adults'' and the ''board'' from messing with, and screwing up, the kids. I''ve repeatedly bypassed the ''chain of command'', so I could deal directly with the responsible kid on the deck rather than the irresponsible, arrogant, ignorant, and unwilling-to-learn ''adult''. I got by with it because I was paid for the results, and the ''adults'' didn''t want to have to go back to trying to get those results themselves!

So, your claim that teen brains "are a myth" is a statement of blind religious faith, without factual support. But, I''ll grant that you may know your own kids, and that they may be truly anencephalic. Nevertheless, I doubt it. Unless they actually do suffer from a physical defect, in which case you and they have my sincerest sympathy, I''m going to guess their inabilities have more to do with your parenting and educational choices, than with their intrinsic lack of brains.

All parents screw up their kids in one way or another, but being proud of it is something else altogether. Regardless, many, many teenagers are not brainless. And, giving them opportunities to have more responsibility is NOT ''sheltering'' them.

Some of your other statements, I can''t even respond to now. I''ll only say that I sincerely doubt that you''ve EVER experienced the sort of bullying and torment that many teenagers are force to endure, without help or support from ANYONE. To suggest that people "need to learn how to handle" such bullies suggests either a brutal callousness or else a see-no-evil ignorance that is hard to credit in a Scouter. Nature has never been so ''red of tooth and claw'' as in a group of privileged, popular, and savage teenagers, freely allowed by ''tolerant'' adults to brutalize those weaker and less cool! I know that many adults avoid association with the older adolescents and young adults who are the products of such brutalization, because these people are too ''awkward'' and weird. ''Normal'' adults find it uncomfortable to be around them, and so, out-of-sight, out-of-mind. (But, before you attack again: neither of my boys has experienced bullying of that type, but they''ve both seen it take place!)

Epstein''s book and material fascinates me, because he essentially argues that my limited experiences in a recreational environment were not an aberration, but what rather an example of what SHOULD be the norm. It''s too late for me to apply his insights to my 20 year old (who''s actually the one that pointed the article out to me!), but it''s not too late for my 12 year old.

GaHillBilly