GaHillBilly

NJCubScouter wrote:

"ScoutMom, you certainly have the right -- even the responsibility -- not to put your children in a situation that makes you uncomfortable"

NJCubScouter, I can guess what you might have meant, and I'm pretty sure I might even agree with you. But, what you actually wrote is seriously mistaken!

Now, I have a high view of parental authority and responsibility. In every situation, someone (or some institution) has the 'right to be wrong'. Different politics, different religions decide who that is, differently. In the USA, with soldiers, for example, it's the President. In old line Communist states, it is the State. In fundamentalist Islamic countries, it's either the male head of household OR the Islamic courts. And so on.

I believe that, by "natural law", it is the family -- not the state and not the courts -- who has the "right to be wrong" with respect to children. in some extreme cases, the state may step in, but generally, I believe it's "the buck stops" with the parents.

A lot of people struggle with the fact that the 'right to rule' is also the 'right to be wrong'. In America, we've adopted, in practice if not in theory, the statist view that "there oughta' be a law". I believe that generally this a huge mistake, and my experiences as a grand juror have only confirmed that belief.

So, I believe that ScoutMomSD has the 'right' to screw up her own kids, just as I have the 'right' to screw up mine, without interference from the State (or Georgia or California!). But, I believe that such 'rights' come with responsibility, and that I am responsible for my son's rearing, as ScoutMomSD is for her children. And, I further believe we are obligated to do the best we can.

NJCubScouter, I'm sure you've had to do many things, as a parent, that made you "uncomfortable". For me, it started either with the first dirty diaper or the first milk-down-the-back throw-up. And it hasn't ended. I was intensely uncomfortable about 2 weeks ago, when my son was standing on the edge, more or less, of a rock cliff with a 200' drop. I'd given him appropriate cautions, and he was following them. It STILL made me almost unbearably uncomfortable to watch him standing there. My wife couldn't look.

Nevertheless, as a parent and as a Scouter, I'm pretty sure you'll agree it was the right thing for me to do.

A couple of nights ago, after I'd described the location of our next campout, and delivered the cautions appropriate to an area with an abundance of copperheads, slippery rocks and high cliffs, and a smaller number of possums, raccoons, coyotes & bats, and a few nearby predatory homosexual men, and even (currently!) a single wandering bear, several parents came close to yanking their sons from the campout. As I've mentioned before, we've got an upside down troop, in which the older boys are mostly mommy's boys. One of the moms did announce she was going to pitch her tent with the older boy's patrol, rather than with the adults!

I'm pretty sure the idea of camping with no adults closer than 100' made her (and her Life Scout son) uncomfortable. But, I'm pretty sure that allowing that discomfort to determine where she camped was a mistake.

And, I'm pretty sure that any parent who exercises their "responsibility" (as you put it) to keep their son away from any situation that makes the parent uncomfortable . . . that such a parent is screwing up badly. If you care about your kids, but give them opportunities to learn and grow, there's simply no way to avoid some pretty substantial discomfort.

Bottom line? Parental discomfort is a pretty poor guide to what should, or should not be done!

GaHillBilly

ScoutMomSD wrote

"Its just something I have never seen in Girl Scouting except in leadership positions, which are not troop involved. And the Girl Scouts dont have the same rep as Boys scouts with regard to discrimination, leader/boy "issues" etc."

Well, I've seen it.

I've NEVER been involved in GSUSA, except as an outside contractor providing technical services at GSUSA camps. But, the stuff I, and my employees, encountered PERSONALLY at GSUSA camps would curl any responsible parent's hair. My experiences and observations at one GSUSA camp were precisely what caused me to warn friends to ALWAYS figure out why volunteers were volunteering.

Just to give one example, both in terms of utter inappropriateness AND total weirdness, not to mention immorality (which I gather may not be a category you recognize, ScoutMomSD), I was directly propositioned one year by the camp director, who knew I was married, and who was herself the lesbian lover of a local aquatics director. It took me an hour after to figure out that she really was propositioning me, because she knew I knew she was in a lesbian relationship. It was long enough ago, that it didn't occur to me that she might have been bisexual.

Granted, she was not in a "troop level" position. I didn't have as much contact with the volunteer staff, as I did with the professionals. But, I did have enough to discover that more than 1 or 2 local GS troop leaders were bitterly divorced man-haters, who were aggressively communicating those values to their Scouts! And, while I am not questioning that they had good reason to be man-haters, I don't think that either misogyny or misandry are appropriate values to teach Scouts, of either flavor!

ScoutMomSD, I suspect you've been living in La-La land so long, you've become accustomed to the knee-jerk approval of liberal -- but ill-thought out -- ideals, and are a bit shell-shocked to find that considered opposition to your opinions exists. I see the same thing here, living in the Bible Belt, among my friends when someone disagrees thoughtfully with some of their ill-thought out conservative opinions. I know that they -- and I suspect that you -- have developed a tendency to see evidence that supports your opinions, and to overlook all the rest.

GaHillBilly

As I read this thread, I find that my opinions are all over the place.

+ Having worked professionally in a technical services capacity with a variety of camps over a number of years . . . I've seen things that have led me to repeatedly warn friends to check into why folks 'volunteered'. I know of at least one youth (not BSA) camp that is specifically organized with sexual exploitation as a major sub-purpose. (Yes, I "KNOW" it. No, I can't "PROVE" it! The problem is widely known among their neighbors, but they advertise only 'out of state'.)

+ Having been in a variety of churches over the years, in various capacities that occasionally put me 'in the know' concerning a variety of crises involving members, I can assure ScoutMomSD that she's being extremely naive to suppose that married men are 'safe'. Many pedophiles marry precisely to gain access. Other pedophiles marry hoping to 'overcome' their deviance.

+ My own personal experiences force me to be extremely skeptical about modern claims that "most homosexuals don't target boys". Fortunately, I was never raped or even physically abused . . . but my own experiences with a homosexual uncle, among others, convinces me that many homosexuals do prefer young teen boys, if they can have them somewhat safely.

+ At the same time, I know of at least one elementary school teacher who is (a) homosexual and (b) and outstanding teacher.

+ I gather that there's no unambiguous evidence that B-P was a 'repressed' homosexual, who worked with boys as an expression of those desires. But I find the claim plausible, if unproven. I suspect that some excellent teachers I had in my teens were also celibate (or at least, mostly celibate) homosexuals.

+ I strongly suspect that, today, anyone who's homosexual or strongly 'bi' is far, far less likely to be 'repressed' than similar individuals were 40, 60 or 100 years ago. I do NOT want a 'practicing' homosexual functioning as a primary leader for MY son!

+ Both my experiences and orthodox Christian theology persuade me that no one is trustworthy, with respect to sex. I think the BSA's trust-but-verify approach (ie, 2 deep) is well warranted and I have recommended it to at least three groups of church leaders.

+ On the other hand, some of ScoutMomSD's remarks imply that women leaders would be a better choice. I'm highly skeptical of that. I do think that women are far less likely to be aggressive predators than men are. But, I know personally of too many cases where women were 'passive predators' to be all that trusting of them. One single mom in our own troop constantly wears low cut attire. I haven't seen her belly button by way of her neck yet, but it's only a matter of time. I remember all too well how such views, even of "old women" affected me as a teen. I also remember how guys who got 'taught' by the proverbial 'older woman' were far less likely to complain, than they were to brag. But, I consider such 'passive predation' extremely harmful, if perhaps not as destructive as the aggressive predation of a homosexual pedophile.

+ The only bottom line here, in my opinion, is that parents should be cautious about ALL leaders associated with their children, but that it's foolish and 'simple' to assume that a simple metric (only married, only married with kids in the program, only hetero, only single, etc.) will keep things safe.

GaHillBilly

For those who've suggested I'm being unreasonable by taking LNT "literally", I would make a counter suggestion: please take the time to actually and carefully READ the "principles" of LNT. You can do so here:

http://www.lnt.org/programs/principles.php

For those of you who won't bother, here are a few:

=> "Preserve the past: examine, but do not touch, cultural or historic structures and artifacts." "Leave rocks, plants and other natural objects as you find them." In other words, "the raving lunatic of a Girl Scout leader" was actually dead on target!

=> "Campfires can cause lasting impacts to the backcountry. Use a lightweight stove for cooking and enjoy a candle lantern for light."

Please note: this is not a suggestion that fires be used only when it is safe and will cause minimal or acceptable disturbance. This is a polite COMMAND: No campfires!

And GW, as usual all subtleties elude you. Your post nothwithstanding, I did not suggest as an alternative to LNT its opposite, 'Leave every trace' or rather 'Make a big mess'. Rather, I suggested LNT's "contrary", which is "Leave some trace" . . . which after all is the only possible option. But, I have all my life, beginning long before LNT was ever heard of, tried to do what I teach, which is "Leave Minimal Trace"!

Supposedly, a "Scout is trustworthy".

But, LNT is either the statement of radical environmentalists -- for which there is good evidence -- OR it is a sort of Madison Avenue dishonesty "Scouts are the BEST organization ever" to which we have become inured, but which is nonetheless dishonest.

I would have no problem with LMT, "Leave Minimal Trace". That is, after all, just what the Outdoor Code promises. But I dislike all dishonesty for the sake of more marketing friendly language, whether it's mis-attributing the "Scouting is a game with . . ." quote, or claiming that Scouts support LNT!

I do think Scouts, Cub or not, SHOULD "do their best" to be "trustworthy" and a Scout who camps and also claims to LNT, is NOT doing "his best" to be "trustworthy"!

Words matter. They shape thoughts and concepts and communication. Dishonesty devalues them . . . just as it has devalued merit badges and Eagle ranks.

GaHillBilly

An altogether interesting thread . . . can't wait to jump in with my two cents.

After almost 2 years in Scouts, here are some conclusions I've reached:

1. Men who are obese and physically unfit are fundamentally incapable of being effective Scoutmasters. Period. If are under 6' tall, and wear a size 40 or larger pants, you are failing as a Scoutmaster.

2. Many men today do NOT have a background that equips them with the fundamental skills needed to be an expert 1st Class Scout, and a teacher of 1st Class skills. For them, acquiring this expertise is hard work, but essential. Weekend OLS sessions, taught by unskilled Scouters, are NOT a solution.

3. Scouting is for nerds, geeks, and dorks. But, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Scouting, from its origin, was intended to provide an 'alternate gang'. High schools and junior highs today permit only a small group of guys to be 'cool'. The rest have to find their place elsewhere. Thus, all the weird little groups that stratify American high schools today result. An effective Scouting program can be a better -- and no weirder -- alternative. A boy, who's willing to work a bit, can genuinely acquire Scouting skills, even if he's not terribly co-ordinated or socially adept.

4. Dealing with danger and challenge is fundamental to Scouting. Remove it, and Scouting becomes an empty shell. (See #1 above!)

5. Most CO's and many Scouters do not actually believe in the principles of the Scout law. You cannot be a wholehearted American consumer, and demonstrate "thrift". You cannot live in an isolated commute from work to home to Scout house and back again, with no stops in between and be "helpful". You cannot "revere" the idea of a god; you can only revere a God you ACTUALLY believe in! You cannot practice 'risk-management' and ask, "Is it covered?" at every turn, and be "brave"!

6. "Leave No Trace" is dishonest BS. Any of you with even minimal outdoor experience know this. My skills pale in comparison to what 1st Class Scouts learned 70 years ago, but I'll guarantee you I can follow the "trace" of your patrol of 6 boys, no matter how "conservation minded" they are, everywhere they WALK, unless it's on rock or pavement. The only way to "leave no trace", is to stay home. Many elements of the modern environmental movement see mankind as an infection of Mother Earth, and this belief has trickled into mainstream jargon. The "Leave no trace" slogan is only one example. Fortunately, it's possible to pledge "The Outdoor Code" without crossing your fingers, but BSA needs to dump LNT as EITHER dishonest or ELSE incompatible with Scouting.

7. There needs to be some way of distinguishing 'real Scouts' from the fake ones produced by Eagle mills, MBCs, and camps run by unskilled teens and twenties. I've seen many of you report the disgust sincere boys express when they see bogus ranks, honors and MBs handed out. My own son, after watching who was elected to OA at the last Camporee, swore he'd never enter OA. IF the advancement program my son's troop is beginning to implement succeeds, I'll almost certainly propose adding an unofficial "blue star" or something like it to the uniforms of Scouts in our troop who earn their ranks and Eagle MBs legitimately, and who actually possess 1st Class skills.

8. Uniforms are nerdy and uncool, only till they stand for something worth standing for! Scouts who are in a program they are proud of, and doing things that mean something to them will not be ashamed of their uniform. Till then, they will.

9. It's not possible for a troop to succeed AND to tolerate senior Scouts who are leading in the wrong direction. If I understand some of Kudu's reports, and the things I've read for myself of B-P's writings, B-P himself would absolutely not hesitate to demote, marginalize or expel a senior Scout who was leading his troop astray. One of the strongest practical arguments for a "patrol method" troop, is that if offers an acceptable method of stripping dysfunctional older boys of the control they tend to have in a boy led "troop method" troop. Never say never, but the chances of turning around a 16 year old Life Scout who's 'succeeded' acquiring 5 or 6 years longevity in a dysfunctional troop are small.

Hm-mh, that's enough for now.

GaHillBilly

In response to Lisabob's question, "Why in color . . .?"

Bob White wrote,

"Cost-wise it is not that much more costly to do color instead of black and white due to digital printing as opposed to four-color offset which used to be the only way to get a full color image.

The reason for the change is they are more attractive and more pleasurable to read."

Scoutldr wrote,

"Sorry to be cynical, but has anyone picked up a high school textbook lately?

Kids won't read black and white. If they read at all, we have to make it look like a comic book so they can be "entertained"...lots of color pictures."

I think it might be more correct to say that people -- both kids AND adults, GW notwithstanding -- are more likely to LOOK at a book in color, than one in black and white. They are probably more likely to buy a book in color, too.

But are they more likely to actually READ it? I don't think so. Or, if they are, the difference is not very great.

My wife and I homeschooled my oldest, and are now doing the same with my Scout age son, and we haven't seen any indication that color improves the rate of actual READING. We have close relationships with several elementary school teachers . . . and they haven't seen any particular correlation between color and reading rates.

You know why they -- the teachers -- think there's so much color and so many graphics in school textbooks? They think it's to get TEACHERS to look at them, so the publisher can SELL them!

BobW wrote that, "the reason for the change is they are more attractive and more pleasurable to read.". My guess is that the real reason is that not that this is a true statement, but that people THINK that it's true!

GaHillBilly

Well, I won't join the rant, not because I don't agree, but because I've already ranted more than my share on this topic.

More than that, things are looking up in my son's troop right now. So far, one step has followed another down a path to provide every Scout the opportunity to legitimately make FC by May . . . and actually possess the requisite skills at that point. Things may get derailed tomorrow (or more to the point, tonight!), but -- thank God, and I mean that! -- more progress has been made than I had reason to hope for.

So, rather than rant, I'll share what's in the back of my mind to bring up next.

AFAIK, neither the boys NOR the parents NOR even some of the Scouters have had any training in the concept of rank as a "means", rather than an "end". Most of the Scouters I have met implicitly behave as though the goal of Scouting is Eagle rank.

Why? They dunno, as far as I can tell.

So, my next hope is to begin treating the elements of the "law" as a "skill" (not because that's the most felicitous description, but because it's one that's more likely to be accepted) and to springboard off that concept to the process of "teaching those skills"! I'm hoping we can spend 1 skill session per month on an element of the "Law"* and on the real purpose of Scouting. (Which is why I posted the purpose thread in "Issues & ")

Can I 'sell' it? Dunno. Will it work? Dunno. But I've got a plan, and I've got a prayer, and it sure seems we've been getting some help from Someone who can walk on water! I know I had thought things were sunk at least three times so far.

GaHillBilly

* Of course, if I and the Troop *actually* begin to work on the "Law", we'll see failures that just naturally lead to the need for "grace"!

shortridge wrote:

"Unspoken was the reason: "But that's when We get to hang out, get a break from our families, drink coffee and show off to each other!!" "

Boy, that seems to be it, in a nutshell!

Our troop has, somewhat reluctantly, committed to a training schedule that will provide every Scout the opportunity to become FC by May. This is long overdue; some of them have been Scout 'rank' for over 15 months, but the focus has been on what the older boys wanted to do.

And, the Camporees are something they, and some of the long time adults want to participate in. Unfortunately, the tight schedules and camping locations (commercial campgrounds or highly restricted parks) make it impossible to work on any of the core skills. So, I posed the question, "how does the camporee fit into our troop goals for the year?". As a novice Scouter, I supposed that there might be some sort of answer. Wrong!

I continued to bug people about it, and without ever getting a straight answer, I came to precisely the conclusion Shortridge put so nicely . . . with one addition. Going to the Camporees, with their overwhelming evidence of a massive lack of fundamental Scout skills seems to assuage the guilt of how unskilled OUR Scouts are!

In my poking around, I've found that at various times in early Scout history, prospective First Class Scouts, as a final test, had to go on a weekend camping trip, and make their way cross-country from point A to point B over a distance of 14+ miles . . . all completely on their own!

I'd be surprised if there are 10 Scouts in our COUNCIL ready to pass that test. But, I'll bet we'll have three who could, by summer's end. Unfortunately, it almost certainly will not include any of the older boys.

GaHillBilly

This is bad . . . how?

From the article, "The guidance says leaders should "encourage young people to resist pressure to have early sex" and to talk to their parents or carers, but "should be prepared to offer appropriate information" if it is needed."

I wish I could do something like that! Many parents won't / don't talk to their kids effectively about sex, for all sorts of reasons, including a desire to avoid personal dishonesty AND to avoid having to acknowledge how THEY screwed up. I've watched this happen repeatedly with kids in the conservative churches we've belonged to, over the past 20 years.

I would LOVE to do a 'role-play' to show the Scouts their chances of getting a PERMANENT health experience, as a result of goofing around physically. I KNOW, from personal experience in counseling teen-age (18+) employees, how a "just the facts, please" approach to communicating the risk in terms of STD's, babies, and injured future relationships can have IMMEDIATE impact on behavior. (I've made crude, but fact-based, jokes about the 'ooze' from STDs that guys still remember 20 years later . . . and which caused them to change their behavior immediately!)

In spite of the the extreme levels of sex on TV and the internet, the quality of most kids info about sex is TERRIBLE. They don't realize that condoms don't stop all STDs *or* pregnancies; they don't know that most STDs have serious life long effects on health EVEN if they can be 'cured'; they don't know that sex is a skill that they are sure to be bad at at first, and which they are likely to never be very good at, if they don't trust their partner; they don't know that sex with multiple partners INEVITABLY creates that emotional callouses that will haunt them in their marriage years later (Boy, have I ever seen that one come true among men I know!); they don't know that married people typically have far better and far more frequent sex than single promiscuous people; and on and on and on.

I would LOVE for the boys I'm around to know those things, before they start getting the pressure to 'get some'!

Ideally, this would come from parents, but far, far too often the parents don't know how or are 'chicken'.

Granted, you could and should NEVER teach boys this stuff without parental permission, but I'd bet 75% of parents who don't teach would love having their boys taught this info, on a 'just the facts' basis that emphasizes the benefits, joys and preparation necessary for successful marriage, and how few benefits and joys teenage promiscuity, or even non-promiscuous sexual activity, brings.

It may not be traditional in Scouting to talk about sex, but to communicate Scouting values in today's environment, it is almost essential!

So again, I ask, this is bad . . . how?

GaHillBilly

Brent Allen wrote:

"I see the purpose as preparing young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetime by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. Those would include duty to God, and being reverent. We try to run our Troop in a manner that glorifies God. This can be challenging when we have members who are Christian, Jewish and Hindu. :-)"

If you are only teaching Judeo-Christian character values . . . certainly there's common ground with between Christians and Jews. Of course, some Jewish groups perceive rather different obligation to fellow Jews than they do to goyim. But, with Hindu, I think the difficulties would be very great.

"I don't agree with your idea of selfishness, unless nearly everything can be sort of twisted to end up at that point. I don't see how that jibes with John 15:13 - 'Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.' That would appear to be a very selfless act.

God created us in His image, and He is a giver. He gave us life, this world, everything we have. He gave us his Son, that we might have eternal life. I believe we get closer to God when we give, we are living more in His image. This thought process could be viewed two ways - one is selfless, giving of one's self. The other would be we do this because we are selfish; we do it because we want to be closer to God, and through these acts, we get where we want to be."

Brent, I started a much longer reply and got gobsmacked. I've known for a long time that selflessness was not, fundamentally, a Christian virtue. Christians are called to be ourselves truly or in Army language, "to be all we were made to be", not to be selfless.

Many selfish acts ARE evil, but not fundamentally because they are selfish. Rather, they are covetous (wanting what God has not given you) or larcenous (wanting what God has given another) or foolish (rejecting God's wisdom in favor of your own stupidity) and so on. But other selfish acts, such as forgiving others SO THAT I can be forgiven are in fact virtuous.

Like I said, I got gobsmacked. The case against selfishness as a Xian virtue is absolutely overwhelming. I'd never argued it before, so I had never tried to marshal the evidence. My family knows what I think on this, and why, and they agree to the extent they understand. But, I'd not considered it worthwhile to duke it out with any ministers: there have been other issues, if any duking out was to be done! So when I started to do so in this case, I was stunned.

I considered just backing off, rather than tackling the issue. But I can't, because it's central not peripheral to my question of Scouting purpose.

B-P, along with many other humanists of his day, made selflessness the apex of his pyramid of virtues, and in doing so turned Xian inside out. Obviously, I can't find a Xian foundation for Scouts in that direction.

I suppose it may be best to spin off topic on selflessness as virtue, and deal with that, before returning to this. Otherwise, that issue will sabotage this discussion. But, it will be several days before I can tackle that. I'm taking my own boys hiking tomorrow. And, Sunday after church I've got to go check out a possible new camping site for the troop.

Meanwhile, if I can be a bit presumptuous, let me suggest that you go through Matthew, chapter by chapter, and look at the motivation offered for doing what we are called to do.

Best wishes,

GaHillBilly

OGE wrote,

"B-P said, and I know this to be true, that Scouting is to be a school of character and train young men to be good citizens."

. . . as I noted myself.

But, this is not an adequate purpose for Christians, UNLESS, you define "citizen" as "citizen of God's kingdom". That is a purpose I've considered. Indeed, that's very much the purpose I understand LDS churches to hold. However adopting would almost certainly entail a level of explicit evangelism that would exclude most boys.

GaHillBilly

NJCubScouter wrote

"your views on selfishness vs. selflessness do not match what I have understood to be Christian teaching. I do not pretend to be an expert on Christian teaching, as I am not a Christian, orthodox or otherwise, but that is my understanding, and maybe some of the other Christians in this forum might want to weigh in that. I also think that most religions, and the BSA as well, strike a balance between duty to self and duty to others."

As I noted, it's also not what many Xians assume to be Xian teaching. Rather it's one of those things that people (Xian's in this case) ASSUME they disagree with, till they look at the evidence.

Consider, for example, this old statement from the Westminster Confession (1646): "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever". I remember, as a boy, being puzzled about that, because hardly anything I was being taught about Xianity involved enjoyment! Nevertheless, there it is. On the Catholic side of things, you have the whole tradition of stuff like St. Theresa's "ecstasy" in God, except that now we usually use the word "orgasm" instead.

There is a long tradition of Xians in various times and places being embarrassed about how pleasurable, at least ultimately, Xianity is supposed to be. The reasons I know about for this are complex, and I'm sure there are more reasons than I know!

But the fact is simple: we are not called to be selfless, but are rather called -- if you'll forgive the ripoff -- "to be all we can be", but by being what we were created to be, as God's child and subject! We are to do good because it is what is enjoyable (ie, brings joy), if not immediately, then certainly ultimately. Modern men, and modern Xians, are often embarrassed by the fact that Christ Himself appeals to people's self-interest so 'crudely' -- serve Me in My Kingdom in bliss forever, or go your own way in eternal misery -- but what He said and taught, rather than what some foolish preachers and teachers have taught, is the core of the faith!

In Christianity, it's not so much a balancing of your duty to yourself against your duty to others (though it's been expressed that way, in error I think) as it is doing your duty to God, BY doing your duty to others AND yourself. Christian teaching is clear that by trying to serve yourself first, you actually end up doing yourself horrible injury! (Now, I'm not saying that accepting these principles automatically makes the inevitable juggling of priorities of time, effort and resources easy!)

However, if you want to consider this rather complex issue further, I'd prefer to spin it off, rather than to distract from this thread.

GaHillBilly

Thanks to Kudu, I'm aware that B-P never said "scouting is a game with a purpose". But, he did say something similar if less succinct and memorable.

I'm also aware that B-P's purpose is not mine: making good citizens for the British Empire is not what I'm working toward.

Nor do I share B-P's philosophy and anthropology: I don't believe man is the apex of evolution, as nature spirals upward to an ever higher and more majestic destiny; I don't believe that men (or boys) naturally become stronger and more ethical, or believers in God, simply because they have experiences in nature, even when those experiences are hard; I don't believe that encountering nature reliably teaches spiritual truth; I don't believe that selflessness is the apex of ethical behavior. The optimistic evolutionism and romantic view of nature that B-P shared with so many during his era is now passe' and not believed as a 'reality-statement' by anyone, though some in Wicca and in the elements of the environmental movement apparently accept it as a statement of their 'faith-fantasy'.

I understand what purpose Scouting serves in the LDS church: it prepares young men for their Mission.

I understand what purpose Scouting did serve, for the UMC and American Legion and Optimist Clubs. When those organizations were committed to the concept of the 'ethical American citizen, holding to Christian values', Scouting fit in nicely. As best I can tell, the American Legion and Optimist type organizations are now philosophically adrift and their membership is dying off. The UMC (and similar Protestant denominations) has moved, probably irretrievably, toward post-modernist and leftist values, and are more likely to teach shame in being an American, than pride of citizenship.

So, what's left?

I don't mean this question facetiously. I'm really struggling to work out what purpose Scouting can serve for orthodox (not "Orthodox", much less "Greek or Eastern Orthodox") Christians like myself.

My son's troop is chartered by a conservative Protestant church, and is listed in their Sunday bulletin as one of the 'ministries' of the church. But, neither the leadership of the church, nor the SM (who is a member) have any clear purpose or direction, other than the vague idea that 'Scouting is a good thing for boys'.

Now, I'm a firm believer in the idea that, if you don't "know where" you're going, that's where you'll end up: "know where" . . . or rather 'nowhere'. I'd rather not go there; I've already done that too much in my life.

Now, in a sense, I'm posing this question, as an orthodox Christian, to orthodox Christians. There's no way a modernist, or a Mormon, or a Hindu can share purpose with me at the most foundational level. But, like it or not, we all live in the same reality, and thus all of us have to deal with the same truths, at least at some level. So, I don't want to exclude non-Christian responses.

Anyhow, as I've tried to think about this, it seems to me that there are several fundamental Christian truths that form the basic constraints of any formulation of a Christian purpose for Scouting.

Perhaps the first constraint is 'grace'. Christianity, together with all other religions, teaches that we all need a different sort of life than the one have. (Else, religion would be superfluous!). Christianity, together with almost all other religions, teaches that this different sort of life is -- IN PART -- a matter of living differently, and ethically. Christianity, together with almost all other religions, tells us that we must make a serious effort to 'do better'.

Of course, the specific content of 'doing better' varies by religion, though there is some overlap.

But, orthodox Christianity, UNLIKE every other religion, teaches that no effort on our part will ever be sufficient, in part because we are all too weak, and in part because we are all too evil. Orthodox Christianity, UNLIKE every other religion, teaches that God offers us grace -- divine help, forgiveness, & favor that takes us beyond what we can do, or will 'will to do' -- and that without grace, no one is 'saved'.

Scouting knows nothing about either grace or forgiveness, in anything I've seen from the BSA or B-P. Yet, for an orthodox Christian, grace, and the need for grace among all men, is foundational.

In my own thinking, one reason why it is so very important to be honest -- to be "trustworthy" -- about Scouting and ranks and merit badges . . . and about the constant failure to abide by the Scout oath, law, slogan and motto . . . is that these failures exemplify precisely the sort of failures which can and should teach men and boys of their need for grace! When those of us who are orthodox Christians allow these failures to be covered up, to be "there-there'd", to be concealed with phrases like, "boys will be boys" or we're "doing our best" (especially when we're not!), or perhaps worst of all, "that's just how it's done", we conceal with our lies the truth our our own, and our boys, inadequacy!

Another constraint, as I see it, is Christian truthfulness, both in the case above, and because training in truthfulness trains boys to accept what is true of God.

(Here, I'm being very orthodox, in the very old-fashioned sense, that recognizes that faith's object is nothing more or less than what may be reasonably known of God and His grace toward us. In traditional orthodoxy, faith follows knowledge, not the other way round!)

As an orthodox Christian, I am convinced that a commitment to seek and serve what is true is essentially and fundamentally a commitment to serve God. So, if I teach boys to seek truth, in spite of the pain it brings and difficulty it causes, I am also preparing them to seek and see God.

A third constraint I see is more of a direct conflict. Both B-P and BSA teach that selflessness is the highest value. Oddly, many orthodox Christians believe this as well, in spite of the fact that this idea is contrary both to orthodox theology and to the Scriptures, which teach that Christians pursue their own best interest and greatest happiness by embracing their position as God's children and subjects. (Likewise, Christ's sacrifice is explained, not as selfless, but rather on a 'sacrifice now, benefit later' basis (Hebrews 12:2))

Orthodox Christian teaching is that doing what is good, is not selfless, but rather the selfishness of a man who understands the true nature of reality.

There are three of the constraints I see, as I attempt to think through what should be the purpose which governs Christian involvement in Scouting.

So . . . what do you think? What purpose to do you see for Scouting? On what basis?

GaHillBilly

BadenP wrote, "and if Kudu's assertions are correct makes Birkby nothing more than a hack."

I don't mean this sarcastically, but I'm not sure that there's any real difference between a 'professional' writer, ie., a writer for hire or free-lancer, and a 'hack'. By definition, they write the stuff their employers want. If they don't, they don't have employers!

I think people assume that there's some code of journalistic ethics that apply to professional writers, but AFAIK, that's not true at all. They are simply people who are pretty good at putting readable sentences, paragraphs, and even chapters on paper (or LCD!) about whatever topic they've been hired to write about.

In my own experience, these folks rarely know much about the topic -- they think of themselves as WRITERS, maybe even 'technical writers', but not journalists, not Boy Scouts, not park rangers, not lawn mower manufacturers (OR users), etc. If they happen to bring some knowledge about the topic to the task, well and good, but their prior knowledge is rarely essential and always (again, in my experience) shallow.

Some of them don't even agree with the stuff they write. One of the best examples of this was a ghost writer by the name of Mel White, who ghost wrote a number of books for well known evangelicals . . . before he came out as a homosexual! By all reports, he was a highly skilled writer and a nice guy. But he was definitely a hack, which has been defined as "a writer or journalist who produces work fast and on a regular basis".

Birkby seems to be possibly the same sort of guy (well, I don't mean sexually, since I have zero knowledge about that), who writes the sort of book his employers want.

Again, you have to remember that the people 'ordering' these sorts of books are usually more executive types, than 'experts'. So, they aren't in a position to judge how accurate or appropriate the text is.

It's a bad process, but typical of many corporate processes which excrete damnable products or services even though every one who contributed to the process is more or less innocent.

GaHillBilly

nolesrule commented,

"Is that "falsely attributed" or "incorrectly attributed"? There's a difference of intent within the connotations of those two phrases. Perhaps the guy made a mistake. It's up to the editors (BSA) to correct it."

Not sure how you'd want to characterize it . . . but at least in my own industry, these sorts of errors are characteristic of documents with ancestries involving several generations of "professional" writers. Again, in my own industry, I can identify characteristic errors that go back to handbooks and manuals published between 1900 and 1920, that made their way into a series of 'authoritative' compilation handbooks in the 30's and 40's, and thence acquired the status of "things everybody in the industry knows" . . . in spite of being fairly obvious errors.

If you want to understand how these sorts of things happen, read Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes", first published in 1837.

Whether it's 'dishonest' or not is a matter of debate. Personally, I believe it is, but it's the dishonesty of careless habits long indulged. Again, in my opinion, this sort -- the sort Anderson described -- of dishonesty is PRECISELY what is at work when bogus Merit Badges and advancement checkoffs are accepted.

At best, being trustworthy is difficult hard work. It is not an area where I've seen the Boy Scouts excel! It's not surprising that the pattern is visible at the top, as well.

GaHillBilly

Kudu, do you have documentation of the faked quotes?

This is not a hostile challenge: I'm just wanting to 'reload' my 'Even though I was never a Scout, I know more about Scouting than you' shotgun ;-). I've found this 'shotgun' extremely helpful in my quest to move my son's troop away from its history as a troop-method Webelos III (momma camps with the SPL) troop toward a patrol method troop with strong outdoor skills and a non-bullying SPL.

GaHillBilly

GW, believe me, I haven't tried to insult you yet. I am getting tired of your determination to inflict your ignorance on others. For example, you write "a brute force spam assault is easy to set up and goes very quickly when you are using distributed processing", as if this would make a million spams per SECOND possible.

Perhaps you have trouble with units.

The largest common botnets -- which provide the 'distributed processing' to which you refer -- run to the low 100,000's. With such a botnet, you could possibly handle a million spams per HOUR, but not a million spams per SECOND. Few ISPs will notice and kill 10 MX connections per SECOND, if this is just a transient condition. But, hardly any will FAIL to notice such a connection if it's sustained over days and weeks. Actually many ISP's block all or most outgoing connections to an MX at port 25, which is the normal mail server port address.

GW, these numbers aren't too big for you, but you are in over your head when you persist in trying to discuss this stuff. And, I'm not much inclined to try to teach a guy who can't be bothered to learn enough about plants to help his Scouts do it right! This is harder than that, and the details are less relevant to you.

The fact is your entire hypothesis, concerning how the spams I received could be random, is totally irrelevant and inapplicable.

If you understood SMTP server logging and the sort of information I see, as the actual system administrator, you would never have posted your 'explanation'. Likewise, if you understood what it looked like AT THE SERVER LEVEL when a domain is probed for open spammable addresses, you would never have posted your 'explanation'.

But, you evidently don't know any of those things.

But, I'll add a few other things.

My server rejects MX connections from IPs in so-called "dialup" ranges, or non-static IP ranges. This means that if you try to set up an SMTP server at your home, using your Comcast or ATT home connection, or at your business, using your non-static cable or DSL IP, and then try to sent me emails, my server will perform a lookup on your server's IP, discover it's in range of IPs used for non-static connections . . . and simply ignore the connection. You can't send spam, or any other kind of email, to my domains from such addresses, whether they are 'legitimate' or part of a spammer's botnet.

This means that most of the 'bots in a spammer botnet cannot even CONNECT with my mail server, much less deliver spam to it!

I'm sure that there are others here, including SCOUTER-Terry, who DO know enough about botnets, SMTP, spam, and Linux mail server operation, to know whether I'm trying to blow smoke up their A##.

Why don't you let them handle it? If they prove me wrong, I'll back down and apologize profusely!

GaHillBilly

Not to put too fine a point on it, OGE, but I've come to the conclusion that what GW understands is a mystery even to him . . .

GaHillBilly

Gold Winger, do you always make fun of stuff you don't understand . . . or is it just when you are replying to me?

For what it's worth, my 13 year old Scout can do the math involved here, with some effort. So, it's really not that hard. My 21 year old's reaction would be along the lines of, "Well, duh!".

You've already told us -- in your own words -- that you help Scouts analyze rocks by separating them into "three types of rocks: big rocks, little rocks and ones that hit you in the head." Do you also help them separate numbers into 'big numbers, little numbers, and numbers that are too hard to understand'?

GaHillBilly

Goldwinger, you posted before you did the math. If you've been spammed on an address like "Zasrbedsm12832782@aol.com", it did NOT happen randomly. Either you exposed that address somewhere, or someone you gave it to did so.

In order to randomly spam an address like that, the spammer would have to walk through each possible address. The NUMERIC portion of that address allows for 100 million possible variations. But the ALPHABETIC portion allows for over 5 QUADRILLION variations. If a spammer started spamming in 1974, when Intel's 8080 cpu was released, and was able to spam at the rate of 1,000,000 emails per second (which is STILL not an possible sustained rate for spammers!), your spammer would get around to the "Z" addresses, like yours after about 16 QUADRILLION years from now.

Given that our sun will become a red giant some 5 BILLION years from now, I don't think you need to worry about being RANDOMLY spammed on an address like you posted.

So . . . NO, you have not been randomly spammed on such addresses. Either you screwed up, or someone else did.

For the record, I caught Wells-Fargo Bank in a security mess about 6 years ago, precisely this way. When their VP-InfoSystems called (Their repeated denials had gotten me pretty PO'd at that point, and I had threatened to pass info on to a couple of IT industry trade magazines) he acknowledged the problem, but wouldn't say what it was. But, I suspect it was an IT employee supplementing his income by selling addresses. Over the years, I've caught 4 other companies, from large to small, with similar problems! One employee ended up in prison, because he was selling more than email addresses.

GaHillBilly.

SCOUTER-Terry, PM me, and I'll show you the raw headers from the emails I've received. I think the problem will be clear when I do so.

If you are not providing email addresses to others, then someone has gained access to your user info.

Sincerely,

GaHillBilly

PS: the domain associated with the address used to register here receives less than 30 total spams per month.

EDITED ADDITION: Scouter-Terry, if you'll look at the source addresses SiteAdvisor reports:

Your New Web Hosting Account at SCOUTER.com

inf...@scouter.com 2008 May

Dear Friend,

sof...@hotmail.com 2008 June

Dear Friend,

ain...@hotmail.com 2008 June

Dear Friend,

pai...@hotmail.com 2008 July

Dear Sir/Lady:

uli...@hotmail.com 2008 August

you can see that some of these emails are NOT notification emails from Scouter.com. Actually, the dates, source and greeting are consistent with the spams I've received.(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

I didn't attribute maliciousness. I only described what was happening. And as a sysadmin myself, I'm well aware that there may be a security problem.

But, if there's been a security breach, there's also a duty to inform. And, if there's been a security breach that they don't yet know about, they need to start looking, post-haste!

So, yet again, why is this spam happening?

GaHillBilly

I'm sorry, but you're theory is working under false assumptions. Relying on obfuscation is no guarantee of preventing randomly generated spam. Once email harvesters find a domain with a working MX entry, they will find a way to discover valid email addresses on the domain.

Well, I'm not that sorry, but you are the one with false assumptions.

I know what the mail-bombings from random email address searches look like, and have seen them on some of my better known domains. While it's true that a random address search might not be visible to all owners of wierd and random email addresses, it's also true that such searches will be HIGHLY VISIBLE to an admin who owns ALL of the random addresses associated with a given MX.

I'm just such an admin. And, the spam using Scouter.com sourced info is not random, but targeted.

And, if you'll take the time to check, you can verify that there are problems SiteAdvisor has ID'd that have absolutely nothing to do with me. There's also other evidence, I'm not ready to share.

Also, I've never enabled ANY profile info, nor listed any unit info.

So, again I'm asking why Scouter.com is (a) spamming me, or (b) letting someone else do so?

GaHillBilly

That only happens when the address is guess-able or randomly testable. Spammers broadcast to millions of possible addresses, and note which ones do not "bounce".

For example, "johnsmith AT aol.com" will be spammed, even if it's never published. So will "SamanthaTurner AT aol.com". But, "GustavusTurnipseed AT aol.com" probably will not, because it's too uncommon.

And, "QWEVsd23AXXdfj2sx AT aol.com" will never be spammed, unless it's published.

There's another way this applies, too. "johnsmith@somewierddomain.com" will might be test-spammed, shortly after the domain is registered (I checked - it's currently available), but not "SamanthaTurner@somewierddomain.com"

In my case, the email address I used to register is something like "MailfromScouter.com@somewierddomain.com", but at a domain I actually control. It's not impossible for such an address to be test-spammed, but the likelihood is lower than your chance of being hit by lightning twice in one day!

So, yes, my experiment is conclusive!

GaHillBilly(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

scoutingintexas wrote,

"I am just wanting to prevent visitors invited by our scoutmater who thinks HE owns the

troop and we have no say."

As a once-upon-a-time Literature major, I tend to pay attention to words (which is not to say I don't often fail to let poorly selected ones flood out!), but I couldn't help but notice the phrase above, "who thinks HE owns the troop and we have no say". It reminds me a scene in Disney's Aristocat's movie that's often been quoted in our household, when someone climbs up on their high horse, "That wuz a little ol' cricket bug", followed by "Ah'm the leader! Ah'll say whut it wuz! . . . . It wuz a little ol' cricket bug".

It's also often true that when folks begin to grump, they often expose their real concerns first, and trot out their justifications only if they don't get all the sympathy they want.

I could be wrong, but to me scoutintexas's post comes across more like a gripe from someone who's gotten his panties in a bunch, because he didn't get the respect and deference proper to his station. I get that -- I've been guilty myself way too often. But he seems to be bringing up possible 'real' issues only in response to less than sympathetic posts from others.

It doesn't sound like the boys are mad. It doesn't sound like anyone has been threatened or exposed to something inappropriate. It doesn't sound like the campout program or plans have been disrupted. It does sound like someone has gotten a 'free' meal. But that's about all.

A whole new troop operational procedure and complication seems like massive overkill, unless some egos are involved.

GaHillBilly