Hunt

"Hunt, the BSA's 'god' requirement is theologically meaningless. You can believe in multiple gods, gods that ignore the entire human race, and any two scouters can have gods that subscribe diametrically opposite behavior. There's absolutely no commonality. It's like defending a whites-only organization because the members really want to be with other whites. I'll still criticize them."

So, Merlyn, how specific would our religious requirement have to be before it would be OK with you? I get your point about an all-white organization, but would you criticize the Sons of Italy if they don't allow non-Italians to join? So do we have to become explicitly Christian to pass your test, or can we keep Jews and Muslims as well? How common must be beliefs be in order to qualify as "theologically meaningful?" I'm intrigued by the notion that BSA could become less unfairly discriminatory by kicking people out.

"Not part of the core program? I thought troops repeated the Oath and Law at every meeting. As a youth, when I went through SM reviews or BOR's, I was asked how I lived by the Oath and Law. Scout requirement #7, Tenderfoot #7, Second Class #9, First Class #10. Do y'all just ignore "Duty to God" and Reverent?"

The question is whether these are just words, or whether they are truly a core element of the program. The Scout Law also calls for a Scout to be "cheerful," but if that word were dropped from the Law would there be any real change in the BSA program? While you may ask boys at BORs whether they live reverently, what in the actual program promotes that virtue? Is Lisabob points out, there is really nothing in the advancement program that does so, for example.

Here's a thought: could we have it both ways? Could we at the same time add program content based on reverence, while dropping the membership requirement for religious belief? I'm thinking of the example of schools sponsored by churches that don't require you to belong to the religion, but if you go to that school you must attend chapel and take religion classes. Perhaps an advancement requirement that would require a boy to learn about either his religion or a variety of religions. In other words, we would tell atheists that they are free to join but they must understand that they will be exposed to religious program content.

I tend to agree about the over-protectiveness of our society. But...

"I recall a very young scout (who had been one of my wolf/bear/webelos as a cub, staying out in the field for hours (it seemed) after everyone else "gave up". He still thought he would win the prize by catching a snipe...only after "coming in" later that night did he realize he had been "had". Did he run off and cry or start wetting the bed? no he just sat there eating his well deserved popcorn..."

I recall another youngster who never forgave the people who betrayed his trust in that way. They stole a piece of his innocence and his belief in the kindness of other people. It continues to amaze me that there are people who think this is OK. What part of "Trustworthy" and "Kind" do they not understand?

I think this is a good discussion. Even if we accept that BSA has the right to make Duty to God a core element of the program, has it actually done so (beyond just saying so)? Should it do more, or less, in that regard? I think it's true that to do more is difficult if BSA intends to remain strictly non-sectarian. To do less, quite honestly, would mean dropping the requirement for a belief in God.

I wouldn't say that this thread was hijacked--it's really more typical thread drift, since the discussions are at least related to the original post. To respond to a few things:

Merlyn wrote: "Hunt, the BSA clearly practices discrimination. I don't know why you keep trying to avoid the word. A group that said Jews (and only Jews) couldn't join would be described as discriminatory. Atheists are no different."

Merlyn, make sure you read my whole post before you respond; if you had, you would see that I wrote about the "form of discrimination BSA practices." Yes, BSA practices discrimination because not everybody can join. The local synagogue fits your description: it is a group that only allows Jews to join--and so, yes, it is discriminatory. The issue is whether the discrimination is illegal, unjust, or unfair.

Merlyn also wrote: "As for one more example of why an atheist would be in scouting, what about someone who has been in scouting since age 8 and who becomes an atheist at age 16?"

What about him? Would you say that it was unfair if a church told him he could no longer be a member under the same circumstances? Would it be unfair for the Elvis Presley Fan Club to kick you out if you showed up and said that you now despise Elvis? This idea that it is unfair for BSA to exclude atheists only makes sense if you don't really believe that BSA is serious about Duty to God being one of its core values.

Packsaddle wrote: "Hunt, I asked how the discrimination benefits the boys and you responded, "To me, the simple answer to this is not everybody can belong to every club, even if his peer group belongs...." I didn't see an answer to my question. Please identify how discrimination is of benefit to the boys. The way I interpret what you wrote is, "Tough luck" or "BSA, love it or leave it". Is this what you meant to communicate?"

What I thought I communicated is that groups discriminate because they see a benefit to creating a group with shared experiences or beliefs. Obviously, that is of no benefit to the people who can't get it, and I guess it is tough luck for them, just like it's tough luck for me that I can't shoot pool at the VFW clubhouse. BSA's discrimination is of benefit to the boys in Scouting because it provides them an opportunity to be part of a group that has Duty to God as one of its core values.

This has been hashed out many times here before, but I think the way Packsaddle has stated the arguments is measured, and I'd like to react to them point by point:

"There are many reasons for concern about the membership requirements, and not just whether an atheist parent would want their child to join BSA.

First, as Merlyn can elaborate, BSA often benefits from special subsidies that are connected to tax dollars. This is illegal and many in these forums have demonized the ACLU for kicking BSA's butt in court, regarding this issue. This relates to membership. If BSA collects these subsidies, then they should not be able to legally discriminate against atheists on the basis of religious beliefs. I ask the question, who benefits from this discrimination?"

To some extent, I agree with this argument. Accepting public benefits muddies the waters when BSA also claims to be a private organization. However, the extent of the "subsidies" is greatly exaggerated. In a few cities, there are low-cost leases, and these are the subject of lawsuits. The many units that were chartered by public schools actually drew very little in the way of public funds (in many cases the flow of benefits was in the other direction). BSA has instructed all those units to find private sponsors, and the vast majority have done so. The remaining "subsidies" are minimal compared to the size of the whole organization, and the courts will deal with them on a case-by-case basis. In terms of judicial butt-kicking between BSA and ACLU, I would call it basically even, with the ACLU winning a few cases related to public support, and BSA winning pretty big in the Dale case in the Supreme Court on its ability to maintain its membership limitations.

"Another concern arises from a more personal problem. A boy often will develop a peer group. If he invites one of his friends to join his club and the friend is subsequently rejected by the club because his religious beliefs don't conform to standards, then both boys have been negatively impacted by this discrimination. Again, I ask, how did this discrimination benefit either boy?"

To me, the simple answer to this is not everybody can belong to every club, even if his peer group belongs. As I've mentioned before, I can't join the VFW even if they have the coolest pool table in town, and even if some of my buddies are members. While the VFW's "discrimination" against non-veterans doesn't benefit me, it does benefit them because it's an organization for people with a shared experience. The same is true of a church's confirmation class, or the bar mitzvah class at the local temple--membership is limited in these groups, because you have to share the beliefs of the group in order to participate. That's true of Scouting, too. The problem is that some people don't seem to perceive the "Duty to God" element of Scouting to be a core shared value--they seem to think that it's a fun camping club, primarily, and that therefore it's unfair to exclude somebody over something that seems tangential. But BSA, and many of its members don't think it's tangential at all--and the organization gets to decide what is "core" and what isn't.

"One aspect of your question has to do with choice. For all practical purposes, BSA has a monopoly on scouting for boys in this country. It is chartered by Congress and the monopoly is jealously defended in court by BSA. There simply may not be other good choices for a parent who is not willing to wink at a requirement to believe in supernatural forces. As implied by Merlyn, some units do pay little attention to this requirement, leaving the decision up to the parent."

The Congressional Charter doesn't really provide anything more than trademark protection. There is no monopoly on the program elements of Scouting--anybody can start a similar organization with a different name. Another analogy: If I am a Methodist, and move to a town where everybody is a Baptist, what am I to do? I can join the Baptist Church and "wink" at the doctrinal differences. It may not be practical for me to start a Methodist church there, but it's not "unfair" for the Baptists to have their own beliefs and practices.

"I suggest from personal observation and conversation with atheist parents, that they recognize the reality of their lives and the back-of-the-bus status they are given because of their beliefs. They know their children must also learn this reality and learn how to live with it if the children are to live in this society. Therefore, just as the Jewish child or the Hindu child in this troop merely silently endures the prayers to Jesus, so does the child who does not recognize supernatural forces. And then they ALL go camping and have fun. BSA doesn't have to be so divisive in society - they choose to be."

BSA didn't choose to be "divisive." BSA from day one was a program with certain elements, and "Duty to God" was one of them. Maintaining this element is no more "divisive" than the Catholic Church maintaining its doctrines. Again, the flaw in this argument, in my opinion, is the idea that Scouting is really all about camping and having fun.

In sum, when you set aside the issue of government support, there simply is nothing unfair about the form of discrimination that BSA practices. It's a tough break for those who don't meet the membership criteria, certainly--especially if they live in an area in which Scouting is popular. I also don't mind arguments that BSA should change its requirements in some ways (I think it should change some of them)--but it's not enough to argue that there is discrimination.

Here, the District Eagle Advisor (I think that's his title) organizes them. He has a group of BOR chairs, and each candidate is asked to bring two persons to serve on a board. The twist is that a number of BORs are scheduled at the same time, and the people the candidate provides don't serve on his board, but on one of the others. I think this works well--the only drawback being that only the BOR chair knows much about the candidate in advance.

I think boys will join if they have exposure--the problem is getting them to visit the first time if they don't have experience as Cubs, and don't have parents who know about scouting. I think that's where some of the packaging creates a challenge.

"Place meat into pan and cover with 1000 gallons of brown gravy. Simmer slowly for 4 weeks."

You have to be careful if a patrol is making this, because sometimes the boys will get impatient and eat it after only two weeks.

I consider the experiment a failure, because I have no interest in alpacas, only llamas.

I wonder how much it takes to spark an ad like this? I mean, if I just mention something--say, swizzle sticks, maybe--is that enough?

I think Crew21 and I were typing at the same time. I agree with most of his/her post(I suppose one would say that the IH and COR are unit scouters) except for this:

"It is not correct that an adult pays 10 dollars, and by default becomes an adult leader. There is no "rubber stamp" approval."

I suspect that in many units, there pretty much is a rubber stamp IF the adult is the parent of a scout in the unit, and if the position involved is MC.

If you are talking about a Boy Scout Troop, there are only four unit scouter positions: Scoutmaster, Assistant Scoutmaster, Committee Chair, and Committee Member. Treasurer, Advancement, etc., are all just "MC" as far as BSA is concerned. So yes, I think it's the case that any unit scouter volunteers that are not SM, SA, or CC would be members of the committee. Could the committee be "packed" as you suggest? Well, each unit scouter must be approved by both the Committee Chair and the chartered organization head or representative. So if those two wanted to pack the committee, they could do it. Of course, the COR calls the shots anyway, ultimately. Could a group of adults secretly plot to take over the committee, with their plan unknown to the Committee Chair and the chartered organization rep? They could try to do this, but again, they couldn't ultimately do anything that the CO doesn't want them to do, and if their ideas are opposed by the Committee Chair and the SM, it's likely that the CO will defer to those leaders. It seems to me that if something like this is really brewing, it's more likely that there will be an open dispute--eventually, superior numbers may prevail, but it's likely to be the majority of the unit (including parents, whether they are on the committee or not), rather than a transient artificial majority of committee members, that will persuade the CO to support one view or the other.

"In such a suit, the standards of judgment for your driving would be those of the broader world (assured clear distance, etc.), not da stuff in G2SS like no caravaning or driving at night."

Well, now, here's where I don't agree. We're talking about a personal injury suit, where the standard is going to be whether the driver was negligent or not--whether he took the care that a reasonable person would have under the circumstances. The plaintiff's lawyer will point out that the driver was operating under the auspices of an organization with safety rules, and that he was violating them. I agree that this won't keep BSA from defending the driver, but the jury will probably be allowed to consider this, with all the other facts, in deciding whether the driver was negligent or not. The driver will be allowed to provide contrary evidence, i.e., that caravaning was actually safer, that it's not against the law, etc. But I will also point out that in 999 out of 1000 cases, all the cars in the caravan will have been exceeding the speed limit at the time of the accident, and it gets more complicated.

"I just think that if I were an MBC, I'd expect a boy to do all the requirements once he signed up to do the MB and not count his hobbies or activities from previous years."

I guess I just don't understand this...to me, the MB recognizes what the boy has accomplished. I don't see why it's important that he was doing it after the blue card was signed. Take an example--one of the requirements for the Music MB is "serve for six months as a member of a school band" etc. When advising this MB, it has never occurred to me to require that the six months begin after the blue card is signed. What would be the purpose? I will say that I have observed some overreaching by boys in arguing that past activities should count for various MB requirements, and I agee that a MBC should insist on documentation where he has doubts, and should insist that the past activity fully satisfy the requirement. (For example, I would only allow use of a past trek for Backpacking if it met all the requirements--including a plan written before the trek.)

"For example, this year Camping has had some minor revisions to it, but most of the requirements have remained the same. Am I going to make the boy start his count of 20 nights again? Not likely, although technically he probably should."

So my answer to this would be that if the boy chooses to use the new requirements, I would count old activities as long as they fully satisfy the new requirements--so in this case, I would allow him to count past nights toward the 20, but only if they were at Scouting activities. So I guess there might be some boys who would have to start over, if all of their previous camping was non-Scouting--but I would think those boys would choose to stick with the old requirements.

I wasn't referring to something like the James West Fellowship--I was thinking rather of the patch that our Council gives out for much more modest FOS donations. I wasn't really trying to be snide--rather, I was saying that when it comes to patches, let a thousand flowers bloom. There are already so many patches, I can't see the harm in creating new ones if it helps recognize and encourage a volunteer activity.

If I can "earn" a patch by writing a check, I don't see why BSA shouldn't give out patches for just about any volunteer activity.

It seems to me that the change should make the question of when to start counting easier. What reason could there be not to count camping as part of a designated Scouting activity?

"Camp a total of at least 20 days and 20 nights. Sleep each night under the sky or in a tent you have pitched. The 20 days and 20 nights must be at a designated Scouting activity or event. You may use a week of long-term camp toward this requirement. If the camp provides a tent that has already been pitched, you need not pitch your own tent."

I still don't find this to be crystal clear, but I think the best reading would be that to count for the MB, the camping at the long-term camp must be in a tent--it just doesn't have to be one the boy pitched. I reach that conclustion by comparing the new language to the old language, which had led many to think that nights at long-term camp counted no matter where the boy slept. I would have to go on to say that I don't think this language allows counting nights in an Adirondack shelter, even at long-term camp. I will point out that the prior language allowed a different interpretation, and a boy who started the MB under the prior language shouldn't be penalized for the change, especially if the MBC already signed off the nights of camping. I have mixed feelings about making all 20 nights be at "designated" Scouting events. While it makes it easier on the MBC, it excludes camping that is "real" camping. It also makes the Camping MB something that you can only work on through organized Scouting events, which is different from most other MBs. I have to wonder whether part of the motive for this change was to increase the incentive to go to long-term summer camp.(This message has been edited by Hunt)

"If a scout comes to me with the intent to complete his Eagle at the last moment, I hope that I will do all that is possible to have it come to pass."

Well, I will too. But if it's guy who checked out two years ago, and it's three months until his birthday, etc., inside I'll be grumbling. As I've said elsewhere, I would still prefer that he do it at the last minute than that he not do it at all, even after a long hiatus, but I do think he should realize that he's asking a lot of the others who will have to help him.

"Boys will look for:

- fun

- fun

- fun

- fun"

I agree with this, mostly, but I think there is something else boys are looking for, although they wouldn't articulate it--and that's inclusion. This depends entirely on how they are treated by the other boys when they first visit. If they are immediately treated like one of the guys and included in what is going on, that will have a positive impact on them. When we were shopping for troops, we went to a big troop, and they had a whole program for visitors, with games, etc. I was pretty impressed by their level of organization, and their program. When we visited a small troop, they didn't have any special program--they were getting their stuff ready for a campout. The boys immediately drew my son into what they were doing--away from the adults--and treated him like he was already one of them. To him the choice was crystal clear--he joined the smaller troop. This may not be enough to overcome the peer pressure of a whole bunch of denmates joining a troop en masse, but I think it makes a tremendous difference to the single visitor.

The problem I have with boys who return at the 11th hour to finish up Eagle after a long absence is with the demands they place on the troop and its leadership. They often need people to mobilize quickly to help them get a project approved and done before it is too late, and MBCs have to rush around to get those last badges done. I think this is a lot to ask from a boy who has been checked out for a lengthy period of time. Of course, we've had to do that same kind of rushing around for boys who were active in the troop but still needed to do a project and badges just before turning 18, but I can't help feeling differently about them.

I thought it was expensive too, until I compared the cost to other sleep-away camps my kids had attended--I mean, other than regular Boy Scout summer camp. It's still expensive, but the price includes travel to England, and a tour. Also, they will have to feed him while he is there, which will save me a bundle.

When I was in high school, my French teacher took a group of students to France for a trip over spring break, and my parents didn't let me go. I don't know if it was the money or some other reason. But I decided that if my kids want to do something like this--what is essentially a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, I would do my best to make it happen.

"Avoid large sheath knives. They are heavy and awkward to carry, and unnecessary for most camp chores except for cleaning fish."

This seems to me to be pretty far from a declaration that these knives are unsafe--it really seems to suggest that they are inconvenient to carry around, at least if they are "large." I think, however, that misbehavior is more likely with a sheath knife than a modest pocketknife (although I've seen that, too).

"To paraphrase the Commander in Chief, the CO is the decider. They are the ones who signed the charter agreement, and only they can decide to "fold the troop". Registered scouts and leaders come and go, but the "Unit" belongs to the CO."

Technically, this is true, but I don't think it's the reality for many troops. If the folks in the unit aren't able to keep going, most COs are not likely to mobilize to find new people.

"An ECOH has several purposes, in addition to recognizing the scout's achievement. It is also to motivate the younger scouts, to show your CO that you are delivering results, and to allow the parents and leaders to bask in pride. Is that too much to expect? Or is it all about the scout and only what he wants?"

I would also say that it is an opportunity for the scout to thank and recognize all the people who helped him along the way--his parents, his scout leaders, his fellow scouts--all those people who made sacrifices so he could earn this achievement. Even if he doesn't want to be the center of attention, he owes it to them to have his COH. He can craft it to focus on them rather than himself if he wants to.