Hunt

At the local Laser Tag business, the staff members never refer to the laser "handset" as a weapon or gun, and they don't talk about "shooting," only "tagging." Perhaps their trade association has been lobbying BSA?

My take on this is that discussions can remain courteous and helpful if folks will remember to discuss issues on the merits. That means, for example, if you want to discuss age-based patrols, explain why you think they are effective, or why you don't. It's fine to cite BSA's position, but even if it's a BSA rule, it's better to explain why it's better. If somebody really wants to know whether approach X is the best, they will not be assisted much by either of the following: (1) Approach X is suggested/discouraged by BSA or (2) Use Approach X if it works for you. Rather, people want to understand the reasons behind an approach, and how it has worked out in practice. If it's an approach that BSA promotes, that's evidence that it's good, but not conclusive.

When we're talking about BSA safety requirements, or specific advancement requirements, or the like, it certainly is relevant and important to understand what BSA requires, and to point out--politely--when somebody seems to be straying from those requirements.

Whenever this comes up, it seems to me that the problem is too much of a black-and-white understanding of what an adult "patrol" is. I think there's a continuum in how "patrol-like" the adults are. In other words, if the only thing that makes them a "patrol" is that they camp and cook together, and call themselves the Geezer Patrol, I can't really see the objection. On the other hand, if they were to really organize as a patrol, with a PL and APL, etc., then I can see the objection, especially if they can be seen as competing with the boys, or doing their own thing rather than being available to the boys. Having a flag with a rocking chair on it is somewhere in between, I think.

Right now at my church, we have been tasked to create a new updated child protection policy. Although it will include some rules and background checks, the exact parameters are not mandated by the denomination. As I have been mulling over the options, it is clear to me that as you increase your certainty of protection, the cost and disruption to other elements of your program increase. For example, there is a suggestion that there should always be at least two adults in any class with children or youth (a requirement not imposed by BSA, by the way). There is a cost to this requirement, though, when it is difficult to get enough Sunday School teachers for even one adult in each class.

Also, there are different levels of background check, with different costs. Do you require costly checks for every person who even casually has contact with children and youth, or only those with regular contact? (Note that BSA requires background checks for all registered leaders, but parents may go on outings without having background checks.) You could do much more extensive background checks than BSA does--interview neighbors, ask to see Internet logs, etc.--this would cost a lot of money, and would alienate some potential leaders who didn't have anything to hide. Where do you draw the line?

And how do you use the info you get from the background check? Do you exclude anybody who has ever been convicted of any crime? There's a cost if you do that. Some people decline to give out their Social Security Numbers as a matter of principle--if you have to exclude those people as leaders, it's a cost.

I mention this because it becomes obvious when you're developing a new or revised policy that you have to balance the potential benefits against the costs (and the costs are not just monetary). It's really no different when you look at an existing policy and ask questions about whether the costs it imposed are justified by the benefits.

I think most boys--especially if they are leaders in the troop--will not see much difference between being told to clean the stove and being led through a little Socratic dialogue designed to make them realize that the stove needs to be cleaned. They may feel that the second approach is a bit more polite, I suppose. To me, the observable difference is the extent to which the adult leader insists that things be done his way. If he is this kind of leader, everybody knows it, whatever form of words he uses to convey his directions, coaching, suggestions, questions, etc.

Huckabee can say lots of things about religion without it constituting a stupid mistake--a stupid mistake is something that will cause a person who might have voted for him to decide not to do so. So he can say that this country should return to Christian values, that prayer should be returned to the schools, that gay marriage should be banned, even that the Constitution should be amended to do those things, and it won't really lose him many votes. If he were to say, for example, that only Christians can be saved and everybody else is going to Hades (which he may well believe), THAT would be a mistake that could lose him votes. He got close to it with some of his remarks about Mormonism, but he's no dope. I continue to think that Huckabee will take lots of evangelical votes in places like South Carolina, because those Christian conservatives aren't really Republicans--they are social conservatives who don't particularly want tax cuts for the rich, but who really would like to see abortion and gay marriage banned. And they are smart enough to know that the other Republican candidates won't do much to push those agenda items if they get elected.

Here's my inside-the-Beltway take on the candidates:

Dems:

Hillary: Not inevitable any more, but the Clintons know how to campaign and can't be underestimated. She also has the advantage that if other candidates beat up on her too much, women will go out and vote for her (I think this is what happened in NH.) Odds of getting the nomination: Even

Obama: Inspirational speaker, with a life story that fits what many Americans would like to think America is. Will get lots of younger voters. Doesn't seem to have much dirty laundry other than what he admitted himself in his book. Odds: Even.

Edwards: Clearest message, populist appeal. May catch fire in the South, but I don't think so. Big downside: his wife will almost certainly die in the next four years, which America does not need to go through. Odds: 3-to-1 against.

Dennis Kucinich: Uh, yeah. Odds: 500-to-1 against.

Mike Gravel: Is he still in it? If so, odds worse than Kucinich.

Repubs:

McCain: Surging because of weakness of other candidates. Likely to be picked up by Republican mainstream because they won't want Huckabee. Odds: Even

Huckabee: Will continue to be much stronger than expected because (a) only candidate evangelicals will strongly support (b) seems like a pretty nice guy. Assuming he makes no stupid mistakes, has a real shot. Odds: 2-to-1.

Romney: Seems to be fading, but would generally be most appealing to mainstream, business-obsessed party members. Inability to appeal to evangelicals probably was underestimated. Odds: 3-to-1.

Giuliani: Also fading. What Republicans, exactly, does he appeal to? His personal life will also sink him, especially with religious voters. Odds: 5-to-1.

Thompson: Never got started. Never will get started. Odds: 10-to-1.

Paul: Will be in it until the end, and will get a surprising number of votes. Will not win in any state. Odds: 100-to-1.

My prediction: the election will be Obama vs. McCain, and Obama will win. Putting aside policy, experience, and everything else, the voters will opt for what appears to be a major change in the status quo. (Additional prediction: Bloomberg will stay out.)

Well, there are at least some people who think BSA has the right to set whatever membership policies it wants, but that it should leave it up to CORs to decide whether gay people can be leaders or members of particular units. There's nothing inconsistent or pandering about thinking that--unless, of course, you don't really think Romney does think that. But he's a moderate Republican who was governor of Massachusetts--that's probably exactly what he thinks about it.

We tend to set them up on demand, or a week ahead--but we almost always have at least three committee members present at troop meetings. Perhaps you could get some more parents to sign up as committee members, and agree to be available at the beginning or end of meetings? That's a good first way to get them involved, too.

"Another thing that will happend that the local screen shop that makes a dozen or two shirts for most of the units in a district will get hammered and wind up going out of business."

I don't think this is going to happen--at worst, BSA would tell the units not to do it. BSA isn't going to chase small T-shirt shops for a couple of hundred bucks. No, this is only going to hurt those units who feel honor-bound to observe BSA's policy. (Making your own iron-ons is a good solution--there doesn't seem to be any prohibition of that.)

"Here's the reality Ed, if I follow the teachings of Christ but believe that he's an alien who came to Earth to recruit people to populate his city on Znerflot then I am a Christian."

Well, no, unless like Humpty Dumpty, you think a word means whatever you say it means. As I noted above, a person is a "Christian" if (a) from the religious studies point of view, he is part of the Christian tradition, or (b) he shares the core beliefs of Christianity. Your Znerflottian sect might make the cut on the first definition (barely), but not the second. Note that this has nothing to do with whether a religion is true, or doctrinally correct, or not--it has to do with what category it belongs in.

I don't hate Scouting, but I'm not crazy about this policy! Looking at the FAQ page, it appears that if you have your back-to-Scouting night flier copied at Kinko's, Kinko's is violating the trademark if you have a logo on the flier. Of course, in most of the real world, everybody would know that such policies aren't enforced at the micro level, and that nobody is going to care or do anything about it if you have a dozen t-shirts made at a local, unlicensed silkscreen shop. However, there are plenty of people in BSA who will not have that attitude, and will actually obey these requirements even in the most picayune, silly applications. They are the ones BSA is hurting with this.

I am going to give the definitive answer to the question of whether Mormons are Christians or not: yes and no.

The fact is that Mormonism grows out of Protestant Christianity, and includes a number of important elements of Christianity, including a special role of Jesus in the salvation of mankind. In that sense, yes, it is a form of Christianity.

On the other hand, the doctrines of Mormonism deviate significantly form the core doctrines shared by almost all Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians, especially with regard to the nature of God and of Jesus in particular.

So if you are defining "Christianity" in the way a Religious Studies professor might, yes, Mormonism is a part of the broader category of "Christianity." If, however, you are defining Christianity in terms of the core doctrines shared by the vast majority of Christians worldwide, no, Mormonism is not Christianity.

I am also familiar with a similar "anecdote." It appears that BSA does not have the equivalent of "suspended with pay" that something like a police department might have.

"This review is not and should not be an examination or retest of skills learned."

That seems pretty simple to me. As I said, you don't have to agree with it, you don't have to like it, and you don't even have to comply with it. But if you retest at BORs, make sure you don't criticize people who fail to do other parts of Scouting by the book.

"If Im sitting on a BOR and I toss a scout a length of line and ask him to tie a bowline and he cant but I still vote to advance was the request a test?"

Yes, it was. I am amazed the lengths to which folks will go, and the knots they will tie themselves in, to justify continuing to test skills at BORs. If you disagree with BSA, and think that retesting is good, that's one thing. But requiring a boy to demonstrate skills and saying it's not "really" a test is something else.

"Only gets ugly if your son kept no records, and his old troop never submitted an Advancement Report, and his old troop folded, and everybody in his old troop who knew anything died."

I wish that scenario was far-fetched! But I agree with you that most paperwork problems should be fixable.

But...the boy stayed home to "help clean" when he urgently needed these signatures? This is all after his 18th birthday, when he had turned in the wrong application...which he found online and filled out the day before his birthday? This story doesn't really make sense to me...maybe we need more details before we leap to his defense.

I see two risks: the first is that an undeserving boy will obtain the Eagle rank through nefarious means. The second is that a deserving boy will be denied the Eagle rank due to paperwork problems that may not be his fault. Personally, I think the second risk is much greater, and I would be willing to accept a few of the first to avoid the second. Also, I think it's difficult for a boy to cheat the system in a major way without the connivance of unit leaders, and in that case the paperwork will probably appear to be in good order anyway.

Boys don't want shorts that end above the knee. That was my son's only objection to the switchbacks.

Actually, BSA has very few membership requirements when compared to other religious organizations.

I agree with Lisa that the response, "if you don't like it, you should just leave," is usually a dodge to avoid discussing the issue on the merits. And it's not unusual...I seem to recall being told that if I didn't like the official uniform pants, I should just leave. By the way, did a lot of people quit BSA when it changed its policy on female leadership? And do you think that anybody who disagreed with the old policy should have quit before the policy change? As others have said, it is all about how important the particular issue is to you when put in context of the overall picture of costs and benefits.

I may be a Pollyanna, but I tend to think that the vast majority of Scouters wearing the wrong knots are doing so innocently--either they have the wrong knot, or were presented the knot in error, or something like that. Just say, "Wow! Look at all those knots! What do they all represent?"

Isn't a submarine a boat?

Here's a radical suggestion for why more boys might make Eagle now than previously: perhaps boys (or at least a substantial subset of boys) work harder now and are more goal-oriented than boys did in the past. My kids certainly work much harder in school than I did, with tougher subjects sooner, and I see lots of kids in highly competitive settings, like travel sports teams, musical competitions, etc. BSA's advancement program is very attractive to a certain type of boy who likes to focus on goals.