Hunt

SeattlePioneer, your plan may make a lot of sense if there are counselors who will not count activities done before the blue card is issued--as we've heard some do for camping for example. Rather than "issuing" the cards, though, I suppose you could just suggest that scouts may want to obtain blue cards for MBs that upcoming activities may relate to.

If the COR is insisting that the troop keep strict kosher at all campouts, that's actually pretty hard for people who are not kosher. It's not like avoiding one food that somebody doesn't eat. Really, the boys would have to have separate kosher gear to do it right--even their personal gear, if they use any of it for cooking. And if there are no boys in the troop who keep kosher, it's too much of an imposition. That being said, if the whole purpose of the CO's involvement is to provide a kosher troop, then you may have no option other than to seek out a new CO. What about the church where you actually meet?

"Taking the example of the Lad and the Flag that Hunt gave. Being as we are in the business of helping people make ethical decisions, I wonder what the Lad would say if you asked him if he really thought that he had met the requirement?" I don't disagree with you at all--although I think I have encountered a few boys who really might not know what a "ceremony" is. Once it was explained to them, then I think your approach would likely be effective.

See, here's a fine example of the distinction between adding to the requirements and interpreting the requirements. dan, sorry to direct this at you. First, when you say you only count nights of camping after the blue card is signed, I think you are interpreting the requirements--in my opinion, overly strictly--but within your rights as a MBC. On the other hand, when you make the boys repitch the tent at long-term camp, you are clearly adding to the requirement. The requirement says: "Camp a total of at least 20 days and 20 nights. You may use a week of long-term camp toward this requirement. Sleep each night under the sky or in a tent you have pitched (long term camp excluded)." What is crystal clear from this is that a week at camp in a tent counts, whether the boy pitched the tent or not. I think the requirement was formerly worded differently, but that's the wording and the clear meaning now. As for "camping" in a cabin, I would have to say that the language is still a bit ambiguous. It may well mean, as Fscouter argues, that a week at camp counts, wherever you sleep. On the other hand, it could mean, as anarchist suggests, that it's just intended to allow nights to count in the semi-permanent tents many BSA camps uses. As I indicated before, if one of the purposes of this exception to the requirement is to encourage boys to go to summer camp, then I think FScouter has the better of that particular point--I don't think there are too many cabins at BSA camps anyway.

My suggestion is to tell him that he's welcome to stay without a uniform, but that he should understand that he can never be signed off for Scout Spirit if he's too embarrassed to be associated with the program, and that unless and until he changes his mind he can't advance.

But, asking what what examples of showing duty to God, if he is going to say that he isn't sure that there is a God? If I were an agnostic scout, here's what I'd say: "Right now, I'm in a period in which I'm not sure there is a God. I think my duty, then, is to give serious attention to the question: I intend to talk to my parents and to spiritual leaders, to read books, both pro and con, and to think about what it means to live in a world with no God, and in a world where there is a God. If there is a God, I think one of the main ways to show duty to God is to treat others with kindness--and my commitment to that hasn't changed." If a boy said that, wouldn't you want to wait and see how his quest turned out?

I would just like to point out that for many MB requirements, you have to take the boy's word for it that he really completed the requirement. For these, I don't see much difference in whether he did them for you or for a previous counselor. For example, if a boy tells me he and his family had a family meeting, I'm not going to ask his family to verify it (at least, not unless I have some other reason to doubt the boy's truthfulness). On the other hand, if the requirement calls for something to be shown to the counselor, I guess I'd want to see it too.

I remember a former thread in which some folks thought sleeping in a cave wouldn't count because it was not under the stars. I think that would be a judgment call. My interpretation of these requirements would be that any camping since beginning scouting should count (otherwise, it would make sense to hand out Camping blue cards at their first meeting). Second, I would recognize camping at a BSA long-term camp that was really "camp." If it's really a conference in a building or something, maybe not. Part of this requirement is to encourage scouts to go to summer camp.

"And when we get an anti-gun government in power, that makes the testing so impossible that no one can pass it, then what do we do?" I find it interesting that conservatives are always talking about the rights of the majority when Constitutional interpretations limit something they want to do (like have school prayer), but they aren't quite so majoritarian when the majority disagrees with them.

I started a thread in the Advancement board on what constitutes adding to a requirement, and what constitutes interpreting a requirement, to try to talk about the idea beyond the context of one particular requirement.

Prairie Scouter, I think your approach to "active" is reasonable--but I will just point out that you've decided to accept a range of interpretations of what the term means. As you suggest, there may be limits to how broad you will allow that range to get--and then, you're interpreting the requirement, too. It's certainly within the power of BSA to offer clarification on a point like this if it wants to--it has done so for other issues (for example, it has made it clear that there is no 1-year time limit for merit badges, no limit on parents serving as MBCs, and no limit on the number of badges earned from one MBC). I'm not sure what we can infer from BSA's choice not to clarify the meaning of "active." Maybe BSA thinks it's OK for there to be a range of interpretations on this point? Also, I'd like to make it clear that I think there are bad or wrong or unreasonable interpretations. For example, I would criticize a troop that required perfect attendance to be considered "active," just as I would criticize one that felt a boy was "active" who didn't show up at all. I really dislike the interpretation of the Camping MB requirements that some MBCs apply, requiring all the nights of camping to occur after the blue card is signed, for another example. I couldn't claim that such a MBC is adding to the requirements, because the requirements aren't specific on this point, but I can give lots of arguments on the merits why I think a different interpretation is better.

"Lastly, while I am personally repulsed by the idea of torture what would you prescribe for each of these scenarios? Its a given that a particular individual holds certain knowledge of controllable events, which if let unchallenged, will lead to the deaths of - Dozens of American and allied soldiers? - Hundreds of civilians? - Thousands of Americans? What order of magnitude does a preventable tragedy need to sustain, for it to become a crossable threshold? When does your desire to prevent the killing of innocent lives become so strong that you abandon your indignation for torture?" Never. I would think somebody who believes in moral absolutes would agree with that. Once you start down that road, next you're arguing that if enough innocent lives will be saved, it's justifiable to torture the suspect's wife and children in front of him so he'll talk. Once you convince yourself that it's OK to violate some absolute moral rule in the interest of the "greater good," you've left morality behind.

It has been pointed out many times that it is inappropriate for a unit to add to the requirements for rank advancement. I think it would be worthwhile to discuss what does, and does not constitute adding to requirements. First, the easy case: Unit A decides that it will not approve any boy for Eagle unless he earns the Backpacking merit badge. This is adding to the requirements. There is no question of interpretation at all. But let's take some other scenarios. Scout: Mr. SM, I helped the custodian raise the flag at my school this morning--does that count as a flag ceremony? SM: Did you do anything beyond just raising the flag--salute, say some words, etc.? Scout: No, we just raised it. SM: Well, it seems to me that this doesn't really amount to a ceremony. Why don't you ask SPL to put you in the color guard for the next meeting? Does anybody think this SM has added to the requirement? I don't think he has--he's just used a common-sense interpretation of what "ceremony" means. What seems to trouble people the most is when a particular unit wants to institutionalize an interpretation that is not spelled out by BSA. The one that's been discussed most often is what it means to be "active." Is it really adding to that requirement if the troop says that active means attending more than half of meetings or events? I don't think it is--it's not saying that you have to do something more or other than be active--it's just interpreting what the word active means. Certainly you might disagree with this interpretation, but it's not the same as saying that the unit has added to the requirement. Another example--everybody in the troop shows up to work on Joe's Eagle project. Is that a troop activity that counts for the lower ranks? I can see a good argument either way: on one hand, the troop did it and it wasn't a meeting; on the other hand, an Eagle project isn't really a troop activity. If a SM refused to count this as an activity, I wouldn't say he was adding to the requirements, but rather that he was interpreting the requirement. I guess that there can be interpretations that are so extreme that they constitute adding to the requirement (i.e., I think this is where I would place a decision that summer camp was not a troop activity.)

"I find such terms as "bar him from meetings", "kicking him out" and "strip him of membership" to be inflammatory." I can understand why you don't like those terms, but using a euphemism isn't going to fool anybody. If the boy tells you he doesn't believe in God but would like to stay in the troop, you're going to tell him he can't. He's certainly going to feel that he's been kicked out, whatever language you use. Whether it's appropriate to do so is another question. Also, I can't agree that BSA doesn't use the words atheist and agnostic--in fact, they're right there in the language from an official BSA FAQ that Eamonn quoted. I'm not sure any of us disagree, however, that what's important is what the boy actually believes, and not the the label.

"We don't "kick a boy out" of Scouting. That would be painful and be a violation of the G2SS. If a boy makes an informed decision that he does not believe in God and will not demonstrate his duty to God, then we are obligated to tell him that means he is giving up his membership. We then drop him from the roster in accordance with his decision." So you're going to tell him he can no longer be a member, drop him from the roster, and (presumably) bar him from attending meetings and outings, but you're not kicking him out? Please. Sure, it may be his own mental state that's causing him to be kicked out, but you are going to take the steps that will strip him of membership, especially if he doesn't want to go. One thing we should have all observed about teenagers is that what they say today may not be what they'll say tomorrow, or even an hour from now. So this boy should definitely be given time to think it over, and to decide if he believes in God or not. Personally, I think even the most nebulous, ill-formed, and even doubtful belief in God should be encouraged and nurtured--for me, only a flat statement of non-belief, repeated after a signficant cooling-off period, would lead me to tell a Scout that he can no longer be a member. If he has only a general belief in the divine, it's possible to say a completely nonsectarian grace, such as "We are all grateful for the bounty of the earth, and for this food we are about to eat."

Perhaps a diplomatic way of explaining this to the CC is that the Scoutmaster is in charge of advancement. The SM authorizes who can sign off on requirements. For Second Class and First Class, there is a requirement to participate in a certain number of troop/patrol activities. Obviously, summer camp is an activity. The requirements say how many of the activities must be campouts. More likely, what is going on here is the CC's desire to set a rule for what constitutes "active" for purposes of Star, Life, and Eagle rank. There's a thread about this on the Advancement board. You will find that there is some difference of opinion here on whether a unit can or should set an attendance rule. However, I'd be surprised if most people--even if they have a rule--would think that summer camp or other non-camping outings don't count.

I'm visualizing those bright red Crocs, a bright red long-sleeved shirt under the short-sleeved uniform shirt, and a bright red neckerchief.

Even if we accept your idea that the Second Amendment grants the individual the right to bear "personal" weapons, a modern court will still have to determine where to draw the line. Military-style automatic weapons are the descendants of those muskets--does everybody have the Constitutional right to own one? And what's the difference between that and a shoulder-mounted RPG? What makes it "personal?" I guess my point is that if a case on this topic comes before the Supreme Court, there is really no way to avoid the losing side thinking that the Court has made an "activist" decision. If the Court says that the Amendment gives everybody the right to bear an Uzi, the losers will say that the court stretched the clear meaning of the language, and if the Court rules to the contrary, the losers will argue that the Court refused to give credence to the "clear meaning" of arms. Even the most extreme originalist is going to have to figure out how to apply language written in the 19th century to 21st century facts, and that is going to require interpretation and extrapolation, which will always look like activism to the losers.

I think the possible point of confusion between what Ed and TheScout are saying is this: The CO probably has the power to require all scouts in the unit to own and wear uniforms. It has the power to set all kinds of membership and even programmatic requirements that go beyond what BSA sets out. Thus, it seems to me, a CO could decree that you can't be in the troop unless you own and wear a uniform. What Ed is saying, I think, is that units can't add to rank requirements. Could a CO decree that no scouts in their unit can earn Eagle without earning the Cooking merit badge? I don't think so. Does a uniform requirement add to rank requirements? I can see the argument, but I don't think it does, except to the extent that any overall membership requirement does. The charter agreements I have seen require the CO to administer the program according to "its own guidelines and policies and those of BSA," which I take to include the advancement policies. Finally, a separate question is whether a CO or a troop should impose a uniform requirement, as opposed to whether it can.

"In fact, there is a perception among some of these parents that the "smarter and more athletic boys quit Scouting around 5th grade". This is a direct quote from an elementary school teacher whose son dropped out after Cub Scouts." What a sour grapes comment! I have a couple of suggestions--first, put your uniform in a garment bag and change into it after you leave the house. If your wife doesn't like to see you in it, why aggravate her? Second, emphasize the elements of scouting that nobody could call geeky--the emphasis on the outdoors and the building of leadership qualities. Third, ask yourself whether your wife is really complaining that you are putting too much time into Scouting that you were formerly putting into family activities. If this is the case, she may have a valid concern.

ScoutNut, I think he's saying the boy spoke to a former SM for guidance, and then went back for this second discussion with the current SM.

"I wonder if the American people would be OK with having to register with the police what Church they attend. If you wanted to get into a chuch, you would have to present your photo ID identifying you as a "church goer". Now, you can go to any church you want, there is no repercussions because you or are not a "chuch goer" you just have to be registered to go to church." I don't know...I don't think this is a very strong analogy. The gun is a dangerous instrumentality, and society has a strong interest in insuring that it not be used illegally and recklessly. It's really much more like an automobile in that respect. I would point out that we also make people get a license before getting married, and marriage is definitely a fundamental right. I would also disagree with those who say there is no constitutional right to drive a car. While driving isn't specifically mentioned, because of our right to equal protection of the laws, the government can't unfairly restrict who gets a license. I guess the government could ban all cars, but once they start licensing people, they can't refuse to license for unfair or discriminatory reasons. And to get back to the main point, sort of, TheScout argues that when the Second Amendment says "arms" it doesn't distinguish between what kinds of arms are meant. This means, I guess, that he thinks every American has a constitutional right to possess a flamethrower, rocket-propelled grenade launcher, or any other weapon he can afford. So even if the Supreme Court were to agree that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms, it would have to engage in interpretation to determine what "arms," exactly, should be considered within the term.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that this decision is based on religious beliefs. I think it's appropriate to ask for an explanation. I would also say that if you don't think individual units should establish rules that go beyond what BSA requires, why should this one be any different? In another thread, we're talking about whether a troop should have a settled definition of what "active" is for purposes of advancement, and it's been argued that rather than having a rule, it's better to teach and counsel. It seems to me that Ed is now being criticized for making a similar point about uniforming. (Although maybe I might suggest to Ed that if he feels compelled to bring up the point about BSA not requiring a uniform again, he might want to include the point about wearing and encouraging the uniform in same post, so people don't think he's denigrating the uniform.)

No, you're wrong about footwear--the insignia inspection guide clearly says you must wear footwear, which must be "leather or canvas--neat and clean." So you can wear shoes, but if they're made of man-made materials, you lose points. (Is there anybody--even one person--who wants to argue that a boy wearing decent-looking vinyl or other artificial shoes isn't properly uniformed?)

I agree that it is very difficult for some children to approach adults who aren't family members, and they have to be taught how to do it and encouraged. You might have a kid who would have no problem asking Dad for a Gameboy, but if Dad said, "Here, take this money and go ask that salesclerk to sell you a Gameboy," would have a big problem. You can't overcome this reticence by simply telling a boy to develop some initiative--you have to help him along. Good boy leaders will help, because they are easier to approach.