Hunt

Ordep periodically appears in Boys Life--in fact, he appears in the most recent issue, and it seems he has another nefarious scheme underway. Bob says, "I think you are asking the WRONG PEOPLE." Why? You certainly have an opinion about why membership is declining, and you expressed it. Was the poll you mentioned published somewhere? Such a poll might shed some more light on problems with retention, although perhaps not with recruitment.

Certainly the scout won't be instructed to recruit half-heartedly--but if it's just a check-off, I think that may well be what happens. Furthermore, once he's talked to one friend, he may think, "Well, that's it for recruting." I do think there might be something to the idea of incentivizing recruiting more, but I don't think this would be a good way to accomplish it. Is this for real, anyway?

I understand the idea that units with bad programs have trouble recruiting and even more trouble retaining. But the opposite should be true: good units should be growing. So, if this is the main cause of national membership declines, that means that the average unit's program is declining in quality. What's the evidence for that, other than the membership decline itself? There were poorly run units when I was a kid, just as there are now. There were always leaders who ignored the program and did things their own way. Has the percentage of adult leaders who are trained gone up or down? (I'll bet the answer is up.) I suppose it could be that the adults are also over-scheduled and less willing to put in the necessary time, but I don't really see that, either. So, without some reason to think that more leaders are delivering bad programs than did in the past, I have trouble seeing this as an explanation for a national decline. For what it's worth, several boys who recently left my son's troop didn't like the outdoors element of the program. I still think Ordep has something to do with it.

I should give my own answer, I suppose: 15. Specifically, I blame Ordep.

After reading many threads, I'd like to propose an informal poll, so participants can vote on what they think are the reasons for decline in BSA membership. Identify one or more of the following: 1. Competition from other activities, such as youth sports. 2. Declining interest in the outdoors. 3. Scandals about membership numbers. 4. Scandals about criminal acts by professionals or volunteers. 5. Bad publicity about accidents. 6. The policy on gay membership. 7. The religious requirement. 8. The failure of local units to deliver a quality program. 9. The uniform. 10. The uniform pants, specifically. 11. Lack of accountability of professional leadership. 12. Overprotectiveness by parents. 13. The ACLU. 14. Continued presence of Pedro the Donkey in Boys Life. 15. Evildoers (other than ACLU) 16. Video games 17. Inability to tie square knot 18. Bad food at summer camp 19. Leaders who spend too much time online. 20. What decline?

"Doing sales as an individual? Doesn't your troopp promote it, explain, distribute the order forms, order stock, plan the money distribution? don't proceeds go to the unit? Thats a unit activity." Well, because quibbling is fun, I'll point out that if these things were done at a troop meeting, it wouldn't count as an "activity" for the purposes of the First Class requirement, any more than a game of catch at a meeting would be a separate "activity." And I'll quibble with ASM7 by saying that sales should be done with a buddy, and that, to me, this would make it an activity for the purposes of the rank requirements (but only one, no matter how many times they go out to sell). I would agree that this recruiting requirement, if it's real, is fairly modest, but it's really something that every scout should be urged to do every year--or more often.

My son's troop is fortunate in having a COR who is a former SM of the troop and is personally very involved. That being said, I don't really think there is anybody else in the CO who is particularly interested or involved with the troop. I'd be curious to hear accounts of COs that really are interested, that get involved in selecting leaders, that get training, etc. What kinds of organizations are they? Who or what persuaded them to get more involved? (I would think that COs who make the scouting program an element of their own program--like the LDS church--would be the most involved, while COs with transitory leadership--like a PTA--would be the least involved. Is that the case?)

I'm basically in agreement that if the Scout has done all the requirements, and lives the Oath and Law outside of scouting, I wouldn't hold him back. But...I still have to wonder how much one should do to enable this kind of enterprise. It's one thing if there is a boy who has been active in the troop, and just needs a final few items to finish before he ages out. I have nothing against helping such a boy. But when a boy shows up a few months before his birthday after a long period of inactivity, to what extent should the adults mobilize to help him? Usually, it's not just a matter of signing off a few requirements. Rather, it's a matter of finding MBCs who can help him finish the last few in a hurry, other adults who can help with shepherding the paperwork, and everybody in the troop hopping to so he can get his project done in time. It rubs me the wrong way for a boy to expect that kind of assistance if he hasn't been active for a year (and in the case here, he doesn't intend to be active in the future, either). Maybe I'm just grousing, and maybe I'd do it too, if the boy was one I knew, but it just doesn't seem right to me.

"Many volunteer firefighters apparently send clean uniform parts to fellow firefighters in stricken areas." Do you think some Boy Scouts will be needing replacement uniform parts?

Persons 17 and older can donate blood. In some states, apparently you can donate at 16 with a parent's permission.

It seems to me that both the "no 3 year difference" and "no tenting along" are ideas that are not BSA rules, but that some people think are good common-sense rules of thumb. I certainly think that no younger, inexperienced scout should be tenting alone. On the other hand, I just don't see a problem with the 17-year-old experienced SPL sleeping in his own tent, as long as it isn't isolated.

I think you should go to another troop. I suspect that whether you are in the right, or the SM is in the right, that you will never achieve happiness in this unit. Switch to another one right away.

I think packsaddle's continuum makes a good point, but I think up through level 4 is basically OK. I see nothing wrong with thinking that one's views are correct, and that somebody else's views are wrong, and further, that those wrong views lead to real-world effects that are undesirable. You can certainly have such an opinion without insulting anybody, without thinking that you are somehow innately superior, or that the other person is an enemy. Again, a good example is political views--I hold some political views pretty strongly, and I think that people with contrary views are seriously wrong, and that their views would harm the country. I see nothing wrong with this at all, nor do I have any problem with them thinking the same thing about my views. I think this becomes denigration only when I call them names, or when I ascribe their views to evil motives or to stupidity, etc. To bring this back to the point, at least somewhat--when BSA first included religious elements in the program, it was not designed to put anybody down--it was because the designers of the program really believed that duty to God was important.

My mother thinks New Orleans was punished for being a den of sin--I told her that's why it was smart to build Las Vegas in the desert. About people not evacuating--I think we may find that a major factor in people resisting evacuation was pets. Unless you could evacuate yourself, you generally could not bring your pets along, and many people simply would not voluntarily leave them. I don't know what to make of this, exactly, but I've read a number of reports that support this idea.

"Just as it's kind of hard to say it's better to be Christian than Jewish without denegrating Jews. Or better to be white than black without denegrating blacks." These two examples demonstrate my point--Christians think it's better to be a Christian not because Jews are innately inferior, but because the beliefs of the Christian religion are true--indeed, the Christians would be delighted if the Jews would become Christians. Somebody who thinks whites are better than blacks isn't basing this opinion on the differing beliefs of the two groups. (Although if somebody said that, because of rampant racism, it's better to be white than black in America today--who would that denigrate?) To give a different (and better) example, I think it's better to be a (Democrat/Republican) because the other party is so profoundly wrong on many issues. This denigrates the VIEWS, perhaps, but not the people. And to take this back to my point--your example suggests that you would criticize any religious organization for limiting its membership to religious people, because that would somehow "denigrate" people of different beliefs. Is that what you think? You think my friend who believed you had to be baptized to go to heaven was "denigrating" me when he told me this? (If so, he was simultaneously denigrating and proselytizing me.)

I have no problem with you presenting the other side of the coin, Bob. Indeed, in this case I mostly agreed with you that we don't have enough information to judge either case fully. But my problem with many of your posts is that rather than presenting the other side of an argument on substantive grounds, you want to argue that nobody has any business discussing the issue at all. I think that's a very quixotic position to take on an Issues and Politics board. Defend BSA all you want, that's great--but defend it on the merits.

To me, saying that theists make better citizens than atheists is like saying liberals make better citizens than conservatives (or the other way around). It's saying they make better citizens because their views are correct (in the eyes of the person making the comparison). This is entirely different from a comparison made on innate status (i.e., if somebody said men make better citizens than women, or that Asians make better citizens than Hispanics). Now you may disagree--you may even think that atheists make better citizens because they're not shackled by obsolete superstitions--but this simply isn't a matter of denigrating people because of their status. It is a rejection of their views, certainly, and they may find that insulting if they want to. Maybe the problem is the use of the term "citizen," which maybe suggests to some that atheists are disloyal or something. If BSA said, rather, that "we believe that no boy can reach his full potential as a human being without accepting and doing his duty to God" wouldn't this be a clearer statement that this is a religious view that you could take or leave?

Actually, Gonzales may be too much of a centrist for some Republicans.

"Why is this treated as a sport where spectators choose sides, and not a private matter between an employer and employee?" Could it be because the employer is an organization to which we belong, pay dues, and make voluntary donations, and whose actions reflect on us? Could it be because we think BSA should follow the Scout Oath and Law in its employer-employee relations, and in all its business dealings? I also continue to find it odd that somebody would come into an "Issues and Politics" discussion board to remind others that they have no business discussiong issues and politics.

I agree that there seems to be plenty of blame to go around, but I have to say that FEMA does seem to have dropped the ball. Whether this is because of poor leadership, or because too many resources have been diverted to other DHS activities, I don't know. But I think one thing this disaster has shown is that we really do need a swift federal response to major events like this--it became clear that troops were needed several days before they arrived in force. Imagine how much worse this might have been if it had been a terrorist attack with no warning--as one article I read said, what if terrorists blew up the levees? What happens if there is a nuclear or biological attack in a major city? I just thought we should have had our act together better than this by now. By the way, I think arguments about the role of race obscure the fact that poverty was an important factor in what happened--it really doesn't matter what race the poor people were. But because they were poor, they were less informed, less able to evacuate, less likely to have a social safety net to rely on. I hope this event shows that an evacuation order is not enough--there has to be an evacuation plan with the means of evacuating large numbers of poor people.

"You have no knowledge of what was in his employment contract. His actions must have violated that agreement in some way, as did Smith's. The difference being that St. Johns action became known to the BSA while still employed by them, Smith's was not." Well, you're entitled to make assumptions in BSA's favor, certainly. People who are suspicious of BSA will make contrary assumptions. Without more information, it's impossible to say which set of assumptions are correct. However, I do think it's fair to say that reasonable people can look at what is known about the St. Jean case and think that it looks unfair. Perhaps BSA can't correct that impression because of confidentiality, or because they anticipate litigation, or for some other unknown reason. But it sure looks to an outside observer like a pretty weak reason to fire somebody, and it does appear contrary to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that BSA has touted for members. Personally, I am willing to give BSA the benefit of the doubt on the Smith case, because I have to believe they would treat anybody as totally toxic when word of child pornography came out--I can't believe such a person would be protected, no matter how high up he is.

"The statement about a boy not being able to grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God pretty clearly is implying that atheists can't be the best kind of citizens. That sounds denigrating to me." If this is "denigration," then it is simply impossible to say that it is better to believe in God without denigrating those who don't. Somebody who feels disparaged or defamed by this kind of statement doesn't know too much about about denigration. In truth, BSA has been exceedingly mild and measured in its statements about atheists--it hasn't insulted them as morally bankrupt, or denied their right to believe what they want, or called them stupid, or anything like that (although not all individuals involved in Scouting have met this standard). It simply says that you can't be your best without believing in God--and what's so strange about religious people thinking that? Interestly, atheist organizations make similar statements about atheism. For example, here's an excerpt from the petition in the Murray case, taken from www.atheists.org: "Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now here on earth for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment." There's plenty more on that site and similar ones that explains why atheism is right, and that religious people are bound by supernaturalism, etc. These statements "denigrate" religious believers in exactly the same way BSA--and other religious groups--"denigrate" non-believers. It's sort of the way a vegetarian "denigrates" somebody who eats meat, I guess.

Sheesh. In the first post in this thread, it seemed that there may be a complaint that one can understand. It seems to be a claim that Council leadership is using a "Catch-22" to stay in power even though the CORs would like to have new leadership. The Catch-22, apparently, is that although the CORs have the right to vote on leadership slates, they don't have any power over who is offered in the slates. I can see that this would be a problem. But... 1. Is this really what has happened in Chicago? 2. Is this a problem anywhere else? 3. Does this have anything to do with any other complaints that anybody has about BSA? I guess it relates to the general idea that the leadership doesn't listen to the CORs, or to members, or something. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with Smith and St. Jean.

It seems to me that not enough facts have been made clear about the Smith case to know if there is inconsistency here. I think everybody can see the hypocrasy on Smith's part--and it goes far beyond firing somebody else. To know if BSA acted responsibly in the Smith case, you'd have to know what they knew and when they knew it. When did they learn that he had been accused of child pornography? What did they do at that point? Did he deny guilt? Certainly, I don't think you should fire somebody for being accused of a crime, unless they admit it to you. You might take prudent action, such as making sure they don't have any contact with youth while it's being sorted out. What did BSA actually do? From what little we know, Smith took retirement before the charges were actually filed. There may not have been much else BSA could do. For the St. Jean case, I have to say that simply staying at a "gay" resort does not, to me, rise to the level of being an "avowed" homosexual. There could be plenty of reasons a non-gay person might go there--maybe he got a good rate on Priceline. If that is really the only basis they had for firing the guy, I think it really does not comply with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. So while I have to wonder if the firing of St. Jean was fair, I just don't see any evidence of disparate treatment here. Nobody can possibly think that Smith wouldn't have been fired if he hadn't retired before charges were filed.

I acually think Roberts will be easier to confirm as a replacement for Rehnquist than as a replacement for O'Connor. He's really a lot like Rehnquist, and he just doesn't have much baggage, except that he's conservative. The interesting questions now is who Bush will pick for the second seat--will he pick more of a centrist to avoid divisive controversy, or will he pick somebody far to the right in order to push the Court more to the right? I really don't know what he will do.