Hunt

I suspect that there are many reasons membership is down, and I suspect that it varies significantly depending on where you live. Thus for example, I know that the membership restrictions have led people to leave in my area (D.C. suburbs) but I would very surprised if it had any effect in my hometown--in fact, a change in the policy might drive people away there. I think other kinds of bad press might also have some impact--for example, I'm wondering if bad press about safety might restrain some parents in our overprotective society. I'm afraid, however, that a more significant cause might be that kids seem less and less interested in getting outside, but would rather spend their time playing video games and Instant Messaging. I think that, coupled with overscheduling, is probably a major factor around here as well. While I agree that the failure to deliver a quality program will cause scouts to leave, I don't see any reason that this should have changed overall--I have no evidence that units were, on the whole, delivering the program all that well 30 years ago. Maybe the leaders were better trained then, but I doubt it.

Trevorum, I would say those other solipsists were copying me--if they were real. It seems to me that ultimately there only a few ways to maintain a belief that God created the universe. The first is to simply disregard the scientific evidence--this is where we get ideas like creation with apparent age (as Groucho Marx said, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"). The second is to fight a sort of rear-guard action, pointing to gaps in the evidence for evolutionary theory as evidence for God's involvement--this is what Intelligent Design is, and the problem is that it just gets weaker and weaker as more gaps are filled in. Finally, you can simply take the leap of faith and say that things are the way they are because God intended them to be that way, even if scientific investigation makes them appear to be random. This point of view, at least, has the powerful advantage that it can never be disproven by scientific evidence, because it is a belief of a different type.

Well, I'm still confused about the shirts. Bob, you seem to be saying that for a troop to make T-shirts that qualify for the activity uniform, they must include copyrighted words or logos that have to be approved by Council. Are you saying that activity shirt designs must all be approved by Council? Does the insignia guide say this? I was thinking about designing some T-shirts and printing them on T-shirt transfers with an inkjet printer--I've never heard that you were supposed to get this approved by anyone.

We do this to a limited extent--we keep the partials from Summer Camp, and return them to the boys the next year. Mostly this is stuff like Rifle Shooting and Archery that they need free shoots to complete. I think this is an artifact of the way the camp treats the partials, which is to hand them over in a big pile to the troop. If it was a MB that the Scout was more likely to complete during the year, we'd give the partial to him.

It's been my observation that Fscouter does debate other posters, but he does it in a more friendly manner. Bob, what did you expect from this thread? Obviously, it stung you that some people accused you of unscoutlike behavior in this forum--but really, starting this thread invited others to point out reasons that this may have happened. Can't you muster enough introspection to ask yourself whether you have been using a constructive tone in your efforts to defend BSA? If it makes you feel any better, I feel that Ed Mori has also lowered the tone of the forum by his approach to you (and to Merlyn, for that matter). I think both of you should quit taking digs at each other, and to try you best to ignore anything that looks like a dig.

fgoodwin, perhaps what you are doing is posting every article you find, pro or con, that deals with general Scouting policies and issues? If so, I think that's a reasonable thing to do in a forum like this, and people can discuss them or not as they see fit. Perhaps if you could explain how you find articles and how you decide which ones to post, people wouldn't take you task for doing it.

I'm considering starting a religion with a doctrine that the universe was created on the day I was born. After all, I have never personally seen any truly persuasive evidence that anything existed before that. The universe could easily have been created with apparent age on that day by an omnipotent God--and all you people who believe you are older than me were simply created with memories already in place. This theory perfectly explains every single observable fact in science, and every single possible future fact as well. Do I really think this? No. But it points out the difference between a religious belief and a scientific theory. Personally, I think God did create the universe, but I don't think there is or ever will be any scientific evidence to support (or refute) this belief.

"The BSA has a committee within the relationships division that is made up or representatives of several Chartering organizations that use the BSA programs. They make recommendations to the executive board based on their discussions. The executive board then makes the decision as they do on all matters regarding policies of the BSA." Bob, can you tell us the official title of this committee, and how they can be contacted? It would also be very useful to know who the members are--that way, if the CO to which a unit belongs is on the committee, they would know to whom to write to express views, and if their CO isn't represented, they could urge the CO to get involved. Does the committee have some mechanism to collect views of other COs, and of volunteer members? If so, what is it, and how can people get involved? I appreciate your assurance that BSA will not kick people out for expressing concerns through proper channels--can you help identify what those proper channels are?

Bob, rather than looking back at the posts of people who disagree with you, I suggest that you take a look at the posts of somebody who usually agrees with you--like Fscouter, for example. He (or I guess it could be she) also staunchly defends BSA policy and strongly disagrees with those who want to deviate from the program. And yet, I'm not aware that there has ever been the kind of personalized arguments involving Fscouter. I think this is a matter of style, and a tendency you have to ascribe a person's views to something other than an honest disagreement. I've said before that the way around this is to discuss issues on the merits--if you think BSA's way is good, explain why, rather than pointing out some reason your opponent is unqualified to express an opinion. Also, if somebody repeatedly gets your goat, why don't you just ignore him? I feel that sometimes your desire to score points off one antagonist has caused you to go off on a newcomer who doesn't realize how emotionally fraught a question might be (ie, with respect to uniforms). People who are perfectly nice in person can get sucked into an online flame war, with unattractive results.

During or just before the Jamboree, my daughter and I visited the National Zoo in Washington. There were a large number of Scouts there, and I didn't observe any particular problems with their behavior. There was one thing I did notice, though. We were in the Bird House, and went up into the outdoor enclosed aviary. While we were there, a single Boy Scout in uniform, maybe 16 years old, came in and looked around. He didn't say anything to us, and we didn't say anything to him--but it occurred to me that he was there--by himself--because he was interested in birds. I felt that here was an excellent ambassador for Scouting, although he didn't really do anything noteworthy.

Bob, can you point me to the rule that says a troop-designed activity uniform T-shirt must say "BSA" or have the BSA logo on it? I've seen many troop shirts that don't meet this requirement, although they are clearly scouting shirts. Is this down in black and white somewhere?

From what I observe in our district, I suspect that few scouts are calling counselors from the district list, but are getting most if not all of their MBs from troop-based counselors, summer camp, and organized merit badge days. I have been registered with the district for a couple of years now for several MBs, and have never received a single call from a boy outside the troop--and I haven't heard of any of the other adults in the troop receiving any either. So I think part of the problem is that most boys can get "enough" MBs without making those calls. This leaves the adults affiliated with a troop in somewhat of a bind--do you encourage boys to go outside the troop by not offering important (i.e., Eagle-required MBs) within the troop? I suppose you could be more proactive in urging boys to follow their interests. (One hybrid approach--the district Jewish Scouts association holds a merit badge day open to all scouts--but to register, the scout must call the counselor directly--and this does get a signficant response--perhaps the fact that it is connected with a scheduled event makes it easier.)

Let me put this plainly. I am talking about what the Congressional Charter in the U.S. Code says. That is a federal statute, and its words are what counts. Not what Bob thinks, not even what BSA training says (although I challenge Bob to identify anything from BSA that says it is required by the Congressional Charter to use COs). And the clear wording of the statute makes it clear that BSA is not restricted to chartering units through other organizations. The charter gives BSA broad powers--including the power to modify its bylaws--and specifies certain limitations and restrictions on its powers. Those limitations do not include any limitation on whether BSA can operate its own units. Now, certainly this is the way BSA DOES operate, as its publications and training explain. However, as I thought I had explained pretty clearly, how BSA DOES operate and how it is REQUIRED to operate are not necessarily the same, and in this case they aren't the same. There may be many good reasons BSA has chosen to operate through charter organizations, but it simply isn't true that it is required to do so by the Congressional Charter. (By the way, I've had plenty of training in how to read and interpret statutes--but I suggest that anybody could read the statute for themselves and understand what I'm saying.)

In thinking about this FOS question, I was thinking about the way my religious denomination collects donations. Almost all the donations are collected by the local church from its members, and a prescribed percentage (the "apportionment") is sent up the pipeline to the district and national church. While people may grumble about the apportionment, they see where most of the money goes. There are occasionally special appeals from the higher levels, but they are for specific things like tsunami relief, not general operations. Right now, BSA doesn't charge units very much--only the annual membership fee, which is pretty small. I don't know, maybe this model wouldn't work well for BSA, where units tend to earn money rather than raise money through donations.

"Doesn't the Activity Uniform include troop-designed T-shirts? Is it written somewhere that the T-shirt must say BSA or have the logo?" Bob, you answered, "Yep." Are you saying that a troop-designed shirt MUST include "BSA" or a BSA logo? It can't just say something like, "Troop 123, Anytown, Wisconsin" with a picture of a pine tree? I would appreciate knowing where that rule is to be found, because we are thinking about making up some troop and/or patrol T-shirts.

"The federal charter requires that the BSA work through local community organizations." Perhaps the bylaws require this, but the charter doesn't. Bob, I did read the link you provided, and I also read the actual Congressional Charter. Did you? This is not a matter of training, but a matter of reading comprehension. The Congressional Charter simply does not require the CO method of operation--at most it calls for "cooperation" with other organizations. Furthermore, even if BSA must use COs, there is nothing to prevent BSA from exerting far more control over the selection of leaders or other elements of the program than it does now--it simply could make those things prerequisites to getting a charter. What BSA does, what it must do, and what it should do are three different things. As far as CO selection of leaders, it is certainly true that BSA materials urge COs to choose them carefully. What steps does BSA take to ensure that this is done, aside from the check for a criminal record? Does BSA require that IHs and CORs receive training before the charter is granted? I take it that BSA does not contact the references on the adult membership application--does it do any quality control to ensure that COs do this? Perhaps the procedures in place (criminal background check, youth protection training and rules)are enough to protect BSA from liability, but the question under discussion is whether BSA should do more to ensure the quality, skills, and character of unit leaders. Frankly, it surprises me that someone who thinks leader quality is so important wouldn't feel strongly that BSA should do more. There are some COs that are never going to be able to do a good job at this--think of a PTA, where the CO leadership changes every year, for example.

"Some people find it difficult to say "NO". "Would you serve as our FOS chair?" "Would you help us with a contribution to the FOS campaign?" Maybe the standard negative answers, reasons, and excuses seem overworked and lame. Now we have a NEW reason to say "no". I strongly believe that people that believe in Scouting will help with their time and money. Those that decline will look for any excuse they can find that seems reasonably defensible. "Atlanta" is just the excuse du jour. They would not have contributed anyway." Maybe, but it's my understanding that financial scandals in some United Way organizations resulted in reduced contributions to all United Way organizations. Why would we expect Scouting to be any different? People hear that the bigwigs are playing around with the accounting, and they want to keep their contributions local. As Bob White endlessly reminds us, what most people see of Scouting is the local unit, and it is the quality of the local unit that counts most to most parents of Scouts--why would it surprise us if that's where they want their money to go if they mistrust the faceless bureaucrats at a higher level? The fact is that bad acts and mismanagement by Scouting leaders reflects badly on all of us and harms all of us. While doing our best to provide a quality program in our local units may be the BEST thing we can do to protect the reputation of Scouting, I don't see why it has to be the ONLY thing we can do.

Doesn't the Activity Uniform include troop-designed T-shirts? Is it written somewhere that the T-shirt must say BSA or have the logo?

I think perhaps Bob is confusing the charter granted by Congress to BSA and the charters granted by BSA to community organizations and local councils. These are not the same thing. There is nothing in the terms of the Congressional charter itself that requires BSA to function in this way. If BSA wanted to change to franchising rather than chartering, I don't think it would violate the charter. Perhaps it would have to change its bylaws, but again the congressional charter doesn't seem to preclude that either. Finally, if it was really a good idea to change the practice, and the Congressional Charter precluded it, you could probably get Congress to change the Charter.

If the Scouting program is designed for COs to select leaders, but the vast majority of COs are not doing this, isn't it possible that BSA should do something about it? Remember, even the leaders selected by COs still have to be approved by BSA--it would be fairly simple, I think, for BSA to modify the criteria for approval by including initial training, for example. I don't think that would take away the CO's ownership of the unit.

There is no question that the Catholic Church has taken a horrific PR hit from the sex scandals. Whether that has affected their membership and attendance numbers I don't know, but I do know that it has seriously and negatively affected the attitude of non-Catholics toward the church, fairly or unfairly. BSA differs from the Catholic Church in at least one important respect--we have to recruit a new crop of members every single year, and a lot of those recruits come from people with no Scouting background. We really can't afford a PR hit of the magnitude of the one the Catholic Church has faced--and I don't think we'll have one based on molestation, because there just haven't been that many reported cases. I am a little concerned that we may be taking a "safety" PR hit with the news reports about Jamboree and other incidents.

My son's Pack lost a den leader and several boys strictly over the gay membership policy. It was the only reason they left. Things like membership irregularities are not likely to have the same kind of direct effect, but bad PR is bad PR and it tarnishes the overall reputation of the organization. Local units have to work against that. jkhny--I couln't read your last few posts. You'll have to trim it down and make more concise points, or you're really wasting your time.

I agree that there would be some point at which one could reasonably say, "This isn't a religion and you're just mocking religion." However, I don't think it's that easy to find that point--there are some pretty successful religions, that, in my view, began as cynical fakery by charlatans. And yet, the current adherents can be very serious, faithful persons. I don't think you can judge a religion by its appearance of nuttiness to others--virtually every religion would fail by that measure, including mine.

Well, I received the "Scouting Rounds a Guy Out" patch when I was a youth, but I only became round as an adult. I don't think the patch was earned, but was part of a PR campaign. I have another one that says "Boypwer Manpower" that is similar.

I don't believe BSA has identified any relgion or religious belief as not measuring up, other than atheism. BSA has recognized Wicca, for example, as qualifying as a religion (they say there's no award because there's no national Wiccan organization). I don't know if they've been confronted with Satanism--that would be a challenge, I guess. But presumably BSA means what it says when it says it is "absolutely nonsectarian." And how are you going to judge whether a boy has done his duty to God, aside from whether he thinks he has? Are you going to fail a Roman Catholic boy who doesn't attend Mass, but says that he does his duty to God by leading a moral life? I should point out that the Scout Oath does not require a boy to be "committed to serving God" but rather to do his duty to God. Those may or may not be the same thing, depending on the boy's beliefs. The nature and level of duty will vary widely (for example, the differences in duties between Reform and Orthodox Jews is tremendous). Really, only the boy himself can make the judgement of whether he's doing his duty as he understands it--you can probe his understanding, press him to articulate it better, and urge him to think seriously about whether he's fulfilling his duty, but you can't substitute your own idea of what that duty is. If you do, you're violating BSA's Statement of Religious Principles.