Hunt

I have a few suggestions... First, for jkhny: You cannot effectively discuss problems with BSA National by repeatedly listing dozens of things you think are wrong in a single post. You can discuss a general issue (maybe, "leaders are out of touch") or a specific issue ("Scout executive is paid too much"), but you can't ball it up together. Examples of problems are not enough to prove a systemic problem. Second, for defenders of BSA: Please defend BSA policies on the merits, not by claiming that critics are whiners or that you have superior knowledge. That's not useful, nor is it very persuasive. If you think you know the real reason membership nationwide is declining, say what it is. Finally, extended metaphors rarely work well.

I see two sides to this. On one side, I do think the uniforms are pretty expensive compared to similar clothing. Every time I go to the Scout shop, I hear almost all the people in line say, "HOW much did you say?" On the other hand, I think Scouting overall gives extremely good value for the money. I don't think you can compare it to rec soccer. I'd compare it to the more competitive club soccer. My daughter is on such a soccer team, and it is way more expensive than scouting. Similarly, I think scout camp is dirt cheap compared to most summer sleepaway camps. I think the high cost of uniforms is sort of an internal PR problem for Scouting. It creates a persistent low-level grumbling, and probably contributes to some of the lack of full uniforming we see. I wish BSA would change it, but in the grand scheme I don't think it makes Scouting too costly compared to other activities of the same caliber.

Can adult scouters wear temporary patches on the right pocket? If so, can they wear: 1. Patches reflecting activities the current unit has done (such as summer camp)? 2. Patches reflecting activities the Scouter did back when he was a scout, such as an old Camporee or summer camp patch? 3. More general patches?--what got me thinking about this was a trip to my parents house, where I dug up my old patches. The one I really want to put on my uniform is a patch from the 60s or 70s that says, "Scouting Rounds a Guy Out."

I have no trouble quoting BSA language supporting my view--it's right there in the Declaration of Relgious Principle--it says that BSA is "absolutely nonsectarian." That means that although belief in God in a general sense and duty to God in a general sense are required, BSA is not going to go into the specifics. Thus, BSA will recognize ANY religious belief, no matter how strange, how vague, how individual, or how far out of the mainstream. That's what "absolutely" means. It has also occurred to me that a scout might say, "I feel that my religious beliefs and practices are private and I prefer not to talk about them--however, rest assured that I can truthfully recite the Oath and Law." I don't think you'd be able to demand a better answer. Similarly, a Scout might say, "I believe that there's some kind of higher power, although it's impossible to know more about it, and doing your duty to that higher power is being kind to other people." I submit that if you fail that kid on his BOR and he appeals, BSA is more likely to kick you out than him.

Perhaps we can zero in on an interpretation of the requirement that will respect both the letter and the spirit. The requirement, again, is "Demonstrate your ability to jump feetfirst into water over your head in depth, level off and swim 25 feet on the surface, stop, turn sharply, resume swimming, then return to your starting place. " Perhaps more people would agree if we stopped talking about the specific depth and simply said, "We interpret this to mean that you have to be able to enter the water and level off without pushing off from the bottom." If you're doing the test in a pool, you can see if the scout is pushing off from the bottom. If you're doing the test in a murky lake, I submit that it doesn't make as much difference, but that you can still tell the scouts the expectation. I think several posters are right in emphasizing the skill that we are trying to teach, but I do think the test should match the skill as closely as possible.

"Its a creampuff question if - any reference to a higher power suffices as a definition for God, and/or duty to God becomes so personalized that no one is qualified to challenge the answer." Well, then, BSA supports the creampuff approach because any reference to a higher power DOES suffice, and BSA does not define what constitutes the practice of religion. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but there are sectarian organizations you can join if you prefer something more definite. In other words, if a boy says, "I don't know what God is exactly, but I believe that there is a higher power behind the universe, and I see doing my duty to that power as appreciating the beauty of the world," that's really the end of the discussion. He's met the requirement, even if you don't like it. You can't tell him that his conception of God is too vague, or that his conception of duty to God is wrong or inadequate. I'm really sorry that some folks can't see that the blunt question "Do you believe in God?" is rude and unfriendly at a BOR. And you know, it really isn't a direct way to get the information you really want, which is whether the boy is living up to the Scout Oath and Law, which requires that he do his duty to God. Why not ask him that? Note: I don't know too much about Buddhism, but I note that the requirements for the Buddhist religious emblem--approved for wear on the BSA uniform--do not refer to God or to gods at all. I think it's pretty clear that BSA recognizes "religions" that do not feature a single God (or perhaps any God). What the dividing line is that makes something a religion in BSA's opinion, I don't know. Maybe there has to be some belief in the supernatural, which appears to be true of much of Buddhism.

"All adult leaders agreed to abide by the BSA DRP when they signed their adult application. If any adult now feels like they disagree with the DRP, they should do the honorable thing and quit." Baloney. Disagreeing with the policy is completely different from violating it. The application includes a box indicating that the applicant will comply with the rules, regulations, etc. Disagreeing with the BSA policy on membership requirements is no different from disagreeing with some element of the GTSS--as long as you comply with it. Do you also think everybody that thinks BSA should allow girls should do the "honorable" thing and quit? Again I say, baloney. (And furthermore, the DRP says nothing about gay membership, which, in my opinion, is much more controversial among the general public than the ban on atheists.)

Do you ask him if he's a boy? After all, he could be a girl masquerading as a boy. He (or rather she) may not have read that part of the membership application either. OGE, I think there's a wide area between offensively challenging questions and creampuff questions. I don't consider, "Tell us how you do your duty to God" a creampuff question. I guess what bugs me about this is the idea that the BOR is supposed to be used to root out boys that are ineligible or unworthy. That's not what a BOR is for--it's supposed to review the boy's achievements for rank, find out how he's doing in Scouting, and encourage him to continue to grow and advance. This attitude that a BOR is an inquisition leads to this kind of offensively challenging question, as well as leaders who "fail" boys who can't perform some minor skill on command. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some tough questions--if it's a troop-level BOR, the tough questions should probably arise from the BOR members' knowlege about the scout--what his weaknesses are, what he hasn't done so well since his last BOR, etc. We've had some VERY tough BORs. For an Eagle BOR, you might want to know (for example) why a senior Scout was never SPL of his troop, and you might want to probe deeply into the quality of some of his activities and his Eagle project.

"Who can share with us who the BSA program says is in a PLC and where that information can be found?" I know the answer to this question! YOU can.

I think this is ambiguous, but to me the phrase "level off" suggests that the swimmer should be able to reach the surface and swim without pushing off the bottom.

Alas and alack! I must confess that I have done some research and am now convinced that Shakespeare was, in fact, making a dig at lawyers with his "let's kill all the lawyers" quote. Although it is said by a "bad guy" in the play, it is part of a discussion in which they are imagining an ideal world in which seven-penny loaves sell for a penny and everybody gets free clothing--kind of like the Big Rock Candy Mountain. The elimination of lawyers is part of this idealized view. Arguments that these guys want to kill all the lawyers because lawyers would block their rebellious evil plans don't really fit with the text. I suppose it is fair to note that this sentiment is put by Shakespeare into the mouths of loutish and not-very-bright villains, but I suspect that it got a laugh, even in Elizabethan times. (This is about as far from "Co-ed OA as you can get, but what the hey.)

How active is the troop in the summer? If it's not very active, then a 1-year post is really more like 9-10 months. (Of course, maybe having a new SPL elected a few months before the summer would help lead to a more active troop in the summer. I don't know.)

We have used a bit of a hybrid approach in my son's troop. The boys have identified the events they want to do for the year, and roughly when, and then the Committee has worked up a calendar. So, for example, the boys might decide that they'd like to do a backpacker in October at XYZ Park, and the committee will figure out what weekend it can happen, taking into account school schedules, Jewish holidays, district and council events, and availability of adult leaders. I agree that it would be better for the PLC to take more charge of this, but I agree with scoutingagain that practical realities mean that the adult leaders have to be heavily involved in the details of scheduling.

"There are other high profile youth groups in the U.S. like Scouting, such as Girl Scouts, YMCA, Indian Guides, Indian Princesses, etc." I don't think they are high-profile, except possibly for GSA. In fact, haven't the Indian Guides and Indian Princesses largely been phased out (or at least renamed) by the YMCA? I think perhaps the BSA has maintained its high profile over the years with largely good press (service projects, Eagle awards, daring rescues, etc.)--and this may have made it more vulnerable to bad press. It would take a tremendous scandal--much more than some faked numbers--for a story involving 4-H to become national news, for example. I suppose institutional fraud involving Girl Scout cookies would be a big story.

Hearing about boys who "fail" BORs for things like this is one of my pet peeves. The Committee members who sit on these Boards need to be educated about the proper role of the BOR. In this case, why isn't the SM, who signed off the SM Conference sticking up for the Scout? Also, if the boy has earned his Tenderfoot rank, he doesn't have to wait for a Court of Honor to advance to the next rank. He IS a Tenderfoot as soon as the BOR is completed. In fact, since the requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class can be worked on at the same time, he might be ready for his Second Class BOR immediately after the Tenderfoot BOR.

Ed, what I and NeilLup are both trying to say, I think, is not that you shouldn't ask a scout about his religious views and activities at a BOR, but rather that asking him "Do you believe in God?" is a rude and unfriendly way of doing that, even if you want to find out whether he believes in God or not. Why not ask him how he does his duty to God, and if the answer leaves you with doubts about his beliefs, then probe more deeply? To put a finer point on it, I think questions at a BOR should assume that the Scout is doing what he has promised to do and that he has done what his records indicate he has done, unless you have a good reason to think otherwise. If we don't make that assumption, then we don't really believe that a Scout IS trustworthy. Thus, for example, I wouldn't ask "are you friendly," but rather, "how do you live out the "friendly" part of the Scout Law?" I wouldn't ask, "Did you go on a five-mile hike," but "Tell me about the five-mile hike you went on." Even if you were to ask, "Can you tell me your idea of what God is, and what duty to God means," it would be better than "Do you believe in God?"

The tensions here can be found in any large organization which has a "national" decision-making hierarchy and local volunteer units. If you have ever been a member of a church that is part of a national denomination, you know what I mean. There are always people like jkhny who decry what the national organization is doing--and they are often right. There are always people like Eamonn who point out the good work done on the local level--and they are usually right. But there does come a point at which problems with the national organization can really impair what the local groups are doing. This has led some churches to split, for example. As an example, the United Methodist Church has come perilously close to schism over the question of ordination of gay clergy, and the split was largely between national leaders and local leaders. Similarly, a scandal about misappropriation of funds by the executives of a charity can wreck the efforts of the volunteers to collect money--that has happened with some United Way organizations. As I see it, there are two general themes in criticisms of BSA National: First, the familiar theme that it is shooting itself in the foot by maintaining its membership restrictions. While this may be true, I don't think that issue should turn on its effect on membership. My church would get greater attendance if it served free beer. The membership restriction issues will have to be resolved through the hard job of evaluating the principled arguments on both sides. Second, though, is a more general management question, and this seems to be what jkhny is talking about--things like overpayment of executives, misallocation of resources, etc.--the sorts of things that have caused problems for other non-profit organizations. It seems to me that if these kinds of problems do exist, they should be fixed, and no big discussion of the values of Scouting and the quality of the local program is necessary. To me, the revelations about inflated numbers is a warning sign that there is an organizational problem. I'm not sure what rank-and-file members can do about it, though. I wouldn't quit over it, unless it made it impossible to deliver the program locally.

How about: The Poseidon Adventure Chariots of Fire (although I guess it's more about living by principle than leadership) I couldn't help thinking of "The Dirty Dozen," but I guess that wouldn't be age-appropriate.

The pledge wasn't mentioned until T216's seventh post in this thread. When was this pledge put into place? Did this boy and his parents sign it? It always makes me a little uncomfortable when a crucial fact like this only comes out when the original poster gets some push-back on his opinion. I agree that violating the pledge is important, if the boy signed it. My point is that many people would not find the parents' attitude about drinking to be all that strange.

I think it would be obvious to anyone that there will be a range of how "strong" Eagle candidates are. Some will be more impressive and more committed than others. The question, I think, is whether the system is so weak that some really undeserving candidates receive their Eagles--and whether it happens often enough to tighten the system, which could cut out some deserving candidates. From what I've observed, I think that the requirements are extensive enough that virtually all candidates will have really accomplished the bulk of them.

I think it's worth noting that BSA's right to peacably assemble was under attack in the Dale case. The Supreme Court has found that there is a "freedom of association" that grows out of freedom of speech and the right to peacably assemble. In the Dale case, the plaintiffs argued that BSA was a place of public accomodation (like a store or restaurant) and that therefore it couldn't violate the New Jersey anti-discrimination rules. The Supreme Court ruled in BSA's favor, but not on freedom of association grounds. Rather, they relied on freedom of speech grounds (I'm not sure why). Of course, this has nothing to do with the right to use government property to assemble. Also, when it comes to lawyer jokes and insults, everybody hates lawyers until they need one. As far as bagpipes, have you seen the Daffy Duck cartoon in which Daffy must play a variety of musical instruments in order to sooth the Tasmanian Devil and lead him back to his cage? The only one that doesn't work is the bagpipe--the Devil goes berserk and tears it (them?) to pieces.

A young lawyer once wrote "The sky is blue" in a brief. A more senior associate changed it to, "The sky appears to be blue." A yet more senior associate changed it to "The sky appears to be blue at certain times of day." A junior partner changed it to, "The sky appears to some people to be blue at certain times of day." When the senior partner argued the case to the jury, he said, "I'm just a simple country lawyer, but even I know that the sky is blue."

I have no trouble with a BOR asking questions about Scout spirit or about the oath and law. my problem is with asking a question that suggests the scout has lied to the person who signed off his Scout Spirit requirement, if you have no reason to think he did so. It's offensive. "Do you believe in God" is not "just a question." A similar question would be, "Did you lie to any of the people who signed off these requirements?" That's very different from asking how the Scout shows trustworthiness in his daily life.

I think we may have evidence of a cultural divide here. I think in the Southern factory town where I grew up, news that a 15-year-old had had a few beers and that his parents weren't upset about it, would not have caused a great deal of concern. The idea that anybody would report such parents as abusive would have been inconceivable (and continues to seem bizarre to me). I'm not sure whether the contrary point of view comes from an ultra-liberal MADD-influenced environment, or from an ultra-conservative teetotalling religious fundamentalist environment (or maybe both). Again I ask: is there an ethnic or socioeconomic difference between the family of the beer-drinking boy and the families of the people who are concerned about it?

Are you suggesting that a person who truthfully states that he lives his life according to the Scout Oath and Law has not adequately shown that he meets the membership requirements for BSA? With that I cannot agree. I find it disturbing that you would want to ask Scouts a question that suggests they are liars.