Hunt

I think what makes this case different from those in which the boys should learn from their mistakes is that the ones who need to learn--the boy leaders who planned, cooked and served the meal--apparently got food to eat. It was the new scout who didn't get any food. I would have no problem if all the boys discovered that they each had only half a hot dog to eat because of their poor planning, but it's a different story when it's the new guy who bears the brunt of the mistake.

What is the mechanism by which a MBC learns that the requirements for the MB he counsels have changed? Ideally, he would know to check on this himself, although there is no official way to do this on line. Should we expect each MBC to purchase the requirements book each year, and to check periodically for a revised pamphlet? If the counselor is not active with a unit, more likely somebody will have to tell him. Who? Well, it could be the district MB czar, if he or she does that, or it could be the advancement coordinator with a particular unit. (Even if we expect MBCs to check for updates themselves, somebody will have to remind them to do it.) Wouldn't it be great if, when you signed up to counsel a MB, your e-mail address was added to a list that would result in you automatically getting e-mail updates about that MB?

"I'm sure you son's merit badge counselor can answer any of his questions that pertain to the merit badge including its requirements." Only if he knows about the changes and the issues. I wouldn't assume that all counselors are aware. Certainly they SHOULD be, but depending on where they are, there may not be a mechanism to push info about changes to the counselors. I would certainly advise any scout to check for himself to ensure he is using the current requirements.

Our CO sponsors both a troop and a crew, and historically, the relationship has been close, with essentially the same committee handling both. The crew is co-ed, but all (or almost all) of the boys in the crew are cross-registered in the troop and several remain fairly active in the troop. Both the troop and crew are relatively small. What has happened, mostly, is that the crew does certain activities together, but does not really have much of an organizational existence otherwise. In many ways, it functions more like a Venture Patrol than a separate organization. How have others managed this relationship?

I think it can depend on how you say it. It's one thing to say: "(By the way, an ASM shouldn't be serving on a BOR--only committee members are supposed to do that.)" and something else to say: "And why is an ASM serving on the BOR in the first place? Obviously, your adult leaders all need remedial training." I'm not quoting anybody, but I think sometimes we see this divergence in tone. I feel that as long as it's put kindly and diplomatically, it's probably a good idea for somebody to point these things out--after all, there are a lot of people reading these threads who aren't posting, and it's awfully easy for bad information to spread.

"If their position is no longer valid because things have changed, when did the People amend the Constitution to reflect it (or was it merely the fact that 5 unelected judges agreed to make it so)?" This logic would apply to every decision the Supreme Court ever made interpreting the Constitution. The Constitution gives the power to interpret it to the Supreme Court. When the Court has done so, that's the law of the land. I reiterate that a Scout is Obedient, and if he thinks the law of the land is unfair, he seeks to change it in an orderly fashion. Let me also point out that over its history, the Supreme Court has made a number of interpretations of the Constitution that would have been surprising to the founding fathers, but which flowed from the principles the underlie the Constition and the Bill of Rights. The Brown decision in 1954 was one of these, too.

"Chief, I think we need the Cone of Silence."

Maybe he could send your dollar to the ACLU? I think I also deserve a dollar, since I essentially already answered this question in this same thread. I'll be generous, though, and let Ed donate my dollar to the FOS.

I see two sides to this, and for me they boil down to this: 1. I think there are some advantages to boys in being in all-boy Scouting units. 2. I don't see anything in the BSA program that would not be just as applicable to girls. I don't see any reason that all of Scouting couldn't be like Venturing--let people start coed Packs and Troops if they want, or single sex units if they want. (There may be ulterior motives for keeping girls out--at our local Klondike Derby, a few Girl Scout Troops participated--and they won the competition two out of the last three years.)

"Please remember that all swimming activity must be supervised by someone who has been trained in BSA Safe Swim Defense." Would this be the case when swimming at a municipal pool with a lifeguard? I just took the online Safe Swim Defense course, and the focus is almost completely on lake swimming, etc.--there really is no discussion of swimming someplace like a municipal pool.

I'm troubled by two extremes in this "actively serve" in a POR issue. First, I'm a little troubled by detailed mathematical attendance requirements--if they keep you from taking circumstances into account. On the other hand, I can't accept the idea that holding the position is all that is required. I think an appropriate middle position is one in which the Scout and the SM discuss what the POR is, and then the SM signs if off if the Scout has made a reasonable effort to achieve the goals they set together. That is a bit subjective, but I think it's better than either extreme (albeit more objective) alternative. I think the terms of the rank requirement suggest that it should only be signed off if some level of activity is achieved. For example, if the POR is a leadership project assigned by the SM, the requirement calls for the Scout to "carry out" the project. Obviously, if he doesn't do it, he can't be signed off. I think he also has to "carry out" the POR in some real sense.

"The scout needs the counsler, not the other way around. If it were important to the scout (my friend) he a) would not wait till the last second and b) not have been late to the meeting with at least a call to heads up. I dont think the SM did anything wrong in seeking the respect of the scout, neither did the scouts parents or the scout (after he had calmed down)." Sorry, I don't buy it, and to me it exemplifies an attitude that I think has no place in a Scout leader: how dare you be late to meet with ME! That shows disrespect to ME! Go straight home until you're ready to crawl back and apologize to ME! I mean really--a heads-up call for 10 minutes late? I wouldn't react to anybody being 10 minutes late for just about anything, unless it was the very last straw from a person who had done many bothersome things.

The Guide to Merit Badge Counseling says that a Scout must be accompanied by a "buddy." There does not have to be another adult there. I think I've also read that there don't have to be two adults in every car going on a trip, but I don't have a reference. I agree that this shouldn't be extrapolated into the idea that one-on-many is generally OK. It's definitely not OK on trips or outings, and it's probably not a great idea any time.

Under our system of laws, the Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret what the Constitution means--unless or until it is amended. Under current Supreme Court interpretation--which is therefore the supreme law of our land--it is plainly obvious that a public school could not constitutionally own and operate an organization that limits membership based on religious belief or lack thereof. You may not like this, and you may hope that the Supreme Court will change its mind, or that the Constitution might get amended, but right now it's the law. And the last I heard, a Scout is Obedient. It's really that simple. (By the way, any argument that BSA doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion is really absurd--they have made it abundantly clear that an atheist does not meet the standards of membership, and their program--as OneHour spells out--includes various steps and recognitions that can only be achieved by people who espouse religious beliefs. Besides, discrimination isn't the only thing that makes this unconstitutional--it's also the religious nature of the organization. A school could not sponsor a Baptist club with Bible teaching and avoid problems by simply saying it's open to everyone. Having such a club would favor one religion, and religion over non-religion--and the Supreme Court says you can't do that. Same for a BSA unit--granted it's less explicitly religious than the Baptist club, but it's still explicitly religious, and it doesn't matter that it doesn't espouse a particular religion.) By the way, lest anyone misunderstand, I favor BSA maintaining the religious requirement for membership.

Can a boy be registered in both a Troop and a Crew at the same time?

I think GPS will be a scout skill, as they become more familiar. They will then be a part of a hierachy of skills, starting with the most technologically advanced, and ending with the most basic forms if the tech fails: GPS>compass>stars and sun. It's the same with starting fires: lighter>matches>flint and steel>two sticks.

My teenage son enters public restrooms while total strangers are in there. But I guess it's best to avoid even the possibility of the appearance of impropriety. As a note, BSA does allow an adult to be alone with several scouts--this is explicitly allowed for merit badge counselors, for example. There is, I think, some lack of clarity between the concept of no one-on-one and two-deep leadership.

Look, while BSA is a private organization, it shouldn't be too hard to understand that a troop or pack chartered by a public school ISN'T a private organization. It is an activity OWNED and OPERATED by the school itself. It is no different from the Science Club, the Baseball Team, or the Yearbook Staff. Surely all of you can understand that the school could not exclude people from the Science Club, Baseball Team or Yearbook Staff because of their religious beliefs? Too many people continue to be confused by the fact that BSA units are OWNED and OPERATED by their chartering organizations, not by BSA. It is a totally different issue from whether private groups can meet in the school--they can, as long as they get equal access. If the chartering organization is a public institution that cannot legally discriminate on the basis of religion, it is obvious that it cannot OWN and OPERATE an activity that discriminates. You are free to dislike this all you want, of course.

"One guy my age had a week to go before his 18th birthday. He had only Communications and Personal Management to go. He made an appointment with the SM who was the meritbadge counselor as well. He showed up late by 10 minutes. The SM sent him right home and would not scheduale another until he got an apology. At first my friend was so angry he was too proud to apologize and refused to do so. My SM was perfectly content letting him go without getting eagle. However, my friend, when he calmed down, realized his error, swallowed his pride in order to be accountable and made the phone call. Years later he still shares this story with the scouts and feels no resentment, rather he holds the boys to the same standard he was held to, and feels right for doing so." I'm sorry, I can't help feeling that the only mistake the Scout made was not realizing what a jerk the SM was much sooner. This was a kid who had apparently done almost everything needed to become an Eagle, and the SM "sent him right home" because he was 10 minutes late? Nothing this scout had done earned him the least consideration? This is the kind of "leader" who makes my blood boil--the same kind who "fails" boys on BORs if they get confused and can't tie a knot on command. And what do they teach? They teach boys to act the same way when they are men and can enforce their power on others. In my mind, it was this SM who had no clue about the Scout Law--like Loyal, Helpful, Kind.

I'll take a whack at it. First, this bylaw is probably not needed, since proper uniforming is something that is readily available in the Handbook. (I will say that this bylaw might be useful in warning someone not to join this unit.) But even if a troop wanted to summarize uniform policy in a guide or FAQ, this one is all wrong. To parse it out: "Full Dress Uniform will consist of Boy Scouts of America official uniform shorts/pants, shirt with insignia sewn on in proper places, belt, Troop neckerchief (issued by Troop), socks, and closed toe shoes. The merit badge sash should also be worn if the Scout is entitled to wear it." This isn't too bad--it's essentially a description of the Field Uniform. But "closed toe shoes" are not part of the uniform--that could be included as advice, I suppose. Also, a Scout with even a single merit badge sash is "entitled" to wear a sash, so that statement is nonsensical (unless they ascribe to the myth that the sash can't be worn until a minimum number of MBs are earned). "Class A Uniform will be as described above with the omission of the merit badge sash and official uniform pants." As many have pointed out, if you omit the pants, it's not an official or complete uniform. (I have no philosophical objection to the use of shorthand like "Class A," but here's an example of how it can have too many meanings.) "Class B Uniform will consist of Troop T-shirt or BSA T-shirt, cap and appropriate shorts (or jeans depending on weather)(belt if necessary) and closed toe shoes." Almost the activity uniform, but again only the official pants or shorts can be part of the official activity uniform. And what's with the closed-toe shoes? "The Scoutmaster shall designate which uniform will be worn at all Troop events." Big clue this troop isn't boy-run. "Class A Uniform will be worn at Board of Review and Court of Honor." Amazingly, these guys don't wear full uniforms at COHs--no official pants, and no sash! When do they wear the "full dress uniform?" "The Scout is expected to have a Uniform within eight meetings after joining the Troop." BSA doesn't require a boy to have a uniform at all. Maybe a CO can require this, but the SM shouldn't. I'd like this a little better if it explained how the troop will help a boy get a uniform if he can't afford it. "Scouts name should be placed on all parts of the uniform with an indelible marker." Sensible advice--is this a rule? "If the Scout wears a cap at any time that he is in uniform, it must be a standard Boy Scout of America cap or a BSA event cap." It's true that a non-official cap makes a scout not in complete uniform. But what do they mean by "must?" "Enforcement of the dress code shall be the direct responsibility of the Scoutmaster. He may use verbal warnings, Parent(s)/Guardian(s) consultations and recommendations to the committee for suspension or expulsion." Here's the real problem, and what would have me looking for another prospective troop if I saw this. This troop is about rules, enforcement and punishment. My closed-toe shoes would be headed right out the door. This is certainly an example of a really bad by-law. But do you think it would be better if the troop had the same rules and practices, but didn't write them down?

I think that this is an intractable issue, because two opposite viewpoints seem "obvious" to the people who hold them. Not too long in the past, only one of those viewpoints seemed obvious. Today, it is "obvious" to everybody that slavery is a terrible injustice and morally wrong. Not so long ago there was a large portion of the American public to whom this was not obvious, and in the ancient world it was obvious to everybody that slavery was just a fact of life. To my mind, this shift in viewpoint is progress. But this is not necessarily to say that all such shifts are progress. Really, you can't say with certainty whether a shift in public acceptance is good or bad. For example, I would say that the shift in acceptance of divorce is bad--others would disagree. So just because more people now than 50 years ago think homosexuality is OK doesn't mean that it is OK in a cosmic sense, and it also doesn't mean that the trend will inevitably continue in the same direction. (Look at what happened with views about drinking alcohol in this country.)

I think one also needs: a card with key telephone numbers a little money Plus, there is certain knowledge that every boy (and adult) should have before going on an outing: Who to call in case of an emergency, and how to call them How to get back into his house if nobody is home (or where to go) Whether he has allergies to foods or medicines, or other medical concerns You may think this is silly, but I've encountered some kids who didn't have a clear understanding of where they lived.

"And in my view, if a Scout come back from camp with 1 or 2 merit badges, someone screwed up." Last week, my son and I were looking at the schedule for summer camp. I asked him how many merit badges he planned to do. He told me two. I said, but look at the schedule, you can easily do three or even four! He said, yeah, but I want to go to the open shoot, and my buddy and I want to spend some time fishing, and also we want to relax some, too. This kid thinks Scout Camp is a vacation! Seriously, camp has been such a positive experience for my son, and so effective in building troop spirit, that I don't really care if he doesn't get any MBs. (Actually, I'm hoping he'll get a third MB by finishing the Riflery partial he has--all he needs is some target shooting.)

Seattle, I think even somebody who thinks grabbing the hot dog was an error in judgement (as I do) can understand the strong urge to do so in such a situation.

Let's start by taking BSA at its word, that this is not a YP issue, but rather a moral issue. The question is whether it can be a moral issue without being a religious issue. In other words, does the mere fact that religions disagree about whether something is moral or not make a position on that issue "sectarian?" At one extreme, I'd have to say "no." There is also cultural morality, which is not specifically (or at least not consciously) linked to religion. It's more of a consensus--informed by religion, certainly--but shared by people of many religions and of no religions. For example, if there is some small religion that says lying is OK, that doesn't mean that condemning lying as immoral suddenly became "sectarian." I'd say that's true for anything that a broad consensus of society recognizes as immoral--stealing, murdering, cruelty, etc. At the other extreme, I think it's obvious to anybody that a group that declares, for example, that it's immoral to eat nonkosher food, or to miss confession, or to drink any alcohol, is probably doing so for sectarian reasons. The problem comes when the cultural consensus is shifting. This is what is happening with the question of whether homosexuality is immoral or not. A hundred years ago, the idea that condemning homosexuality is "sectarian" would have been nonsensical to almost everybody. (But note that in 1850, you could have had the same conversation about slavery.) So here's what I think: the decisionmakers in BSA believe that the cultural consensus on the immorality of homosexuality is still sufficiently strong that it is not a "sectarian" issue. Their view may be strengthened because they live in Texas, because they are from religious groups that feel strongly about it, or because their views were formed at a time when the consensus was in fact stronger. (On the flip side, your own view about how much the consensus has shifted may depend to some degree on where you live...the last election showed that it has not shifted as much as previously believed.) So, BSA may eventually move to local option on this, when current decisionmakers are replaced by new ones with a different perception of which moral beliefs are culturally accepted and which are sectarian.