Hunt

So you're saying, Bob, that unless the Scout asked you for advice, you wouldn't suggest that he go to a counselor you know to be excellent, or suggest that he might want to use somebody other than his own parent? That seems very odd to me. I certainly don't see it as "telling the scout what to do." I see it as being Helpful. I often find myself giving unsolicited advice and suggestions to Scouts ("Joe, I know you still need to do Citizenship in the World, and I know that a group of scouts are getting together to do it with Mr. X--you might want to talk to him, too."). Sometimes they take the advice, and sometimes they don't--that's where their decisionmaking comes in.

Bob, those points are a reasonable interpretation of how the procedure should work. I wish the Requirements Book and Handbook made it clearer, if that is indeed how it is supposed to work. I assume you would have no objection to a SM counseling a scout on why he might choose one MBC over another? To relate this to the original topic, would anyone object to a SM saying to a Scout, "Your dad is registered to counsel this MB, but you should think about going to one of these other counselors so you have the opportunity to work with some other adults."--? To take this a bit further, I guess I would prefer a middle ground, in which the SM doesn't "assign" the MBC, nor does he simply hand over a list of names. Rather, he might say: "Well, Joe, I see there are six MBCs for Pet Care. Mr. Smith lives over in West Nowhere, so you might have some trouble meeting with him. I don't know Mr. Smith, or Mr. Brown or Mr. Jones, so I can't say anything about them. Your dad is also a Pet Care MBC, and you could do it with him--but you've already done a couple with your dad and you might want to work with some other adults. I see Mr. Doe is also a MBC for Pet Care--I think Tom worked with him, and I have to say he had a lot of trouble getting in touch with Mr. Doe, and it took him a long time to get the badge signed off. Finally, I see Mr. Green is signed up to do this one--several boys in the troop worked with him, and he was very responsive and they had a great time. Let me know which one you'd like to contact, and you can get started."

Unless somebody has a particular religious objection to it (some COs might), it seems to me no different than playing bridge or other non-gambling card games.

"Hunt, I am going by the the Boy Scout Handbook and by what my responsibilities are in helping a scout to make ethical decisions. I would have a hard time classifying the Boy Scout Handbook as mundane material." Gee, Bob, I was just referring to your comment that if only we would all attend advanced training at Philmont, we would understand the ways of BSA better. Granted, the Handbook language is consistent with your interpretation, but it is also consistent with the interpretation that the SM chooses the counselor, and that interpretation is actually suggested by what the Requirements Book says. If you are familiar with something in writing from BSA that explains this better, it would be great if you could share it. (By the way, what does your "responsibilities in helping a scout to make ethical decisions" have to do with whether you give him a menu of possible counselors or identify one you think would be the best fit? My best guess is that it's a dig at somebody, for something, but I fail to see how it relates to this topic.)

FScouter, your story makes me think even more that a solution to this would be a good, official FAQ on www.scouting.org. If we had that, there would be no reason for by-laws that should be the same for every troop, and nobody would have to reinvent the wheel. Then, if the troop needed to have anything in writing, it would only be those things that are different from other troops--things like meeting times, financial arrangements, etc. But I still challenge all those who claim not to have rules beyond BSA's rules and the Oath and Law to ask yourself honestly whether you have unwritten rules that just get restated when the situation arises (i.e., whether cell phones or Gameboys can be taken on campouts). To put a point on it, if you're planning a campout and a new scout asks, "Can I bring my cellphone?"--who answers, and what do they say?

This question is too complicated for a yes/no answer. First, by your definition, the Venus de Milo is softcore pornography, and a manual designed to teach people how to overcome sexual disfunction might be hardcore pornography. The answer is that an action is not "morally straight" when it violates the relevant standard of morality. In most cases, I think this should be the moral standard of the individual, as established by his conscience and his upbringing. Thus, if you think it's immoral to look at the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, then it's not morally straight for you to do so. But that's the easy part. We also have communal standards of what is moral, and if somebody deviates too far from the communal standard, we exclude that person from the community. I think probably everybody in this conversation will think that looking at extreme hardcore pornography for prurient purposes is immoral and contrary to "morally straight." The problem is drawing the line between what we should all agree is immoral, sufficient to judge another person as unfit, and what we recognize may be due to different, but socially acceptable, ideas of morality. With respect to pornography, I personally cannot draw that line with any precision.

Bob, you are saying that when the Requirements Book says, "Your Scoutmaster will give you the name of a person..." it really means something slightly different. You think, apparently, that it means the Scoutmaster will tell the Scout that there are several possible MBCs. And to support your argument, you rely on the idea that the purpose of the procedure is "helping the scout to achieve." This is fine, but it is not really the way you usually react to the specific wording of BSA publications. I guess this is an example of what I find frustrating about many of the issues we discuss here. Sometimes, BSA lays out a clear answer--but it's in a relatively obscure document or training material. Sometimes, there doesn't appear to be a clear answer, or the language seems to be inconsistent. This is why I think it would be a good idea for BSA to set up an official FAQ, on advancement if nothing else. That way, it could deal with some of these repetitive questions, and maybe if would help prevent some troops from setting rules that are wrong. Parents acting as MB counselors is a perfect example--that's just the kind of thing that should be in an official FAQ, because although the rule is clear, we all know that many, many people believe in the myth.

Actually, life expectancy is reduced if you're unfit OR overweight. People who are physically fit but overweight still need to lose weight for optimal health, and thin people still need to exercise. And what's more, even if you're in shape and thin, you might still need to take steps to lower your cholesterol. But let's face it--many of us are unfit AND overweight. I didn't become a Scouter because I'm an outdoorsy guy. I became a Scouter because of my son. But when I put on that uniform, I have to think about being an example, not just to him but to the other scouts, too. That's all I'm saying.

Ed, repeating this question is wasting our time. Bob has already stated that there's nothing wrong with a troop putting something like their meeting times in writing, and nobody else has disagreed. And Ed, I assume you agree that a troop's bylaws should never contradict any of BSA's rules or requirements, right? So there are really only two questions, in my mind: 1. Is there any value to a troop having by-laws or rules that restate or summarize existing BSA rules? Example: A troop bylaw or rule that accurately restates keye elements of the Guide to Safe Scouting. 2. Is there any value in making rules or bylaws on policy matters that are not directly addressed in BSA rules, but are rather based on interpretations of the Oath and Law? Example: A troop bylaw or rule that states Gameboys are not allowed on troop campouts because their use disrupts the program and is not Courteous.

"The ACLU is been driven by minorities (atheists & gays & others) who want their agenda pushed. The ACLU pushes their agendas by stating their civil rights are being stepped on." There is some truth to this, which is why ACLU took Dale's side, rather than supporting the right to free association. There's no question that many people in ACLU have a liberal viewpoint on most issues. "And what happens is the majority of the population has their civil rights stepped on. But that's OK since the ACLU is involved!" This, however, is baloney. The ACLU wins some and loses some, depending on how strong their legal arguments are. We have a pretty conservative Supreme Court now--after all, Dale lost his case. "ACLU = Another Cash Lover's Union " This is so ridiculous it makes me wonder if even you could possibly think this is a sensible insult for ACLU. You must not know many lawyers if you think the ones working for ACLU are making the big bucks. If you're going to assign some nefarious ulterior motive to anybody who disagrees with you, at least pick one that makes sense! Accuse 'em of being Commies or something. I just think it's pathetic that people think we're being crushed by the horrible ACLU when we have a Republican president, Congress, and Supreme Court, and when giant corporations have more power than anybody else. I mean, really!

Hey, what's the big idea get this thread back on the original topic? "I would also expect/hope that the LDS (Mormon) Church, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Jews and the United Methodist Church* would join together to maintain a youth program that maintained honor, duty to God and morality as an eternal standard." I think that many of these organizations would not sever ties with BSA as long as they could still set membership and leadership requirements for the units they charter. If BSA said they HAD to accept atheists and gay leaders in order to get charters, I think at least some of them would drop out. Remember, realistically BSA is not likely to say that homosexuality is "moral" or change "reverent" to "thoughtful." What it could do is say that the question of whether gay leaders and members are allowed is up to the chartering organization, and/or that it is also up to the chartering organization to set its own definition of "reverent." (I think the first is more likely than the second.) It's interesting that you mention the United Methodist Church, because it has been dealing with the possibility of a schism over gay clergy for some time now. The last time the issue came up, I think the more liberal national church leaders wanted to change the policy, but backed off when it became clear that many pastors and whole congregations would leave the church if they did. But the UMC doesn't really have the same "local option" option that the BSA would have.

I think you are referring to the Class "Sea" uniform for Sea Scouts, which includes eye patch, ear ring, and parrot. Arrrrrrgh!

This is actually something I've been thinking about for a while. There were several occasions in which I noticed just how overweight some Scouters were who were serving in positions in which they were setting examples for the boys in various ways, and urging the boys to achievements of various sorts. There is nothing that I can say directly to them--but it did cause me to take a look in the mirror. There's one other thing I can do, in this fairly anonymous setting. I can urge anybody reading this to take a look in the mirror too and ask yourself if your state of physical fitness is serving as a good example to the scouts who look up to you. If it isn't, chances are you can do something about it. Of course, there are plenty of other motivations for getting fitter, such as your own continued survival, your appearance, and getting your spouse to stop nagging you about it, but thinking about your influence on young people who may model themselves on you might be the motivation that tips the balance and gets you to do what you know you need to do. If you do lose weight, other people will ask you how you did it. That's your opportunity to set a good example for them. Off my soapbox. I can't stay up there too long, since I've only lost 5 pounds and have quite a ways to go.

"If you were to attend advanced training in this area such as the Advancement conference at Philmont Training Center you might have a better understanding of what is expected of the SM in this case." For those of us who only have access to more mundane materials, the 2005 Requirements Book, p. 22, says the following: "Your Scoutmaster will give you the name of a person from a list of counselors." A normal reading of this would suggest that Scoutmaster has discretion to decide which name to give the Scout. The Advancment Committee Policies and Procedures manual says nothing about what discretion, if any, the Scoutmaster has in this matter, so it is not helpful (I think it is one of the worst-constructed "manuals" I have ever seen). If Bob is right--and he may be--that a Scoutmaster is not supposed to choose the counselor from the list, this should be made clear in one or both of the above documents. What does the SM Handbook say? I don't have that one. I will add that it is made clear in the Advancement manual that a parent may counsel his own son, and there is no limit on the number of MBs a counselor may counsel for a particular scout. As I've said before, while there is no rule that a scout should work with multiple counselors, and not do too many with his own dad, there are reasons why this is a good idea, and the scout can be advised that he should consider it.

"God's mercy is that he allows each of us to paddle that canyon, to see our own future as we reach it, and to prove to ourselves what we can become. God does not create us as a broken vessel. He creates us, each having different attributes, and then we use our free agency to determine who we will become." I'd like to probe this--just because I think it's interesting, not because I think it has any bearing on Scouting, really. Clearly, the attributes with which we are created affect our ability to make choices--for example, I cannot choose to be an elephant, or an NBA star. But how completely do those attributes affect our ability to make choices? If you believe in predestination, or in a deterministic universe, you believe that one's choices are totally determined by inherent attributes present from your birth (and before). Personally, I can't make this idea consistent with any definition of "free will" that makes sense. If your innate makeup determines what all your choices will be, your sense of free will is entirely illusory. So, I think that there is some set of decisions that a person can make that are not predetermined in this way, but that rather are subject to a free will, just as God himself has a free will that is not pre-determined. But again, I retreat to what to me is the observable fact that we MUST live as though we have free will, even if there is some philosophical reason for thinking that free will is illusory. I prefer to think that free will is not illusory, if only because it's less depressing.

I think both camps will agree that this troop's by-laws need to be "revised." Certainly this particular by-law needs to be revised out of existence. You know, we've returned again and again to some of the prevalent myths and improper advancement rules (like, a parent can't advise the MB, blue cards expire in a year, etc.). While obviously training is the best way to counteract these, I wonder if it would help if BSA would post a FAQ debunking the most pervasive of these myths. I've seen lists like that posted in various places, but it would perhaps help to have a central, official FAQ.

I agree that obese, overweight, and out-of-shape Scouters set a bad example. However, there is only one overweight Scouter that I can "deal" with. So far, I've lost 5 pounds.

DugNevious writes: "If God doesnt know what yu will do then God doesnt know everything. He is not all knowing, omnipotent, unlimited, all powerful or perfect. If he were, he would know what you will do. He cant have something he doesnt know, and still know everything. If he knows everything then there is nothing he doesnt know, including what each of us will do." If free will is really free, then it is logically impossible to know for sure what a free actor will decide to do in the future. Thus, it is not an imperfection in any way to lack this knowledge. It is not a hidden fact--it is a future event that is within the control of a genuinely free person. In my view, a perfect God is omnipotent enough to create people with true free will. To me, this is exactly the same as arguing that God is imperfect because he can't make a rock too heavy for him to lift. In other words, God is so powerful that he can make creatures that are like him (in his image) in the crucial respect that they have true free will. How marvelous! tortdog, let me push the analogy of the teacher and the test a bit. If the teacher has deliberately taught the student false information, then perhaps he "knows" the student will fail the test--because he created the situation that makes it impossible for the student to pass. Otherwise, the teacher doesn't really know, although he may have a pretty good idea. Personally, I find it absurd to think that God would create a person who, by his very nature, can only choose to do what is wrong, and then to punish that person for doing wrong. It would be like a potter making a pot with a hole in the bottom and then "punishing" it because it doesn't hold water. Rather, it seems to me that for all the stuff in the Bible about sin, obedience, faith, etc., to make sense, it must be that God made people with a genuine ability to choose to follow him or not to do so--that God didn't make any people who inherently are unable to choose to follow him. The alternative is really predestination, which in terms of free will and moral accountability, is no different from a godless deterministic universe in which each event is simple the result of previous events.

"Hunt- by definition Perfect must include all essential to the whole. Knowledge is part of the whole being of God. If he were to lack some knowledge he would therefore be imperfect. Many have already agreed that God has perfect knoweldge. To have perfect knoweldge he must KNOW EVERYTHING, including what we will do." You keep saying this as if it were somehow logically required, but it just isn't. YOU think perfect knowledge requires perfect knowledge of all future events, but I say it doesn't. In fact, because I think free will is really free, perfect knowledge of all future events is impossible--a logical contradiction. Indeed, if God were "perfect" in the way you seem to mean, then God himself would have no volition in any way that makes sense. He couldn't make decisions, or have a will, or have desires, or anything else. He'd be entirely static. tortdog posted: "I do not see the conflict of perfect knowledge versus free choice because we still need to prove to ourselves that we are worthy of the final reward. I view this life as a test. Though God knows how I will do on the test (much as a high school teacher knows how a student will do on an exam), I still have to take the test and get my grade. That way, I've done the test myself and I know that the grade I receive is fair." I think I have to go along with Dug far enough to say that if the teacher really knows exactly how you're going to do on the test--that you are in fact powerless to do anything different from what the teacher knows you will do--the test is meaningless. In the human world, people are constantly acting in ways contrary to the most reasonable predictions anybody could make--personally, I believe God makes people with the real ability to do what God wants them to do, or not to do it. But in the final analysis, I retreat to my observation that we all act as though we have free will, so I'm not really concerned by arguments that we don't.

"Committee member, assistant Scoutmaster, and unit commissioner are mutually exclusive positions." SeattlePioneer mentioned that he is registered as a committee member and "functions" as an ASM. Because his troop is so small, I suspect this is because you can't be on a BOR if you're an ASM--and if too many people are ASMs, you can't get a board together in a small troop. We've had that problem, when we suggested that an involved dad not become an ASM, because we really needed him for BORs. But isn't this the only situation in which being an ASM and a committee member are mutually exclusive? There's nothing preventing ASMs from attending committee meetings, for example, is there? In a lot of small units, you may need to have one person do some things that are really committee stuff, and other things that are really ASM stuff. Of course, there is different training for the different positions, too--some people may have both. I don't know about the Unit Commissioner part. Is it really the case that a person can't be a Unit Commissioner for a troop and a member of that troop's committee? If that's not supposed to happen, but has happened, it's probably not the fault of the volunteer who finds himself in those roles, but rather a failure of the registration mechanism to identify the conflict.

"Show an example of something being perfect, but lacking something." Easy. A perfect diamond doesn't have wheels. You seem to think that a perfect God must have complete and perfect knowledge of the future. I don't agree at all. I don't think it implies any kind of lack or flaw if God chooses to makes creatures with true free will--that can make choices that even God cannot fully know in advance. What you're trying to do is set up the following logical trap for believers: 1. God is perfect. 2. If God is perfect, he must have complete knowledge of the future. 3. If God has complete knowledge of the future, it's the same as predestination, because God created things as they are. 4. If the future is preknown and predestined, free will is illusory. Q.E.D. I tend to agree with 1, 3, and 4. However, I think you're simply mistaken in claiming that 2 flows from 1 of necessity or by definition. That's just your definition of what a "perfect" God is--it's not inherent in the word "perfect" at all. "Perfect" can be defined as "lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind." Just as "wheels" are not essential to a diamond and are not needed to make it complete, full knowledge of the future is not essential to the idea of God. Besides, the Bible clearly teaches that God doesn't even know what He's going to do in the future, because he occasionally changes His mind. (If he knew he was going to change his mind, he wouldn't really be changing it, right?)

I think it's useful to have the SPL attend a few committee meetings--perhaps in the beginning of the program year when the year's activities are being planned. It helps remind the committee that the boys are supposed to be planning and leading the activities, not the adults. But I agree that there's probably little need for him to be at most meetings.

I think some people may be concerned that if they inadvertently fail to follow all BSA rules perfectly, that they will be left hanging with no defense and no insurance. This is not the case--and it would not be in BSA's interest to do this. That being said, everyone should follow the safety rules, first because they're designed to protect the scouts, second to protect against personal liability, and third, to protect BSA from liability. While I want BSA to defend me if I get sued, I'd rather that BSA not have the need to spend money on defense at all.

"The Worldnet Daily reported an increasing number of California PUBLIC school students must attend an intensive 3 week course on Islam. The course mandates that 7th graders learn the tenets of Islam, study important figures of faith, wear a robe, adopt a muslim name, and stage their own jihad. They must also learn many verses of the Koran." ACLU doesn't need to do anything about this, because it's baloney. For more info, go to: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/byronislam.htm

There's training and training. For example, if you take the scouts on a float trip, the Guide to Safe Scouting specifies that adults must have had Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat training. I suppose it is possible (but unlikely) that BSA would refuse to defend a unit if a mishap occurred on a float trip with untrained leaders. I don't think BSA would refuse to defend a unit just because its leaders didn't have, say, position-specific training.