Hunt

"God either knows everything that will ever happen, or he is not perfect." You only say this because you DEFINE perfect as having perfect knowledge of the future. There is no logical reason to define perfection in this way. In my opinion, it is not a flaw or limitation for God not to fully know the future, because the future hasn't happened yet. Indeed, if God created beings with true free will, arguably God can't fully know the future. Thus, because it would be logically impossible for God to fully know the future, it could hardly be an imperfection in his nature if he doesn't. It would be like saying, "God is imperfect because he can't create a rock too heavy for him to lift."

This is a profoundly silly conversation. Clearly, there is more than one meaning of the word "required." First, there is what is actually "required" by the rules of BSA. Of course, Bob White is well versed on this, which is probably why Ed is emphasizing that the methods of Scouting aren't "required" in this way. Second, there is what is needed in order to do a good job of delivering the Scouting program--clearly, the methods are "required" in this sense, as Ed also knows and acknowledges. Can we drop this, please?

"Simply, If there is a "perfect" God then there is no free will." The fallacy in this argument--or rather the tautology--is in your apparent definition of the word "perfect." You seen to think that a "perfect" God must have perfect foreknowledge of all future events. I don't agree. What you're really arguing, I think, is that there is no difference between God knowing in advance all details of the future and preordaining all details of the future--and that if this is the case, free will is illusory. OK, I can see that argument, and it is a problem for those who want to believe both in free will and perfect foreknowledge. But it's necessary to believe in the perfect foreknowledge to believe in a perfect God, or even to believe in the God of the Bible--who is repeatedly depicted as changing his mind, and is clearly depicted as reacting to events that are contrary to his will. Let me also add that, in my opinion, that unless you believe in God, it's hard to believe in "free will" at all, because you're pretty much stuck with a deterministic universe.

You just have to do the best you can to accomodate the needs of the Scouts in your unit. Obviously, if you have a troop made up of half orthodox Jews and half LDS members, you are not going to be able to camp together on the weekend. There may be some combinations that just won't work.

"Therefore, either God is perfect and we can not fault homosexuals for being homosexual, because god has made them this way and it is not a choice, or God is flawed and you cant blame homosexuals because the creator either made them this way or he goofed." No, it's more complicated than that. You make some assumptions that aren't fully proven. First, you assume for the sake of your argument that homosexuals are "made this way." That is, you assume that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, rather than a chosen behavior. It may be, but not everybody believes that. Second, even if people have an innate tendency to act in a particular way, does that mean they must do so? Does it mean that it is necessarily moral for them to do so? You can't assume that, either. Also, you assume that if there is a God, that this means that everything that occurs is what he wishes to occur. While this is the traditional view, it is not necessarily the case--and if free will exists, it seems obvious to me that things can occur that God doesn't wish (the Bible is full of actions that are clearly portrayed as being contrary to God's will, for example). Would this mean that God doesn't know every detail of the future? Perhaps--and that doesn't trouble me too much.

I think team sports are a great learning experience, and they can be lots of fun...but only if you get to play. Why not switch to a rec league team (if one is available)? The kid will play more, will have more fun, will probably practice less, and it won't really look that different on the college application. If he'd lose playing time for leaving early from one of three weekly practices for another commitment...ugh.

I'd like to thank Trevorum for a post that was actually Scoutlike and worth reading. Putting word games aside ("required" vs. "needed"--give me a break), clearly units apply and emphasize the methods of Scouting in different ways. As long as they don't ignore or subvert the methods, I haven't heard anybody object to that kind of variation. I would also like to add that anybody who reads posts on the internet should well understand that you have to judge statements and arguments based on the sense they make, since you really can't tell what's behind them.

"If a scout walks ten miles in one day while doing either 15 miles in three days or 30 miles in five days requirement for backpacking merit badge can he use it for hiking merit badge?" I agree that the footnote makes the answer no. However, if he backpacks for 40 miles in 5 days, I think the Hiking MBC would be within the zone of reason in counding a 10 mile leg as a hike.

It all depends on how close to Life he is. If he's very close, and if he already has most of his MBs it may not be that hard for him to get his Eagle. Heck, he may have come from a troop that held him back, and he may be rarin' to go. Obviously, you have to sit down with him and figure out what the options are and what he wants to do. I think it's great to have the SC and a BOR, but I'd have the advancement coordinator talk to him TODAY. You'd hate to the clock to run out while you're trying to set up a BOR.

This may be familiar, and it may have even been posted here before, but it seems to need repeating often. When scientists use the word "theory" they don't mean the same thing as "hypothesis." In ordinary usage by non-scientists, "theory" means a guess or prediction about what might be the truth. "My theory is that the Reds will go all the way this year." Scientists use "hypothesis" for this idea. Then, they look at all the available evidence, and the explanation that best fits the evidence is a "theory." Thus, for example, a hypothesis might be: "I'll bet there is some force pulling small objects toward large ones--that's why the apple fell on my head." Then you do a lot of experiments, and some math, and you end up with the theory of gravitation. It's not a "fact" in the sense of an actual observation (i.e., this apple falling is a fact)--it is rather a consistent explanation of the known facts. Evolution is the same way--it is not a wild guess, conjecture, or a hypothesis. It is a well-documented and supported explanation of the actual observed facts. It explains many facts better than creationism does (such as the existence of fossil dinosaurs). There used to be a theory that the sun revolved around the earth. That theory explained a lot of observable facts (like the sun rising and setting), but better observations brought up a lot of facts it didn't explain--leading to a better theory. It would be absurd to argue that these two theories should both be taught in astronomy classes just because they are both "just" theories. One theory is better because it fits the observable evidence better. To make plain-vanilla creationism fit the facts you have to make too many compromises with reasonableness. Evolution fits the facts better, so it should be taught. As an aside, "intelligent design," in my opinion, is a philosophical idea that is consistent with evolution. It isn't (or at least doesn't have to be) in competition with evolution. Some people think it fits the observed facts better than undirected evolution, but not many scientists think this. It's really more of an esthetic idea ("how could something so complex and beautiful as an oak tree evolve randomly," etc.--an idea I am in sympathy with, but it isn't science, really).

I tend to agree that it's odd for BSA to name an activity after an outspoken atheist (I'm accepting that this really is the case for Watson), but I suspect the reason is more likely inattention than hypocrasy. Although I will say that I can recognize the Dalai Lama as an important religious leader, while agreeing with restrictions that would prevent him from joining my church without changing his views.

You're in the situation--not too unusual--of trying to keep things going, and not let them get too messed up, until you get the training you need to really do them right. (Example: you will learn that an ASM is not supposed to serve on a Board of Review.) I think until you do get the training you need, you have to err on the side of caution, especially in terms of what this new young ASM is permitted to do.

"Loudest outcry was from parents who wanted their kids to have opportunity to rack up those Eagle-reqd MBs." I hear you--I'm having that same conversation with my own wife. I love the mulch story. In my son's troop, several boys have "earned" Small Boat Sailing several times at camp, because they thought it was fun. I think that's great.

SR540Beaver took the words out of my mouth: As a parent, I want to let my kids choose their activities--but choosing to do nothing is not one of the options. Also, a parent will sometimes want to cajole, urge, or even bribe a child to continue an activity. You might be able to see the big picture better, and realize that their current dissatisfaction is likely to be temporary. My own son declared before baseball season that he didn't really want to play and that this would be his last season playing; however, now he's playing well and is saying how much fun it is. So while I don't think a parent should say, "You're staying in Scouts because I say so," a parent might well say, "I hear what you're saying, but why don't you stick it out until (some future event) and see if it gets better?"

I just find dispiriting the thought of boys at Summer Camp sitting around doing Citizenship or Communications when they could be out in a canoe or something like that. I wasn't even thinking about the cutting corners part of it. It just seems like a wasted opportunity to me. Any troop should be able to find somebody to counsel Communications and the Citizenship MBs. That's less likely to be the case for things like Small Boat Sailing or Riflery.

I didn't notice that this thread was a year old until I saw one of my own posts in it!

Camp is coming up, and some boys actually want advice on what merit badges to pursue at camp. My bias is toward MBs that are harder to do elsewhere--like Wilderness Survival, Riflery, Pioneering--and that we don't have counselors around to advise. Some crafts, too, for balance. But the camp offers Communications, and some see this as an opportunity to do an Eagle-required badge at camp (esp. for those who have already done Swimming and Lifesaving). I just don't think Communications is very "campish." What do others think?

A couple of points. First of all, "units" can't require the uniform, although COs can do so. I am quite confident that very few of the units that in fact require uniforms are doing so because their CO is making them do it. But what is the reason that units aren't supposed to require uniforms? I can't think of any reason that would not apply with equal force to Districts and National. If a unit can't require uniforms even at a special event like a Board of Review or Court of Honor, it seems odd that a summer camp can require them at meals, as some do. I wouldn't go so far as to call it hypocritical, but it does seem to me to be inconsistent. I think the fact is that National, as well as summer camps, are aware that if you REALLY want every person to be in uniform, it has to be a requirement, not just a method that is strongly encouraged. There will always be a few people who won't do it unless they really have to. So here's a little ethical conundrum for you: you REALLY would like to require the Scouts in your troop to wear full uniforms to all meetings, but the PLC doesn't agree and you know that you, as an adult leader, don't have the authority to impose such a requirement. Would it be ethical for you to approach the COR and suggest that the CO impose a uniforming requirement on the troop?

Some parents have a tendency to see "Eagle Scout" as a check-off item for the college application, and may convey to the Scout that getting Eagle is the goal of being in Scouts. The parents who are concerned about the timing may be in this category. It should be explained to these parents that advancement is only part of Scouting, and that it's not the goal. (I have to remind my wife of this fairly often.)

I mentioned this once in the Uniforms forum--that we should be concerned not only with the proper uniform, but with how the contents of the uniform reflect on it. In this case, though, I think the best example a leader could set would be trying to change his level of fitness. This is one of my current motivations for trying to lose weight and get into better shape, although I must confess that survival is the predominant motive.

On free will: Both religious and non-religious trains of thought can lead some people to the philosophical conclusion that free will does not exist. Thus, if God preordains what we will do, there is no free will. Similarly, if all our actions are simply caused by prior random events in the universe, there is no free will. However, virtually everybody talks, thinks, and acts as though they have free will. In fact, people who become fully convinced that they don't have free will--that they are being controlled by outside forces--usually end up under psychiatric care. Since you will never convince a healthy person that free will doesn't exist, I say, don't bother.

Let me take a whack at this. First, BSA does not require any boy to have a uniform. Therefore, the troop should not be requiring the uniform at all. It can urge, suggest, even inspect, but it shouldn't require. Thus (for example) the common practice of sending a boy home who is not properly uniformed is wrong. Second, except for minor issues (such as hat and neckerchief), the troop can't say what the uniform is--BSA does that. So, for example, a troop should not say that for it, a complete uniform does not include the pants. What I suggest is the following: If you feel very strongly about full uniforming, you (by "you" I really mean the PLC) should announce: "In our troop, we strongly encourage full uniforming, and our meetings will include uniform inspections with special recognition given to the patrols with the most complete and correct uniforming and insignia." If you don't feel as strongly about uniforming, say: "In our troop, we encourage full uniforming. Scouts should make a special effort to wear full uniforms on special occasions such as Courts of Honor." Then, if they ask whether they have to wear the pants, say, "No, you don't have to wear any uniform part. We hope you'll wear all the uniform parts, but the shirt is more important than the pants." The fact is that different units put a different amount of emphasis on uniforming--just as some units put more emphasis on high adventure, others on service, etc. I think there can be variation in this without transgressing the rules either way.

I agree--camper or cabin don't count. On the other hand, there is nothing in the requirement that says it has to be Scout camping. Thus, a counselor is not modifying the requirements by accepting nights in a tent pitched by the scout outside of Scouting. Personally, if I were the Camping advisor, I would have no problem counting nights that I considered "real" camping--i.e., if the Scout went on the Appalachian Trail and camped with a church group, etc., but I would be more resistant to family camping at the KOA. But it's really up to the advisor--he or she can accept those nights or not--if the Scout disagrees with the counselor's decision, his only recourse, as far as I know, is to find another counselor.

"And since we are not allowed to punish Scouts, isn't sending them home for any reason punishment? A consequence yes but also punishment? And isn't punishment a consequence?" It's really a moot point, because this is what BSA tells us to do if the circumstances warrant. So either it isn't punishment, or BSA allows adults to perform this particular method of punishment. Certainly, a Scout will experience it as punishment, but that doesn't justify other kinds of punishment--those, BSA tells us are not our responsibility.

"Hunt, wouldn't it be better if they just said "we follow the program, policies, and procedures of the BSA" so that the parents would know what to expect and where to find information if they thought something wasn't kosher?." Alas, I suspect that many of the units we are complaining about would feel perfectly comfortable making such a claim--because they are following their memories of what the program was back when they were Scouts. They don't even know that they are deviating from the program--they just "know" (for example) that you're supposed to rigorously test Scout skills in Boards of Review and "fail" boys who can't tie their knots. Some of them are well-meaning people who haven't been trained and are just floundering around. I guess what I'd like to see is yet another BSA publication--a guide for parents to Scouting methods and procedures. It would pull together some of the material that's in the Handbook, the Guide to Safe Scouting, and other materials, and would be designed to educate parents on the way BSA units are supposed to function. If something like that existed, it might discourage troops from developing rules (written or unwritten) that deviate from what parents are told they should expect. As somebody mentioned, currently parents with no scouting experience won't know that there is anything wrong if the SM tells them, for example, that he doesn't allow young Scouts to make Eagle.