Hunt

I was just reading over in the Advancement forum about troops that require Star and Life candidates to do their own service projects, and I've also read about troops where you can't make Eagle until you're 16, must finish MBs in one year, and on and on. I say this somewhat facetiously, but it's probably better for troops like that to write these rules down, so prospective Scouts and their parents can see up front that they're not following the program. It's better to find out then--and go elsewhere--than to find out at age 15 that the troop has an unwritten rule against Eagles who are "too young." Also, if they write these rules down, maybe a Commissioner or another Scouter will see it and set them straight. Written or unwritten, it makes me sad to read about all these rules that just hold boys back.

Each troop is different, but no troop can add to the advancement requirements. It may be a good idea to require scouts to do their own service projects fo Star and Life--just as it may be a good idea to make Cooking a required merit badge--but neither of these is currently part of the BSA advancement scheme. Of course, scouts can do their own service projects, and they can be encouraged and supported in doing so--just as they can get the Cooking merit badge if they want to.

I guess I can imagine that, too--but would a Board ask a Scout if he believes in God or gods? I don't think they should--they might ask him how he met the requirement to be reverent. On the other hand, if a Scout announces to the Board, "I don't believe in God," I guess I do think the Board must ask additional questions to determine if the Scout in fact meets the requirements.

I have some thoughts on this--they really go beyond the specific case, so I'm not worried about the facts. First, it seems to me that the only thing that can matter are the convictions of the individual scout, not the convictions of some other person. If a scout himself is a self-proclaimed atheist, I don't think it matters that he comes from a tradition that says he's still "saved." Otherwise, the Board could simply rely on a tradition that says everyone is "saved," no matter what they believe (and there are such tradtions). But it also seems the vast array of things that a person might believe could make this very hard if you try to delve into it. As Trevorum mentioned, there are non-theistic religions, like some forms of Buddhism. What would you do if a Scout said, "I believe that there once was a God who created the universe, but he gave up his essence in doing so, and now there is no God." I suppose he could still do his duty to God in such a belief system. What if he says, "I'm going through a crisis of faith right now--some days I believe in God, and some days I just can't." I guess you could tell him to come back on one of those days he does. My point here, if I have one, is that it's risky to delve too deeply into this topic, and that we should rely on the trustworthiness of the Scout to tell us if he meets the requirement of the Scout Law to be reverent.

""In my view, if he drinks enough to violate the law, that's also clearly immoral, because he has a moral obligation to obey the law." Hunt, I respectfully disagree. If one violates a law, ones behavior is illegal, not necessarily immoral. I feel I have no moral obligation to obey the law. I have a civic duty to obey the laws of the land and a moral obligation to "do right." In those rare instances where I feel a law is immoral, I may not follow it." Hmmm. I certainly agree that a person may have a moral obligation to violate the law, if the law is immoral. However, it seems to me that the obligation to obey the laws of the land is also a moral obligation, and that is immoral to disobey a law simply because I don't like it or think it's useless. In other words, I'd say the obligation to perform one's civic duty is itself a moral obligation.

I agree with the last few posters, which was why the "troop rule" I posited for foul language was: "Use of foul language is contrary to the Scout Law, and repeated use of such language at a troop event may result in the Scout being asked to leave." It makes clear what behavior is undesirable, states what the consequence may be, but still leaves discretion to the leaders to consider the circumstances. To my mind, it is entirely consistent with what the handbook says, and with what both Bob White and OGE say the process should be. But just to be clear, let me ask some pointed questions to those who are against troop rules: 1. Are you saying that it is somehow wrong to put in writing for the use of parents and scouts rules that have already been promulgated by BSA (such as those in the Guide to Safe Scouting)? Or is the objection just to rules that go beyond what BSA has laid down? 2. Is anybody saying that it is somehow wrong to put into writing troop procedures on mundane matters such as meeting time and place, permission slip policy, troop neckerchief, etc.?

I think meameng's point is that the scouts should be aware that unacceptable behavior will get them sent home. Certainly, resident camps, including Scout camps, typically have rules that indicate certain behaviors that will result in campers being sent home. These may not be exclusive lists, and most of the things are pretty obvious. Nevertheless, those lists convey information: behavior that is taken very seriously. Now Bob is advocating a different idea--one that I don't really disagree with--that a leader may find it necessary to send a boy home for behavior that may not normally fit into a category of "really bad," but that is nevertheless disruptive enough that he needs to leave. That's fine with me, as long as the power to do this isn't abused. But I don't think that precludes saying or writing some guidelines in advance as to what the "really bad" behaviors are. I'm imagining the following dramatic dialogue: New Parent: Tell me, Mr. Scoutmaster, does this Troop have a rule against foul language? SM: Well, we don't have a separate troop rule about that, but the scouts learn early on that foul language is contrary to the Scout Law. NP: So what do you do if a scout uses foul language? SM: We counsel him that his language is contrary to the Scout Law. NP: What if he keeps on doing it? SM: Well, we'll continue to work with him to help him understand why he shouldn't talk that way. NP: So there's no consequence other than this counseling, even if he won't stop? SM: Well, no, if his language becomes disruptive of the program, he'll be sent home. NP: So if a boy repeatedly uses bad language, he'll be sent home? SM: That's right. NP: So that's your troop rule? SM: No, we don't have a troop rule about language, we just go by the Scout Law. NP: Okay....... This is a bit facetious, but I don't think there is anything wrong with a troop policy that says something like, "Use of foul language is contrary to the Scout Law, and repeated use of such language at a troop event may result in the Scout being asked to leave."

This is a detour, but it's an interesting one. The law of underage drinking is complex. The federal law that sets the drinking age at 21 explicitly excludes consumption of sacramental wine from the definition of "public possession." Some states have similar language; others don't. In my opinion, the federal courts would probably rule (and may have already ruled) that laws prohibiting the consumption of sacramental wine by minors are unconstitutional. As far as I know, this isn't an issue anywhere. This wasn't even an issue during Prohibition. What has been an issue, though, is whether parents can serve alcoholic beverages to their own children in the privacy of their own homes. A couple of state laws I looked at do in fact seem to prohibit this. (Again, the law would probably be unconstitutional when applied to wine consumed for religious reasons.) I have never heard of a prosecution for this involving only the children of the parent--they generally involve parents that host drinking parties. But clearly, in many cultures drinking wine with a meal is normal and acceptable before the age of 21. Is it immoral for such people to serve wine to their children at home in states where it is technically illegal? I'm not sure. (I leave aside whether privacy rights would make enforcing such a law unconstitutional.)

I don't think JohnDaigler is talking about underage drinking--he's talking about Mr. Z having a drink--or a few drinks--and then driving home. In my view, if he drinks enough to violate the law, that's also clearly immoral, because he has a moral obligation to obey the law. Second, if he drinks enough to impair his driving abilities at all, even if he's under the legal limit, in my opinion it's immoral for him to drive home. If you ask my mother, his immorality begins with the first sip of alcohol. This is a nice example, because it shows several concepts of morality: 1. What's illegal is what's immoral, nothing more or less. (Few people think this.) 2. That which harms or has the potential to harm others is immoral. 3. Certain behaviors are immoral because of God-given standards, whether they clearly harm anybody or not. This is one reason the issue of homosexuality is so controversial--there are many people who believe it is immoral under (2) above, as well as (3).

"Let me ask Hunt, how often have you had to punish a scout?" It's not the responsibility of adult leaders in Scouting to punish scouts. I assume you knew that--or was this a trick question? Sending a boy home for unacceptable behavior is not necessarily punishment, but it is a consequence. Some behavior is so dangerous, offensive, or contrary to the Scout Law that it justifies sending a boy home. Other behavior, while undesirable, doesn't rise to that level of seriousness. You can set guidelines in advance that explain what behavior is considered to be at that level of seriousness, or you can use adult discretion at the time of the offense. In my opinion, it is better for everyone if it is well understood that certain defined actions will cause a scout to be sent home. I recognize that there may be situations (Eamonn described one) in which you can't send them home right away. To go back to the foul language example, Bob White wrote: "So a scout who uses inapropriate language, regardless of what letter it begins with, will find an adult leader by his side for a discussion of the intricacies of the english language. If he chooses to continue to interrupt the program with his vulgarity guess where he is headed...back home." Thus, if Bob is the adult leader in charge, repeated use of foul language will get you sent home. Also, Bob gets to decide whether the language is vulgar enough, and whether it's interrupting the program. I'm just not convinced that this kind of discretion is better than some clear rules and consequences. Of course, if all the Scouts know that Mr. White will send you home for repeated cussing, that's an unwritten rule or policy anyway. Just to be clear: "Foul language is contrary to the Scout Law" and "Repeated use of foul language will get you sent home" are not the same rules. The Handbook includes the first, but not the second.

I don't want to belabor this too much, but while page 53 of the Handbook explains why a Scout should not use foul language, it doesn't say what the consequences will be if he does so at a Scouting event. I'm a bit skeptical of the approach that seems to say to a Scout, read everything in the Handbook and follow it--if you don't, then I, the adult leader, will decide if you have transgressed enough to send you home. I think there's still a rule there--if you persist in cussing, I'll send you home. If that's your standard practice, do you tell the Scouts when you are teaching them that it's your practice? And if so, how's it different from a rule? Will you also send him home from Scout Camp if he refuses to shower? Furthermore, if there already is a rule against foul language, found on p. 53 of the Handbook, what earthly harm can there be in reiterating that in a troop guidebook that is given to the parents so they'll also have a clear understanding of what behavior is expected?

I don't even read these as requiring the service project be done in connection with Scouts (since it can be an "individual project")--i.e., if the Scout worked on a service project at a soup kitchen with his church youth group, I think the SM can count it.

Can we at least have a rule saying what the troop neckerchief is? BSA tells us the unit gets to choose, right? I think it's great to teach boys why it's a good idea not to bring GameBoys on a campout. Maybe they will all absorb the reasons, and they will all stop bringing it. But are you really saying that the PLC can't make a collective decision on something like this? Also, I don't understand the difference between teaching the boys what is expected (i.e., on how foul language isn't "clean") and writing it down on a piece of paper. In a troop that uses this "teaching" method, what actually happens when an adult leader hears a Scout using foul language? Will the adult leader warn him to stop, or not?

"Boy Scout troops are for boys. Adults are there to serve as leaders, not as parents. Adults should be working for the good of all boys, not just their sons. I feel it is entirely appropriate for units to limit the number of adults on any given activity." I don't agree with the "any given activity" part of this. I think it is OK--even necessary--to limit the number of adults on high adventure outings, or on trips with a limited number of slots. I also think it is OK to set relevant limitations on which adults can attend certain events--i.e., fitness requirement for high adventure, registered leader for Jamboree. However, absent such limitations I think it is a violation of the GTSS to exclude parents just because you'd rather not have them around. The parent has the right to observe "all aspects of the Scouting program." That includes meetings and other outings, in my opinion. Clearly, it even includes events to which parents were historically not permitted, such as OA events. You can tell parents why it might be better for them not to attend, but you can't make a rule excluding them.

I'm a bit perplexed by this idea that all a troop needs is the Oath and Law, and that it doesn't need any other "rules." It just seems to me that this is obviously not the case--but maybe it depends on how you define "rules." Let's take a simple example: Are Scouts allowed to bring GameBoys along on campouts? Analysis: I think we are all aware that most Scout Camps feel it is necessary to state a rule on this (in fact, the camps have many rules beyond the Oath and Law). How should a troop deal with this question? Now, we may have discussions over whether the PLC should make this decision, or whether the adult leaders should do so (I think PLC), but this is certainly a reasonable determination for a troop to make, and to write down. If you don't write it down, but simply tell everybody they can't bring the GameBoy, it's still a rule. And if you don't make a blanket rule, how do you (either the SM or the SPL) answer the question of a Scout who asks you if he can bring it? You can make an interpretation of how the Scout Law would apply (maybe it's not courteous to bring your GameBoy), but what if the boy disagrees with your interpretation? If he has to obey, then you're back to a rule--and maybe an arbitrary one. Let me make myself clear: I'm not saying that troop "rules" (or policies, or practices, or whatever you'd like to call it) should ever deviate from the BSA program--and far too many of them do. But there are decisions that have to be made on the unit level about a number of matters, and there's nothing wrong with writing those down.

The problem I have with most of the sets of troop rules that I have seen is that almost all of them include things contrary to BSA policy. Many of these involve advancement (like the requirement to finish a MB in a year), and are particularly wrong, in my opinion. But I think many troops without written rules do many of the same things, so I think it is lack of knowledge or training (or lack of willingness to follow the training) that is the culprit, not the written rules per se. However, troops will have certain practices, policies, and traditions that may need to be written down. For example, BSA uniform makes the neckerchief and headgear unit options--it would be reasonable for the unit to write down what option it chooses. Also, it may make sense to write down mundane rules like, "After meetings, the unit flags are to be stored in Closet B." I also think it may be useful for units to have Parents' Guides that pull together various information, including BSA rules and troop practices. A final point--the more rules that are made by adult leadership, the less boy-run the troop will be. The scrapbook example is probably an example of a requirement that's being imposed by adult leaders.

"On the flip side try this one on for size. Mrs. Z, a physically fit, buxom, healthy mother, age 32, breast feeds her eight month old son in the back of the troop meeting room during a COH. Is anything wrong with that?" Does she have her uniform shirt tucked in?

"Reverent - disrespect of others religious beliefs" Marge, did you sign this contract yourself, and if so, did you forget about the part quoted above? I hope this doesn't offend you, but it's been my experience that when people appear, post a controversial question, and then later post that they're done posting on the topic, it means that they were "trolling" for a particular response, and are upset when they don't get it. I guess you wanted us to all be shocked and horrified by the very idea that BSA might recognize Satanism as a "religion." Well, we aren't--at least, I'm not. BSA recognizes lots of false religions (as well as the one true one, of course). You haven't said anything to suggest that this boy has behaved in any morally improper way, or that he has shown disrespect to anybody else's religion. Also, he may not be a Satanist--he may be a Gnostic.

I guess I should answer my own questions: 1. Is Mr. Z morally straight? Probably not--at least not totally. Like all of us. 2. Do you have enough information to determine if Mr. Z is morally straight? Not 100%, but probably you do. Most likely he likes to look at pictures of unclad ladies. You don't have enough information to determine how far from the ideal of "morally straight" he is. 3. Is Mr. Z performing his duty to God? Again, probably not. 4. Should you say anything to Mr. Z about this? Should you report this to the Committee or the COR? Does it matter if you know that the CO, a church, strongly condemns such material? No, no, and no. Without more, this simply amounts to evidence that Mr. Z has feet of clay like everybody else. 5. If you were the head of BSA, how would you go about determining whether a person with a subscription to Playboy is morally straight or not? How would you determine whether such a person should be allowed to be a Scout leader? I am persuaded by the response of others that, in general, it is not the job of BSA to delineate what is morally straight and what isn't--except at the boundary of whether a person is fit to be a leader in any unit, no matter what the CO thinks. At that level, how would I decide what behavior would automatically disqualify a person from being a Scout leader? It's tough, because not even all illegal behavior would do it. Convicted felon? Probably disqualifies in almost every case. For legal behavior, I'd have to create some criteria, such as: Is this behavior likely to be harmful to Scouts? Is it likely to seriously impair the leader's ability to lead? Is it likely to bring Scouting into disrepute by association? Is it a behavior that is strongly condemned as highly immoral by....? By whom? That's where I run into the problem, and what is obviously the point of this exercise. You could fill in any of the following, but I find all unsatisfying in various ways: 1. By the general consensus of U.S. society. 2. By the majority of BSA COs. 3. By the majority of a particular BSA committee. 4. By the traditional standards of BSA (determined by...?) 5. By (several? most? all?) major world religions. It's tough to know how to do this. You'd also have to factor in how big a deal the standard-setting group would find the activity--thus, in my example, although many of the groups would in fact condemn reading Playboy as immoral, I suspect that most of them would not declare a person who does this as unfit to be a Scout leader.

I picked this example because I thought subscribing to Playboy would be something that many people would think is at least somewhat immoral, but that nobody would think was bad enough to make a big deal about. I could have said that Mr. Z regularly travels to Las Vega to play the slots, or any other legal act that is considered immoral by many. I think Ed is right that almost nobody would think that moral behavior is the same as legal behavior. On the other hand, once you get beyond what is legal, the criteria people use to decide what is moral and what isn't vary widely. Unless you are a particularly devout follower of a particular religion, there is not much you can point to without some interpretations and extrapolation.

Some interesting discussion on another thread--I thought I'd spin this off to avoid diverting the flow. In thinking about morality, BSA, morally straight, etc., I propose the following "thought experiment" to analyze: Fact scenario: You go to Mr. Z's house for a meeting of a subcommittee of the Troop Committee. No youth are present. Mr. Z is an ASM in the troop. During the meeting, you excuse yourself to go to the bathroom, and lying on the counter in the bathroom is a Playboy magazine! It has a subscription label on it with Mr. Z's name! You don't know much about Mr. Z's religion, but you think he's some kind of churchgoer. His son has aged out of the troop and is away at college. There is nothing else to make you suspect Mr. Z of immorality or unfitness in any way. Questions: 1. Is Mr. Z morally straight? 2. Do you have enough information to determine if Mr. Z is morally straight? 3. Is Mr. Z performing his duty to God? 4. Should you say anything to Mr. Z about this? Should you report this to the Committee or the COR? Does it matter if you know that the CO, a church, strongly condemns such material? 5. If you were the head of BSA, how would you go about determining whether a person with a subscription to Playboy is morally straight or not? How would you determine whether such a person should be allowed to be a Scout leader? This example may seem somewhat facetious--the purpose is to get us thinking about how we decide what is moral and what isn't, as well as how important it is.

scoutldr's last post got me to thinking about the two burning issues, and how they are (or are not) connected. Does "morally straight" grow out of "Duty to God," or is it something independent? The tension we see here is that BSA's Duty to God requirement, while excluding some people, is nevertheless extremely broad and does not judge among religions at all. On the other hand, "morally straight" has been interpreted by BSA to apply to specific behavior that is condemned as sinful by some religions, but not others. It has not applied the same restrictions to other behavior that is similarly condemned as sinful by some religions--indeed, as far as I know, it has not applied the same restrictions to some behavior (i.e., adultery) that is condemned by essentially all religions. It's a dilemma for BSA, because "morally straight" has to have some content, or it's meaningless. But the most reasonable way of dealing with this would be a problem for BSA--that would be to define "morally straight" as behaving in a moral way as defined by the Scout or Scouter's own religious faith.

Don't you love all this arcana? I note that the expedition hat is "approved as an activity hat." Does this mean that it is part of the activity uniform? If not, what is the point of restricting what pins can be placed upon it? Another question: can a boy (or adult) wear the campaign hat with no pin at all?

Another thing that accelerates at this age is the boy's desire to be more independent from his parents. So another question to ask yourself is whether that is happening in Scouts? Does he feel that you are always looking over his shoulder? I've seen a few cases in which it seemed like the whole involvement in Scouting was really for the dad, and not for the boy--or at least the boy may have perceived that to be the case.

Perhaps OGE was right, and EagerLeader was just trolling for a response, or maybe she just didn't like the answer--after all, nobody, even those who think the policy should be changed, told her to just keep quiet and stay in the position. Rather, the advice--with which I agree--was: 1. Consider whether you really, really are an atheist or not. BSA allows a pretty broad set of beliefs to qualify. 2. If you really, really are an atheist, you don't qualify for membership and the honest thing to do is resign. Very reasonable, nothing about being "unworthy" or a "bad person." It's just like when the CM of my son's old pack presented me with a knot, but I discovered later that I don't qualify because I hadn't attended Roundtables. I don't wear the knot. It's simple.