Hunt

I think scouts should wear their uniforms to the BOR, and I think they should be expected to do so. However, I don't think the BOR should be refused to a scout who is not fully uniformed. It's certainly legitimate to ask him about his attitude toward the uniform during the Board, and to help him understand its importance. Similarly, I think it's OK to ask a boy to recite the Oath and Law at a BOR--but not OK to "fail" him if he stumbles or freezes. Personally, I think just about the only reason to "fail" a boy on his BOR would be the discovery that there was some mistake or misunderstanding, and that all the requirements weren't done. I think the problem here is that too many adults think the BOR is a test or a trial to determine if the boy is "worthy" of the next rank. As you can see from the quote OGE gave us, this is not the purpose of the BOR at all, apart from determining that the requirements have been met. Remember, the boy has already been tested--when the requirements were signed off. I really hate the fact that in many troops boys approach BORs with fear and trepidation, and concern that they may "fail." In fact, troops do "fail" boys because they can't remember their knots, etc. This turns what should be a positive experience into a typical boy-adult encounter in which adults have all the power and can capriciously exercise it--not what BSA is about at all. Sorry for the rant, but this one gets my dander up.

I think it's worthwhile to repeat here what BSA's stated policy is. This is from the National website: "Applications for leadership and membership do not inquire into sexual orientation. However, an individual who declares himself to be a homosexual would not be permitted to join Scouting. All members in Scouting must affirm the values of the Scout Oath and Law, and all leaders must be able to model those values for youth." Other statements say that homosexual behavior is inconsistent with the values of Scouting, and that "avowed" homosexuals may not be Scout leaders. Thus, in my opinion, a Scout does not have to lie about his sexuality in order to remain a member--he may rather choose to say nothing. If he does choose to "avow" his sexuality, then BSA may act to remove him. I will add that if an individual scout came to me and told me that he believed or thought he might be gay, I would probably not try to give him advice, but would suggest that he talk to somebody with more expertise, perhaps at his school. In addition, if he came to me privately with such a concern, I would not consider him to be an "avowed" homosexual, and thus I would have no duty--indeed, no right--to turn him in to BSA. That seems to me consistent--indeed, probably mandated--by BSA's policy.

Rooster said: "I am not advocating the torture of animals. And, I do not consider fishing to be cruel, for sport or for food." Could you explain why you don't think fishing for sport is cruel? Is it because fish don't feel pain? Or is it because fish are a lower order of being, and that the value of the sport outweighs their pain? Or is there some other reason?

I get uncomfortable when I read about troops in which the adult leaders impose tough standards and requirements beyond the advancement requirements--I really question whether such troops are boy-led. When I read about all the things boys are "required" or "not allowed" to do, I have to wonder why the PLC is making those decisions--oops, it isn't the PLC making them, it's adults who think Scouting is about doing the hard work to learn useful (maybe) skills. While I don't think boys should be allowed to sleaze through their requirements, there are good reasons we aren't supposed to retest requirements that have been appropriately signed off. Mastery of skills should come from participation in a quality program, not from cramming based on fear that adult overlords will flunk the scouts at conference or board of review.

I agree that there are many advantages to posting anonymously. If I were using my real name and unit, I would never discuss problems with boys in the unit, or talk about what was said in BORs, etc. I certainly wouldn't criticize any of the other adult leaders. But anonymously, I can discuss some of those issues without taking the risk of personally hurting any of the people involved. Also, to be blunt, I don't really care who you are. Even if you use your real name, and tell me that you've been SM of Troop X for 30 years, so what? I'm not going to check up on you to see if you're telling the truth, and I'm going to judge your opinions and arguments on their merits anyway. So, for example, I'm probably not going to tell you what training I've had or haven't had, because I'm annoyed by people who say, "Well, if you had received this or that training you would know the right answer to this question."

Actually, animals don't have "rights," per se--even though there are laws that protect animals and prohibit certain acts of cruelty toward them. While it is true that the Bible indicates that animals are under the dominion of man, it also makes it clear that cruelty to animals is wrong. "The just regardeth the lives of his beasts: but the bowels of the wicked are cruel" (Proverbs 12:10). Anybody who thinks cruelty to animals is OK is well outside the Jewish and Christian tradition. So is fishing cruel? Certainly, fishing to catch fish that one eats is consistent with Biblical practices (Jesus ate fish, after all). But what about sport fishing with hooks, where the fish isn't eaten? I don't know--certainly, we probably wouldn't approve of somebody catching cats or dogs or even squirrels with hooks, would we? The point is, once you accept that there is some moral requirement to avoid cruelty to animals (which presumably even Rooster must accept, because the Bible says so), you have to think about what is and is not cruel.

I know this is blasphemy, but what's the big deal about all these knots? With the camping equipment most people use today, the need to tie a bunch of different knots is significantly reduced. (Back when giants walked the earth, we all had to tie knots to put up our tents, for example.) Scouts will remember skills they frequently use. If they don't need to tie many knots, the only way they will remember them is if they tie them frequently when they aren't needed--and I question that use of their time. Maybe another way of putting this is that with a few exceptions (first aid), there shouldn't be a need to retest boys on skills, because they would have been part of an active program in which they used the skills they need.

We all know that a BOR of review is not supposed to retest requirements that have been signed off. But we also know that the temptation to do so is strong, sometimes very, very strong. It may be even stronger when the requirement has been signed off by a parent or by another scout. This is why I suggest to my son that he have as many requirements as possible signed off by the SM.

More rules would be good if your goal is to improve the purity of the MB system--that is, to ensure that all MB recipients meet a specified high standard. Thus you could eliminate MB days, drop MBs from summer camp, prohibit parental signoffs, limit the number of MBs one person can counsel, stiffen the review process to ensure MBCs are qualified, etc. On the other hand, each time you impose one of these rules, you make the system less flexible, and you make it more difficult for boys to get merit badges. Personally, I'm not too concerned about whether scouts in other troops get their MBs too easily--that's on their conscience, and the conscience of their adult leaders. However, I do take these concerns as a challenge to improve the system for the troop my son is in--to try to recruit good counselors, to encourage boys to seek out MBCs outside the troop, to encourage boys to look for other opportunities for badges, to refuse to compromise when badges are given away at camp, etc. But each of the rules listed above would have eliminated some of MBs boys in my son's troop have earned--and, in my judgment, they really did the work and met the requirements.

Rather than trying to ship the clothing overseas, you might have a pack-or-troop-wide "yard sale," sell the clothing (and other stuff) and then donate the proceeds.

In a number of threads various practices have been criticized in part because the "Eagle Board Won't Like It." Examples include MBs signed off by parent, too many MBs signed off by same counselor, PORs that aren't all that responsible, Eagle projects that don't call for a great deal of leadership, etc. But is this really true? None of these things, as far as I can tell, violate any of the Eagle requirements. I suspect some of these problems might cause an Eagle candidate to be "grilled" at his Board--but as long as he insists (for example) that he did all the MB work, there's no way the Board can turn him down just because Dad signed off on all of them. Don't get me wrong--I don't think a Scout should have all his MBs approved by Dad or by the same MBC, but I want to tell the boys the truth when I tell them why this isn't a good idea.

Recently there was a Merit Badge day in our area that I thought took a good middle ground. It was sponsored by the Jewish scouting committee, but was open to all scouts. A list of counselors was posted, with the MBs they were counseling, and the scouts (not the parents) had to call the counselor to sign up. Although I publicized this to my son's troop, my son was the only one who made the call and signed up.

Yesterday I did a search on Google News on "Boy Scouts," and what I found was pretty interesting. The vast majority of news was local, and almost all of it was good: boys making Eagle, service projects, good deeds, rescues, planned events, etc. There were a few articles about controversies (like the DOD case), and a handful of editorials criticizing BSA. There were actually more--far more--editorials criticizing ACLU for attacking scouting than there were supporting ACLU. Some of these were from rightwing kooks, but they outnumbered the leftwing kooks. What this suggests, to me anyway, is that Scouting still has a very good image in most of the country. Those of us reading forums like this are more sensitized to the controversial and negative news, but most people don't experience that so much. So while Scouting has some issues, some problems, and even some enemies, it is far from being under siege.

I have been reading with interest a couple of threads on how much Scouters should or should not adorn their uniforms with beads, knots, patches, and various other gewgaws. I recently attended my first Roundtable, and I did notice that quite a few Scouters had a lot of stuff on their shirts. But I have to say, that what I REALLY noticed, and that I myself am sporting, was a large, unsightly bulge in the midsection of the uniform shirt. Yes, a big gut. When I saw so many guys all in one place with that same out-of-shape form, I felt convicted--this is a much worse example to the boys than any amount of uniform paraphenalia. I am determined to do better, and trying to shed the spare tire will be one of my New Years' resolutions. While a person may have a patch that indicated he scaled the Tooth of Time in 1975, if he looks now like he couldn't scale a flight of stairs, what is the impression that gets through?

If you don't like the styles your kids wear, start wearing them yourself. They'll quickly change to something else. Similarly, you can PRETEND to hate something fairly innocuous--that may be enough to prevent them from going on to something worse. I often have an internal dialogue with myself that goes like this: Me: "How can that teen's mother allow her to show up in church like that?" Myself: "At least she's in church, unlike most of her contemporaries." If a boy is a good Scout, I'm not too concerned about how he dresses outside of Scouting (within reason, of course).

Just to shed a little more light on what's really going on, read: http://www.newshounds.us/2004/12/05/oreillyrumsfeld_interview_part_ii.php This is a transcript of an interview of Rumsfeld by Bill O'Reilly. Two things are clear: 1. Rumsfeld is not going to reverse the settlement--indeed, he seems to recognize that the military can't sponsor units. 2. O'Reilly puts his finger (I think) on the real solution--the military will "dance around" the restrictions so that there will be no changes on the ground for units. Conclusion: the ACLU gained little if anything out of the settlement, BSA units will experience little if any burden, and the proposed legislation will go nowhere and would do nothing even if it did.

In Dale, the Supreme Court basically ruled that the state of New Jersey can't stop BSA from discriminating, any more than it could make the Roman Catholic Church stop discriminating. The plaintiffs in the case, along with the ACLU, tried to make a distinction between BSA and groups (like churches) that clearly can discriminate under the Constitution, and they failed to persuade the Court. So yes, BSA has a constitutionally-protected right to discriminate. But that is irrelevant to the following two questions: 1. Can a government entity sponsor a BSA unit? Just as a government entity clearly couldn't sponsor a Roman Catholic youth group that discriminated against non-Catholics, it can't sponsor a BSA group that discriminates against atheists. (Indeed, if the Dale case is relevant, it cuts the other way, because BSA argued that its ability to discriminate against atheists was one of its core values.) 2. Is it morally right for BSA to discriminate against atheists and gays? This is not a legal question, and thus the argument that BSA has the legal right to set its membership criteria isn't an answer either. Personally, I think it's morally defensible for BSA to discriminate against atheists, because it's an explicitly religions organization, in some ways like a church. I'm more conflicted when it comes to gays, but it's still a moral (or religious) question.

PLEASE try to understand the difference between "access" and "sponsorship." ("Support" is a deliberately vague term--its use by Rumsfeld and in this bill is a cynical attempt to avoid saying that the DOD should sponsor units.) I have not encountered anyone on this board who has argued that BSA should be denied access to government facilities, as long as other groups get access too. Heck, even Merlyn claims he doesn't think that. Look at the weaselly wording of the statute: it refers to any form of "support" including sponsoring an event. If they meant that government entities can sponsor units--the main controversy that supposedly led to this bill--why not say so? Perhaps it's only intended to save the Jamboree, but I continue to think that it's not intended to do anything but placate a few angry people. Just to make this clearer: I am not aware of any "federal law" that has even been claimed to restrict support of scout activities by government entities--the challenges, as far as I know, have been based on the Constitution. This law can and will do nothing to change the courts' interpretation of the Constitution. Also, it can and will do nothing to affect what states or localities do, since it applies only to federal agencies. End result? Zippo.

I have heard it said that God is an Englishman. If He is, He spells "judgement" with an "e."

The suggestion that the ACLU is "self-serving" is an example of something I have been seeing more and more in public discourse--the idea that those who disagree with you don't really disagree, but rather have some hypocritical, ulterior motive for disagreeing. This attitude can make it difficult to really understand the issues. It's much easier to dismiss the ACLU if we think they don't really object to discrimination, but have some secret reason for harassing the BSA. On the other hand, if you accept the idea that people in the ACLU think it's wrong to discriminate against gays and atheists, you have to explain why you think it's OK for BSA to do so, on the merits. (By the way, this attitude is rampant on both sides of most issues--BSA opponents think BSA is full of homophobes and religious fanatics who know that discrimination is wrong but do it anyway for their own ulterior motives.)

In general, I think the attacks on the ACLU here have been overblown. The ACLU is a private organization that brings lawsuits--federal judges decide the lawsuits. If you don't like the results, it's really the law you don't like, not the ACLU. However, in fairness I have to point out that the ACLU does not treat all civil rights equally. This can be shown by looking at the ACLU's brief in the Dale case (http://archive.aclu.org/court/boyscouts_v_dale.html). The ACLU decided that the ability of a state to ban discriminiation based on sexual orientation was more important than BSA's (and its members') rights of free association and free expression. Since this case did not involve public sponsorship, but rather an attempt by a state to regulate the membership standards of a private organization, I think ACLU took the wrong side from a civil rights point of view. Of course, the Supreme Court disagreed with the ACLU.

This bill wouldn't really do anything, even if anybody in Congress took the time to try to pass it (which I predict they won't--introducing it got them a little publicity, which is all they wanted). It doesn't say that federal entities can sponsor units--just "events," and it can't overrule the Constitution no matter what it says.

Somehow I just wasn't able to get those last 20 merit badges... Seriously, I dropped out of Scouting after about a year when it stopped being fun.

I've been asked to sit on an Eagle BOR for the first time. It's not exactly an honor, because the boys who are being reviewed are asked to bring along two adults to sit on somebody else's board, and there weren't all that many people to ask. But I appreciate the opportunity. Not having done this before, I would appreciate a few suggestions--should I let the more experienced Board members take the lead and ask questions, or go ahead and ask the questions that I know are appropriate? What's the general "tone" of such a Board--friendly, formal, tough, or what? I don't think I will be getting any paper before the Board--is that typical? I assume I should wear my uniform? Thanks.

The First Amendment doesn't say "a religion." It says "religion." When a military unit sets up a group that requires religious belief for membership, I think the Supreme Court would find that this is establishing "religion." I don't understand where free speech comes into it--the individual military people are free to form private groups and sponsor all the units they want, and they can even meet on military bases, as long as other groups can meet too. The government doesn't have free speech rights the same way individuals do--thus, the government, acting as the government, can't say that one religious view is right and another is wrong--although the people working for the government can do so in their private capacity. What this really boils down to, Ed, is that you wish U.S. law had developed a different way. It's OK for you to feel that way. You can even work to change the law, by trying to get the Constitution amended, for example. I suppose you could push for Supreme Court Justices to be appointed who would overturn well-established precedents. But in a real sense, the Supreme Court can't be "wrong" about what the law is, because the Court has the supreme power to say what the law is, barring only amendment of the Constitution.