Hunt

I think this is one area where it's useful to recognize differences in the way men and women communicate. "You Just Don't Understand," by Deborah Tannen talks about this, and it's very interesting. An example that she gives is the way men and women deal with negative traits in their friends. For example, if a woman has a big nose, her friends will tell her that it's not big, that it fits her face, etc. If a man has a big nose, his friends will call him "Schnoz." In both cases, the friends are expressing that it's OK--but very differently. So I would agree that you have to judge how the n

Really, if you're going to use declining numbers as an argument that a policy is bad, you have to accept that increasing numbers is an argument that it's good. Again, I really have to question the idea of forming a NSP with only 2 or 3 new scouts--has anybody actually done this, and how well did it work? Did the boys have fun? Did they stay with the program? It seems to me that among other problems, this would greatly increase the risk of having a "patrol" of a single new scout at a campout. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Again, some folks seem to have trouble distinguishing pedophilia from homosexuality. I see no reason to think that any particular gay man is more likely to molest my son than to think that any particular heterosexual man is likely to molest my daughter. I suppose if you would never allow your daughter to go anywhere with two heterosexual men, no matter how trustworthy they otherwise might seem to be, there is some logic to not allowing your son to go with two gay men. That would at least ascribe the same level of distrust to everyone's sexual urges. But Rooster seems to be saying that

I would like to know why it would be a good idea to put 2 or 3 brand-new scouts together in a "patrol." Do you really think they would have fun, and would really have the patrol experience in such a small group? Why is this better than putting both (or all three) of these boys in the same mixed-age patrol, perhaps the one with the younger experienced scouts in it? I've certainly seen problems when new scouts were distributed to multiple mixed-age patrols--when buddies were divided, the less-interested kids didn't stay with the troop. But on the other hand, I've seen substantial cameraderi

I know several gay men with whom I would trust my son's safety for any length of time, just as I know heterosexual men with whom I would trust my daughter. However, I probably would not want my son to go on a two-week trip with two gay leaders, because I don't think the gay lifestyle is moral. For the same reason, I would not send my child for two weeks with a man and woman who were cohabiting but unmarried, or with a person who I thought might make bigoted statements in the presence of my child. I am able to make a distinction between the risk of sexual predation and negative influences

I'm not crazy about the school service hours requirement, partly because I think it takes away from those who serve voluntarily, and partly because it interferes with the family's decisions about what constitutes service. For example, explicitly religious activities cannot be included--so, for example, if your service was handing out religious tracts on the streetcorner, it wouldn't count--but working for a political campaign does count. I think that's probably unconstitutional, but I'm not quite upset enough about it to sue. Service hours for scouting are different, because the whole orga

If your child is ever sexually molested by an adult, it will most likely be by somebody who is not openly homosexual. So if you're really concerned about it, you should never send your son away with any adults at all. Your child's protection from molestation in Scouting is two-deep leadership and background checks. If that's not good enough, you might want to reconsider having your child participate. Personally, I would not be concerned about homosexual leaders molesting my child, any more than I'm concerned about my daughter's male soccer coaches molesting her--which means, I'm concern

We've been having such discussions with scouts, but on a more informal basis than a BOR. Do you think a more formal BOR setting brings the point home better?

I've been thinking about the "double dipping" question--I tend to agree with Bob White, that we should recognize service without placing a lot of limitations on it. But I have some questions. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the school system here requires a certain number of "service learning hours" for graduation. Although the kids "have" to do this, I would have no problem counting these hours toward any Scout requirements as well. On the other hand, what about something like the Reading Merit Badge, which includes (as an option, I think) volunteering in the local public library? Would y

I'd like to commend OGE for demonstrating how to respond to a question like this on the merits. He answered the question of how should a troop measure active, and I agree with his analysis. The issue of how BSA wants troops to do this is a different one, and harder to answer. The Handbook is vague, and this isn't spelled out in other advancement-related documents I've seen. I'm not aware of any document in which the various advancement requirements are analyzed and explained in detail by BSA--if there is something like that, I'd sure like to have a copy. I suppose BSA may deliberately

It seems to me that much of the angst could be avoided if everyone would discuss issues on the merits. If you disagree with something that Bob White says, explain why you disagree on the merits, rather than excoriating him as a by-the-book blind follower of BSA policy, and if you disagree with something Ed says, explain why you disagree on the merits, rather than excoriating him as a contrarian with a shrinking unit. Since we're on the Web, we can't really know the facts about each other anyway--for all I know, Bob and Ed are the same person, playing a bizarre trick on the rest of us--but I

My son's Troop has a stock of old patches of various sorts--out-of-date rank and MB patches, old summer camp patches, and various other things. I'm wondering what we can or should do with these. I suppose we could give them to any Scouts who would like to get into trading. Or we could try to trade them all for something the troop could use (or sell them, I guess). Or we could keep them forever--maybe start a Troop collection (although there are duplicates of many). Have others encountered this, and what did you do?

Parents don't run the Troop, but they usually do bring the boys to patrol meetings. If you split up the brothers against the mother's wishes, you may need to arrange for alternate transportation for one of them if the patrols meet at the same time in different locations.

I would just like to emphasize that inexperienced Scouts should not tent alone. Through a series of very bad decisions, this was allowed to happen at a winter campout my son's troop went on, and the boy who was tenting alone was in distress from the cold, and it wasn't until morning that somebody heard him calling for help. Fortunately, he was OK (and, amazingly, has not quit the troop), but those who allowed it to happen (and who didn't verify that his gear was adequate) have had the opportunity to discuss this several times. It might be a different story for an older boy who wants to use

To determine whether a particular action is "hazing" and should be abandoned, we first have to decide what question we will ask. Some possibilities: 1."Is the action intended to humiliate?" 2."Would a reasonable person feel humiliated?" 3."Would a sensitive person feel humiliated?" 4."Is there anybody anywhere who would feel humiliated?" Analysis: Question 1 is not good enough, because "well-meaning" people can in fact humiliate others "all in good fun." Question 4 doesn't work, because we couldn't do anything. In choosing between 2 and 3, I would choose 3. The Scout Law surely

How do you deal with patrol size and grouping in small troops? My son's troop has 18-20 scouts, enough for two functioning patrols. Last year they got one new scout, this year four (if they all stay). The other boys are spread through the ages. In this situation, what's better, mixed-age, or one older, one younger?

Does the troop accept permission slips signed by a parent? What steps does the troop take to make sure the person signing the permission slip/application to join/etc. is really legally authorized to do so? Do you advocate that all troops forbid scouts from tenting with their own parents? Who made that rule? How exactly does the troop go about forbidding a parent from tenting with his own child if he wants to do so? The bottom line is that most of us have to rely on what people tell us at some point. If they don't tell us the truth, or tell us something misleading (as the mom in Twocubdad

While I don't agree with Ed, I think BSA should make it clear in the Guide that "guardian" means "legal guardian." I can't think of any reason not to do so, and the very fact we're having this conversation proves they should. As for Twocubdad's scenario, I can't imagine that anybody would have acted differently. You had the mom's signature on the permission slip, and her statement that the man in question was the boy's father. Heck, for all I know all the p

I just went back and read with care the relevant sections of the Guide (Youth Protection and Camping). The use of the word "guardian" in several places, always in the form "parent or guardian" supports, in my view, that BSA is talking about a legal guardian, not a person temporarily authorized by the parent. It would be better if BSA would define the term in the guide--this should be crystal clear to all adults, whether they've had training or not. It should also be made crystal clear because it won't be obvious to many people--i.e., that a boy can't tent with his uncle or Grandpa, even if

Rooster, are you suggesting that not only homosexuals but those who disagree with you about whether it's a sin or not are bound for Perdition? If so, I really have to wonder how you can tolerate an ecumenical organization like Scouting at all. Let me ask a more pointed question--if you were in charge of BSA, would you allow divorced people who have remarried others to be leaders in Scouting? A literal reading of the Bible will teach that those people are all living in a constant state of adultery. If you wouldn't impose such a rule, would you allow individual COs to impose such a rule?

It is clear to me that the Guide requires that a scout can only tent with other scouts, OR with a parent or legal guardian. I don't think the rule is quite so crystal clear on whether another adult can ALSO be in the tent. If that's the prevailing interpretation, so be it. I guess I don't understand the reason for it if the additional adult is Grandpa, for example, except perhaps that exceptions make the rule too complicated.

The SM of my son's Troop sends out a "Scoutmaster's Notes" e-mail to the troop (boys and parents) early in the week before each meeting--it reminds them of the meeting, but has other info too. I guess in time it would be better for it to be "SPL's Notes," but it's a good form of communication.

Oops, hit the button too soon... Let me put it another way. In my personal view, people who smoke, drink alcohol, get divorced, gamble, etc., are acting immorally and "uncleanly" and thus are violating the Scout Law, as I would interpret it. However, obviously, people disagree about all of these. However, just because you might think divorce is OK doesn't mean I assume that you also think murder and rape are OK. To put it yet another way, I share the view that homosexual behavior is sinful, but I can't understand the loathing that people have for it compared to other sins that I co

Rooster, your response is not helpful. As far as I know, there are no religions seeking to be CORs that think murder and rape are OK. However, there are large religious denominations in this country--Christian ones--that happen to disagree with you (and me, by the way) on whether homosexuality is a sin or not. It may seem obvious to you that a gay person is not "reverent" or "clean," but it's not obvious to many thoughtful religious people. Let me put it another way. In my personal view, people who smoke, drink alcohol, get divorced,

You've also listed Volunteer Fire Departments--I found several on just one page. These aren't government entities.