Hunt

"The ability of a Scout unit to recruit and retain Scouts is based on one thing and one thing only. The quality of its program."

I don't fully agree with this. I think an equally important factor in the ability of a unit to recruit is the friendliness and inclusiveness of the boys in the unit. This is certainly what made the difference for my son when he was choosing troops. I tend to agree with you in terms of retention, though.

I think what may be vexing some of us is this statement from the first post: "The ability of a scout unit to achieve its mission is based on one thing, and one thing only. The quality of its adult leaders." This implies (to me, anyway)that failure of a unit to overcome any obstacle is simply the fault of the leaders and an indictment of their "quality." First of all, I think that external factors can have real impacts on how feasible it is to achieve the mission. Second, many of us who find ourselves serving as adult leaders in Scouting don't have all the qualities we'd like to have--but we're doing it anyway. We can improve our qualities through training and by other means, of course--but I think it's fanciful to suggest that "quality" leaders grow on trees and that unit problems can be solved by getting quality leaders. It reminds me of the Peanuts cartoon where Charlie Brown complains to Lucy (in her Psyciatric Help stand) that he's lonely, feels unloved, etc. Her response: "Get some friends. Five cents please."

It seems clear to me that in some communities the obstacles to organizing and providing a quality Scouting program are much greater than in others. This is probably true of economically depressed areas, but it may also be true of other areas with other obstacles (like more competition from other activities, for example). Some of us are lucky to live in areas with lots of boys who have a good impression of scouting, parents with free time and money, and community organizations with the resources to help. When you're looking at leaders trying to deliver the program, you have to look at the big picture--so in a poor community, it might be very difficult for a troop to come up with money for activities, gear, and uniforms--difficult choices might have to be made.

The public schools here require a certain number of hours of community service for high school graduation, and partisan political volunteering counts. I fully agree that partisan activity shouldn't be a Scouting project (and thus not an Eagle project). I'm a little less sure about the hours of "service projects" for the other ranks, since there is no requirement that they be done "as" a Scout. I can't see how recognizing that volunteer work would harm the Scouting movement, as long as there is no direct endoresement.

I just listened to the audio version of a book called "The Age of Sacred Terror" that provides some insight into this as well, with history of developments and divisions in Islam.

These questions have been asked before, but you raise a number of them in one place. I believe the following to be the answers, based on wisdom dispensed by others here:

1. There is nothing in the requirements that suggests the activities have to be done while carrying gear. This is the Camping merit badge, not the Backpacking merit badge. Requiring that gear be carried is adding to the requirement--note the distinction between "hike" and "backpack" in the requirements.

2. There is nothing in the requirements that suggests all the camping experiences must be done after the blue card is signed. Some take that position, but the majority view here (I think) is that camping done since joining Boy Scouts should count.

3. Just to throw this in, there is nothing in the requirements to suggest that camping done outside of Scouting doesn't count, as long as the boy pitches his own tent or sleeps under the stars.

4. Finally, the MBC is the one who determines if the badge has been earned--not the troop leader. If the blue card is signed off by an approved MBC, the badge is earned. There was a lengthy discussion here about whether a troop leader could refuse to sign a blue card if he knew the badge wasn't really earned, but we were never talking about a situation like this, where the troop leader might want to overrule an interpretation made by the MBC. On the other hand, if you can't convince the MBC, about the only thing you can do is find another MBC who agrees with your interpretation.

Note: the requirements say you can use a week of long-term camp, and that the requirement to pitch your own tent does not apply to long-term camp. Most people here (I think) have interpreted that to allow a boy to count Scout Camp even if they sleep in cabins or shelters. My only question is if a "week" of long-term camp can be counted, and Scout Camp lasts six nights, can you count one night from the next summer's camp?

They did it because they wanted to keep an evangelistic Christian group from using the backpack mail, and they determined that the only way to do that legally was to eliminate the "forum." They made some exceptions, though (such as organized sports leagues), so their action may still be unlawful.

Here's our problem--in past years, the troop recruited through "backpack mail" at the local middle school, providing fliers for the kids to take home. This year, the School Board has eliminated this method (for reasons we can discuss on the Issues board, if anybody is interested). I asked the PTA if we could use the addresses in the PTA-prepared student directory to do a mailing, and they said no. We can do things like put up a sign, contact kids who were second year Webelos last year (we can get their addresses from the council), etc. Our past experience is that we don't get too many responses from Back to School night, which is just for parents. Does anybody have ideas on how to get an invitation to youth directly? We'd like to contact 6th graders for the troop and 9th graders for the affiliated crew.

I think another aspect of this is that you already have a CO--you don't want a second one, probably.

The adults have to work it out. In my son's pack, there was a situation somewhat like this, and the mom often didn't make the boy available when the dad thought he'd be at events. It was sad to see.

I would suggest getting the TV miniseries "Jesus of Nazareth" directed by Franco Zefferelli--I think it's available on DVD. It shows the whole life of Christ--not just the Passion--and it would be more appropriate for an 8-12 year old. It's also (realitively) free of Hollywood hokiness found in versions like "The Greatest Story Ever Told" or "King of Kings." I haven't seen Gibson's movie, but the reports I've heard uniformly say that it's not for preteens.

I think it's a good thing for boys to have positive male role models, especially if they don't have any in their own families. But it's even more important that they have positive adult role models, period. So I guess I agree with Rooster, to some extent at least. I guess I think the ideal pack or troop would provide positive models of both adult males and females.

I think another factor here is what the interests of the leader are--is the leader interesting in doing activities that will appeal to the boys? Getting them outdoors, playing active games, etc? I suppose it's possible women are a little less likely to have such interests, but I've known male leaders who also were more interested in sitting inside and talking or making crafts.

This forum often addresses questions about what BSA's rules allow and don't allow. Often, the rules are crystal clear (although some people still may not accept it). In other cases, the rules aren't clear. Putting all the invective aside, what we have here is a case in which two authoritative documents appear to be inconsistent. If these were legal documents, and people were in a court debating their meaning, the approach the court would take would be to read them together and try to determine the intent of the drafters. The court would have to balance two principles embodied in the rules: (1) schools are appropriate project beneficiaries and (2) businesses are not appropriate project beneficiaries. Some suggest that a third principle should be used as well--interpreting the rules liberally to avoid setting up barriers to scouts. I have to tell you that if I were the judge, I would rule that the rules in the Workbook are the more detailed and complete requirements, and that a clearly indicated limitation there would trump a general statement in the requirements book. I guess I don't have trouble with the principle of "not setting up barriers," which might lead to a different result, but I think if you use that argument, you should do so consistently (ie, when discussing whether sleeping in an igloo counts for camping, and any one of a zillion other discussions I've read here).

As I've thought more about this, I'm more convinced that this is not a good project. First, I think that reading the Eagle requirement and the workbook together (which you have to do, because the requirement says you MUST use the workbook), the limitation on projects benefitting a business eliminates the for-profit school. At best, there is an ambiguity that an interpreter would have to resolve by looking at the intent of the requirement. And the intent is that the project benefit organizations that do not operate for profit. If the for-profit school "needs" a flagpole, it can reduce its profits slightly and pay for it. What if the school "needs" a Jacuzzi for the teacher's lounge? I think we're a little distracted by the fact that this is a flagpole, which seems to benefit the community more than a Jacuzzi. I don't see a big difference between putting up a flagpole for a for-profit school and putting one up for a car dealership.

I don't know about this--while the requirement does refer to "any" school, it also says you "must" use the Workbook, which says the project "may not" benefit a "business." Essentially, the Eagle requirement incorporates by reference the requirements in the Workbook, so referring to them doesn't add or subtract anything. Reading those together, it seems to me a natural reading would be that a project could not benefit a for-profit school, because it's a "business." I can see the other argument, but it's really a matter of interpretation. To argue by analogy, the requirement allows a scout to do a project that benefits "the community." Surely all would agree that he can't do a project that primarily benefits a business, even if it also benefits the community? (I.e., landscaping and beautifying a factory's grounds surely would not qualify, even if it enhanced the beauty of the community.)

It seems to me that merit badge counselors deserve thanks for what they do--my suggestion is that the boys should be reminded to thank the counselor. Personally, I would much rather have a note from a boy thanking me than a knot or certificate from the organization. Similarly, a thank-you letter from the unit would probably also be welcome. I'm going to put that on my list of things to do as advancement guy.

I think it's caused by Norton Internet Protection (or whatever it's called).

I read with interest a number of threads about merit badges and advancement, including complaints that some badges were too easy, etc. Here's my idea: Create a subgroup of merit badges called "Scoutcraft." For Star, one of the non-Eagle-required merit badges would have to come from this group, and the same for Life. For Eagle, at least four of the non-Eagle required merit badges would have to come from this group. Here are my suggestions for the "Scoutcraft" list:

Backpacking

Bugling

Canoeing

Climbing

Cooking

Emergency Preparedness*

Hiking*

Lifesaving*

Orienteering

Pioneering

Swimming*

Whitewater

Wilderness Survival

(*if not used for Eagle requirement)

Why do this? It seems to me that the non-Eagle badges already fall into two main groups--those that allow Scouts to pursue some new interest (i.e., Dentistry) and those that develop skills that can be used in Scouting (the list above). I recognize that this would impose an additional restriction on badge choice, but I think it would encourage scouts to pursue more outdoor activities and activities with the troop. What do you think?

To try to summarize...BSA's concept seems to be that all people who believe in a supreme being (or beings) have something important in common--something that helps them be the best kind of citizens, appreciate nature better, etc. As evidenced by some of the posts in this thread, this can be difficult to grasp by some people with strong views of the truth of their own religion and the utter depravity of all other relgions. So maybe scouting can help people learn how it is possible to respect other people and their right to their beliefs, while still maintaining our own convictions.

Organizations do change, sometimes in very signficant ways. Sometimes the changes may result from a desire to garner public favor, and other times the changes are a reflection of a general shift in societal attitudes. At yet other times, the changes may come from the work of a few people who feel strongly and successfully convince others that a change is needed. For BSA, I assume changes in the uniform, for example, are largely the first kind of change--the uniforms are redesigned periodically to make them attractive to potential Scouts. Nothing wrong with that. For other changes--such as having female leaders--I don't know enough--it could be a mixture of reasons. I will agree with those who say that a declining membership is not a valid reason to change core values of the organization. On the other hand, I would suggest that a strong membership and a long history are not reasons to avoid questioning policies on ethical grounds.

I'm finding these posts hard to follow, but it appears that marinelaw is a boat operator who became angered when he discovered that apparently Sea Base is operating boats in a manner that he and others are not allowed to do. It's not clear to me that he's claiming that Sea Base is currently violating any law--if they are, why isn't the Coast Guard doing something about it? He's going to have to present the facts a little more clearly before I would feel justified in being alarmed about it.

If you have knowledge of Slipknot, then you know that discussing it at a Scout meeting is probably inappropriate. It's not just any band, like the Beatles or the Rolling Stones.

I agree with what's been said, but I think this kind of thing will continue to happen as long as we act like the same behavior is perfectly OK when done by adults. Teens are simply not going to except that a particular behavior is heinous, awful and deserving of harsh punishment when the exact same behavior magically becomes OK at age 21.

A couple of points:

1. I think Rooster's argument that morality is only firm when it's based on supernatural revelation just takes us back to my original question--why would a believer in the true religion think that followers of false religions had the right morality? Certainly, the followers of Baal didn't. Also, a dogmatic follower of atheistic communism would seem to me to meet the test.

2. I don't think anybody here is advocating a boy lying about his convictions to join the BSA. The issue is whether BSA could alter this requirement and remain true to its basic values. My problem with discussing this issue has been that it's difficult to understand exactly what this value is when it's not linked to any particular religion. This discussion has shed some light on the subject, I think, but I'm not fully convinced either way. On this issue, I'm not a dissenter from BSA's position--I just see some questions that are worth discussing.