Hunt

no choice but to require this. Can anybody explain this? Is this how it's now being done everywhere?

I just received a letter from Council (National Capitol Area Council) telling me that all Merit Badge Counselors must be registered with BSA as Code 42 (Merit Badge Counselors) even if they are already registered for another position. The reason given was that BSA needed to ensure that proper background checks are done. This seems odd to me--is a different background check done for counselors? The letter apologizes for the inconvenience of all the MCs, ASMs, SM, etc. having to file a second registration, but states that the Council has no

right thing to do. (for anybody else having the end of the message cut off, I suspect that it is Norton Internet Security that is doing this.)

"What I don't understand is why those who don't like the BSA and its policies don't form their own group to teach the same things." Why don't you go start one with uniforms and rules you like better, and where insults and namecalling are consistent with the group's values? I get tired of this retort to anybody who has an argument that BSA should change its policies in some way. BSA changed its racially discriminitory policies for some reason--possibly even because the leaders realized it was the right thing t

the scout in such a circumstance--as far as he knows, the SM is the authority with the power to interpret and apply the rules. Even if he questions the SM's interpretation, if the SM assures him it's OK, I'm not sure we can expect a young scout to go to somebody else for a second opinion. Another thing I've learned from this is that indecipherable scribbles in a scout's Handbook are not the best form of records.

I think it's unlikely that anybody will remember exactly what the SM had in mind--he's gone, and the scout doesn't remember. There may have been some other leadership project I don't know about (and that the scout doesn't even remember). My best guess is that the SM told the scout that it was OK and signed it off. I do have a philosophical question about what you do if a scout--especially a young scout--relied on a leader's erroneous assurances that a requirement was adequately met. I'd hate to penalize the

My form of Christianity doesn't take comfort in the idea of anybody going to Hell. Interestly, though, in the 18th century an American preacher (I think it was Jonathan Edwards, but I'm not sure) said that one of the chief delights of the elect in Heaven would be to observe the torments of the damned in Hell. I don't think this is currently a mainstream view. I don't think this attitude helps support an argument that religious faith builds positive values. On the other hand, if Merlyn really represented the typical atheist or agnostic, I wouldn't waste my time pondering whether they should

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on how you look at it), the potential blamees for this problem are all gone, except for the scout himself. I don't want to penalize him--I just want to know if his Eagle BOR will raise an issue about it, and if there's anything that can be done. I agree that everybody in the Troop, both adults and scouts, need to understand the process so these problems don't arise in the future.

I've looked at the Handbook, and I also looked at the guide for Chaplains. What they say is pretty general. As I read it, the Handbook essentially says that religious faith is needed to appreciate the wonders of the universe. The Chaplain's Guide says that religious faith is needed to be "the best kind of citizen." I was not able to find a document written for adults that really explains the basis and justification for the idea that religious faith in and of itself has these beneficial results. While BSA has no obligation whatsoever to share such a document with me or anyone else, if the

Here's another potential "anomaly" that I hope I'm not dealing with, but suspect I may be. The Scout is going for his Eagle. In compiling all his records, it appears that for Star, the BOR may have counted assistant patrol leader as his POR. As I understand it, it's not on the list. But the POR requirement was signed off (I presume by the SM), and the BOR approved the rank. Is this going to be a problem for him?

A word of warning from experience--if the Scout doesn't have his handbook with the requirements signed off in it along with him, don't do the BOR based on his recollection that he's done everything. Also, don't do it if you don't have an advancement report along with you to sign.

Bob, are you saying that a scout must worship God as "creator?" I don't see that in any BSA requirements. Also, I note that you don't attempt to answer my question of why BSA has determined that a scout has the need "to accept a belief in God, etc." Scoutingagain suggests that the value is in having faith or belief without proof. SR540Beaver suggests that it's the need to believe in something larger than oneself, and that such a belief tends to strengthen other values. But aren't both of these really a kind of universalism--the idea that all religious beliefs capture part of the truth? A

What does "one Nation under God" mean? Does it mean that the U.S. is somehow "under God" in ways other countries aren't? (I think that's what acco40's question may be asking.) If that's its meaning, as a Christian I don't think it's true. Does it mean that God is sovereign over all nations? If that's what it means, I guess it's a limitation on the Pledge of Allegiance. Or is it just sort of a tip of the hat to God, to make us feel superior to the Godless Communists? Ironically, the last definition is the most likely to form the basis for an eventual Supreme Court ruling that the phrase

Well, Bob, since my son's troop follows the program, we don't inquire into the specific religious beliefs of the boys as long as they meet the joining requirements. I have no problem with a boy worshipping a false god, except that I regret he's not following what I consider the true religion. My point is that I don't see much qualitative difference between that boy and a boy who doesn't have any religion at all other than an ethical system. My simple question is this: why does BSA value adherence to any religion, no matter what its beliefs are, to adherence to a non-religious value system?

require monotheism. Apparently, all it requires is belief in some power greater than ourselves that can be conceptualized as God. To me, that's an extremely tenuous principle, and one that shades almost impreceptibly into less religious beliefs (like a reverence for "Nature"). (Why are my messages being cut off?)

I'm not sure what difference Bob means, but my faith tells me there is not a significant difference between somebody who doesn't believe in any God and somebody who is following a false god. I certainly don't think that it's irrelevant what name he calls God by--that's universalism, not ecumenism. I understand that BSA has made a choice, and that it is entitled to make that choice. I'm trying to understand what the principle behind that choice is. Although BSA's documents refer to "God," BSA doesn't

and "duty." I submit that a person could exhibit both reverence and duty to a non-divine ideal, like "nature" or "humanity" or "the good." While BSA is within its rights not to recognize this as meeting its duty to God requirement, I'm still not sure why ANY religion is better than such a belief.

My point is that BSA recognizes wildly different (and inconsistent) beliefs and practices as satisfying its religious requirement. I'm just pondering what it is, exactly, that we are valuing with this position. We will presumably welcome a guy who worships an ancient Roman snake goddess, but exclude a Confucian? Why do we value reverence toward a supernatural being (or beings) per se? I would point out that the two requirements you quote don't use the word "worship," although they do refer to "reverence" a

I distinguish between gray areas (what is a "strong stroke" when swimming) and total failure to perform a requirement. Bob, I still don't think you've addressed the situation clearly when you say you'd provide the opportunity to the scout to get the information or activities he's missed. Wouldn't you also counsel him on the right thing to do? Are you saying that we shouldn't counsel him on the right thing to do? What would you think of a scout who told you he didn't have to actually do the requirements as long as the counselor signed the blue card? How would you help that scout understand

It's very difficult to read between the lines on something like this, but I do have a few questions for you. When you say that your son doesn't like to do "physical" things, does that mean that he refuses to join in sports or games with the other Scouts? Does it mean that he doesn't go on campouts that involve physical activity like hiking or swimming? Is he shepherded through all his advancements and merit badges by his dad? Try to imagine how his activity in the troop looks to the other boys (forget the SM for the moment). Would they think that he is "pulling his weight?" Or would they

Bob, you keep saying this, and I don't think anybody is arguing with you. BUT it does happen that a scout returns from camp with a signed blue card, and you learn that the requirements weren't done. Surely you aren't saying that you say nothing to the scout? I'm not talking about exerting any power over him other than the power of persuasion. Don't you agree that for his own self-respect he should complete the requirements (or do it over entirely if it was just a giveaway)?

The discussion about reverence in Scouting and respecting others' beliefs, along with previous discussions on atheism, led me to ponder the following question: Why does BSA think following a false religion is better than having no religion? (The definition of false religion, of coursee, is any religion disagreeing with my own.) For those of us who believe our religion is true (and especially if we believe that it is "the" truth), do we really think there is a qualitative difference between persons who follow false gods and those who follow no gods at all? I have always been a supporter of B

The last part of my post was cut off--it went something like: While I agree that this signature is just a receipt (as you'll note from my scenario, the SM does not refuse to sign), it seems to me that this would be an appropriate time to counsel with the scout about what would be the scoutlike thing to do. I fully understand the rules--the fact is that this is a loophole in the rules, and a scout should be urged not to exploit the loophole. I also note that the Advancement Report requires a signature, and I would have qualms about signing one when I believed that the merit badge wasn't prop

I don't think I made a mistake in my post. While I was thinking of camp, my scenario would fit any situation in which the SM has reason to believe a counselor did not require a scout to fulfill the requirements of the MB. I fully understand that the SM signs the blue card at the beginning of the process, but he signs it again when the blue card is turned in, before the MB is entered on an advancement report. While I agree that this signature is just a receipt (as you'll note from my scenario, the SM does not refus

Here's my suggestion of a little dialogue that might solve this issue to most people's satisfaction: Scout: Mr. SM, would you sign this Mammal Study Blue Card from camp? SM: Sure, Scout--once the counselor has signed it, by the rules, the badge is earned. But it seems I heard that the counselor didn't actually have the scouts do all the requirements of that badge--is that true? Scout: Well, yeah, we didn't actually do all of them. SM: It seems to me that since a Scout is Trustworthy, you wouldn't feel right putting this badge on your sash or receiving it at a Court of Honor unless you