Hunt

"All the minivan parents don't want to relinquish their vehicles. We couldn't even rent it from them!"

A couple of year ago, I offered to let the troop borrow our family's minivan to go on a ski trip. When I told my wife I had done this, she was uncomfortable, but this answer occurred to me: "You trust them with our child, but not with our car?"

"Sometimes, the kids will bring a chess board or playing cards or some other "old school" type of game."

But do you ban solitaire? I understand the reasons given for no electronics on a campout, and I agree with most of them. These are all good things for the SM to bring up when he is advising the SPL and the PLC--but the boys may have some contrary reasons, or some compromise suggestions (ie., cellphones with restrictions, no game devices, etc.). My point is that if we let the boys make the decisions, except when we don't agree, they aren't really making the decisions.

It seems to me that the discomfort some of us feel about this stems from the fact that, as far as I know, the Catholic Church has not historically closely integrated the Scouting program with its own youth programs. Thus, for example, Scouting units sponsored by Catholic Churches are not limited to Catholic boys. If they were, then I don't think this decision would be surprising, and it wouldn't be news. (This should perhaps also be a cautionary note for those who complain that they can't get their COR more involved in the unit.)

I should also add that even if one supports "local option" on controversial issues, that doesn't mean that any decision made by a chartering organization is immune from question or criticism--but it does make the question more complicated.

These executives are paid salaries similar to CEOs of small and medium-size private companies, and thus the luxuriousness of their meetings is similar. It's all part of the same thing--if we think we need to pay Council Scout Executives in the neighborhood of $200,000, we should expect them to behave like people who make that much typically do.

"The Scouts need to also learn they can't make up all the rules they need to follow."

Well, sure, but you could say this about any rule that you, as the adult leader, think is better than the rule the PLC comes up with. This particular issue is really one of preference, and it's one the boy leaders can deal with. You may not like their decision, but you may not like their decision on who will be SPL, what food they plan to bring on the campout, where the next campout will be, etc. If you show them that you will step in whenever you don't like their decisions, they will understand that they aren't really making the decisions.

It seems to me that an obvious solution would have been to replace the permanent cross with something that could be used for the symbol of whatever faith was using the chapel at a particular time, or just a scout symbol for ecumenical services or meetings. This is similar to what was done in the William & Mary chapel (although it sparked a big controversy nevertheless).

Merlyn, I can understand why it might make you uncomfortable to actually respond to my question, and why you felt it necessary to change the subject back to your campaign against government support of scouting. I can understand that. What I can't understand--and maybe you don't understand it yourself--is what you are trying to accomplish with your postings here. It seems to me that you are just antagonizing the people you ought to be trying to persuade. Is it just a hobby? Perhaps getting some of the posters to insult you helps to shore up your idea that scouting and scouters are evil. But this idea really lacks credibility to anybody who doesn't already agree with you.

Beavah, Merlyn certainly proved your point for you. Rather than trying to correct your misunderstanding of his position in a polite way, instead he called you a liar. That's a great way of persuading you of the rightness of his outlook. Proverbs 15:1 says, "A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger."

I agree that there's a major problem in our society with people demonizing those with whom they disagree. You can see this most blatantly with respect to hot-button issues like abortion, where the extremes don't even believe that the other side is sincere in its reasons for its position. It's a pity, and it's hard not to get sucked in.

"Well Hunt, I'm sure some members of whites-only groups and Restricted clubs get miffed when people only see their exclusion of non-whites or Jews instead of all the wonderful, positive things they do for white people or goyim, respectively."

See, this shows me that you really don't get it. It makes me think you really don't know very much about what Scouting is. But please tell me, what are you trying to accomplish here? If you're trying to persuade Scouters of the rightness of your views, your approach is totally counterproductive. If you're just trying to annoy people you dislike, that's pretty pathetic. There are people of good will who admire much of Scouting's ideals and program, but think that it would be even better if it would change its position on its membership limitations. Those people have some hope of eventually bringing about change. Your approach does the exact opposite, and instead hardens your opponents in their views--so really, what strategy are you pursuing?

"I'd say the government should cut the BSA the same slack that the BSA cuts for gays and atheists - i.e., about none."

See, this is the problem with an extremist's attitude. Everying is black and white for you--because you think BSA is wrong about its membership limits, you can't see anything good about it at all. That attitude is just as blind as the attitude of people who can't see anything bad about it. This attitude makes you into an enemy of Scouting, as opposed to a person who wants to urge a good organization to be better. Your whole approach--especially on this message board--is counter-productive.

In my opinion, the guide is simply telling us that it's better and safer to travel by daylight. But to read it as a ban on driving after dark would essentially eliminate all two-night campouts during the school year around here. If we can assume the writers of the guide were being reasonably careful in their drafting, that's how we can interpret their decision to use the word "should."

As far as convoys, I dislike them because the person I am supposed to follow invariably turns out to be somebody who likes to speed and to go through yellow lights at the last second. We use cell phones to keep in touch and to coordinate stopping points.

Again, when you talk about what "we" don't allow, who is "we?" I think there as a bigger problem with adults imposing rules like this than there is likely to be with the electronic devices. It signals to the boys that no matter how much we natter on about "boy-led," the adults are really in charge, even when it comes down to matters of preference. Why not let the boy leaders decide how to deal with this? They may come up with the same rules, or they may come up with a creative approach, or they may simply have a different viewpoint on the role of electronic devices in modern life.

Stosh wrote: "While it did very little to encourage getting to know each other, everyone seemed satisfied with the lack of electronic stimulus." I'm not persuaded by this conclusion, since in your own story one of the boys was clearly trying to get you to at least turn on the radio. Anyway, how can you tell if boys are "satisfied" by a rule that's simply imposed by the adult leaders? While it may not be a big enough deal for them to quit or even to complain, if you really want to see if they are satisfied by this approach, let the PLC know that it has the authority to continue or to change this rule, and see what happens.

I would support any policy the PLC comes up with.

I was thinking about this situation, and how it might be solved by reasonable people of good will, as opposed to people who prefer to be angry and demonize those who disagree with them. Here's my imagined dialogue:

Council Member 1: I'm concerned about this long-term lease with the Boy Scouts. They are paying only minimal rent, and I've had some calls complaining that the city is subsidizing an organization that discriminates against gays and atheists.

Council Member 2: On the other hand, the Scouts do a lot of good for the city, and they provide services to a lot of low-income boys.

CM 1: True, but I'm not sure we should provide them more support than other religious organizations.

CM 2: I can see that, but they've been in the building--which they built and improved--since 1928. It seems pretty harsh to evict them with only a year's notice, or to charge them market rent, which they obviously couldn't afford.

CM 1: Well, what if we informed them that the lease would be cancelled in four, or maybe five, years? That would give them more time to find more space, and would spread out the costs of improvements they've made recently. Or maybe we could work out a schedule of stepped increases in rent, reaching true market rate in seven years or something like that?

It seems to me that this makes it clear that the only way BSA will allow you to deny advancement to a boy who has become inactive is by removing him from his position of responsibility. And I suspect that even this will only be allowed if the POR had clear expectations, communicated in advance, that the boy didn't satisfy.

But it's a different question entirely whether a unit can set expectiations for all scouts in order to be able to summer camp, for example. Many troops have required shake-downs for high adventure trip, and you could certainly have required summer camp prep sessions as well.

Is this just an office building? If so, this is just about money and not about facilities used by Scouts, as in some of the other cases. Of course, in order to determine if this is fair, one would want to know what other groups are occupying city land rent-free. But if there's no unequal treatment, it seems to me that the city would be within its rights to simply say that as of the termination of the current lease, they want rent--with no other reason than they'd like to have the money.

Perhaps they'll work out a deal in which the scouts will pay market rate for what the land would be if unimproved. It does seem unfair to me to make the scouts pay rent for a building they built and improved.

Thanks, FScouter, for clarifying your position. I find more to agree with as you have restated it.

"Choosing to bear a child with no father is not morally responsible. The thing that makes this wrong is the self-centered belief that a child doesnt need a father, or that the womans self-gratifying desire to raise a child alone is more important than the needs of the child."

I tend to agree with this--and I have some of the same discomfort with single people who want to adopt children. But I don't think this is the norm--most women do not "get themselves pregnant" in order to become single moms. More typically, the pregnancy comes first, as a result of carelessness or a breakdown in technology, and the decision comes after. Common things being common, this is most likely what happened with the young woman being discussed here. (I leave aside the issue of same-sex couples, and the issue of whether what's important is two parents or a father and mother--because I think that's a different, although related, issue). So..

"An unplanned, out of wedlock pregnancy is a little different, assuming the bio father disappears. The mother either opts to keep the baby, or give it up for adoption. Even under the most ideal circumstances, keeping the baby still leaves one huge hole; there is no father. And it should take a lot of positive points in favor of the unwed mother keeping the baby to outweigh the huge negative of denying the child a father."

I generally agree with this too, but I think you may be giving too many points in the balancing test to the adoption route.

"The woman in this case got herself knocked up, then chose to bring the baby up with no father. There is no honor in what she did. She has placed her personal feelings and desires above the well-being of the child. That is selfish and self-centered."

It's interesting to me to see this view expressed, and apparently as what I would call a conservative view. I can remember when keeping the baby was seen as the honorable, self-sacrificing action, while giving it up for adoption was the selfish action, because that freed the mother (and often the father too) of further responsibility for it. While I agree that, on average, it's better for a child to have both a father and a mother, I'm not so sure that a particular unwed mother can feed confidence that her child will be better off with strangers than with her. I think such a decision will depend on a lot of factors, and it's impossible to make a blanket statement about what is the "honorable" thing to do.

That's a nice contrast to other speeches that "support" Scouting by trashing liberals and Democrates. Like many people, I felt that Perot was a bit too much of an oddball to be a successful President, but I always felt that his motives were honorable.

I have to say that I react differently to this scenario than to the one where the unwed parent is an Eagle candidate. Here, this person is supposed to be an adult leader and role model who should be exemplifying good character to the youth members. I have to say that in most of the likely factual situations I can think of, a 22-year-old unwed mother would not be in a good position to do this. I can think of plenty of other moral failings that would make me feel the same way about an adult leader, some of them also things that aren't illegal (heavy gambling might be an example).

I guess there might be a few situations in which one would still hesitate to remove this woman from her post, though--maybe if she is engaged to the father, who is currently deployed to Iraq.

It seems to me that you can only encourage full uniforming if you have a better reason that the fact that adults don't like sloppy uniforming, and that everybody was proud and happy to wear the uniform back in the 60's (which I don't recall being the case, by the way). If those are the reasons, you will only get compliance by adult enforcement and shaming. You will only really succeed if you can persuade the boy leaders to buy into the IDEA of the uniform.

Cases are settled when each side believes there is a risk they will not achieve total victory. In this case, it could be that the government felt that they would not be able to support the total damage claim, or that they were concerned that a trial might not find the BSA liable. While there was no cold-out test, the fire was extinguished in the evening, and the scouts slept beside it all night. Even though there was a fire ban, it's hard to predict for sure whether a jury would have found negligence in this case. Also, settling a case cuts off further expenditures on litigation for both sides.

Depending on his rank, this might help: "But of course, if he sleeps inside this won't count as a night of camping for advancement or for the Camping Merit Badge."

He might say, "It's a lie." What will you do then?

It seems to me that you have to base a BOR decision on information that is properly before the Board. That's what you've observed (if it's a unit-based BOR) and what you've been told by other people in the unit. If you start going by hearsay from outside the unit, you really have to rely on what the boy says about it. I suppose for an Eagle BOR, you can also go by what's in the recommendations--but again, it's hard to do more than ask the boy about it and go by what he says.

I agree that with respect to the school itself, there would likely be the same restrictions on owning a BSA unit as with any other public school. However, if the charter school is run by a non-public non-profit or for-profit entity, I'm not sure that that entity couldn't be the CO of a BSA unit. There would still be arguments against it, but it would certainly be more complicated.