Stosh

One also must remember that the pool of volunteers is not limited to one's own awareness. When I was a pastor in a small church, the director of education came to me almost in tears. She couldn't find a Sunday school teacher for the 2nd grade. She said she had asked EVERYONE! I picked up the phone and made one call. It was a 75 year old grandma lady that didn't get out much but was in church every Sunday without fail. I asked her. She asked how many kids. I said two. She said, good, one for each knee. That was that. The kids had a great time and she volunteered to take 3rd grade the next year.

What equal right are we talking about? If one side offends the other then it's not equal.

I'll bite, what basic right are we talking about here?

Maybe a bit of group dynamic "lessons" for the leaders might be a helpful suggestion on your part.

Still do.

I don't think I would rely on developed/undeveloped/back country formula. I have camped in an established scout summer camp and a bear walked right through the middle checking it out. It found nothing so that's okay. However, if one were to rely on the "developed" factor, it could have been a problem. As far as the human scent in that situation, it didn't deter the bear one bit. In our area another scout camp, one of the boys was killed while eating snacks in his tent in the middle of the afternoon. After the bear leaned on the tent and dropped it, the boy panicked and he struggled and the bear killed him, not realizing it was human. Being over-cautious even in a well developed area is still a good thing.

Scouting is supposed to be fun. The game of Announcements is just that. I don't use signs-up, for the reason Rick_in_CA says, but in the reverse. Why should I interrupt the boys? What's the lesson they learn? I simply say, "Hey, guys, I have an announcement" to which they sing the song. They ALL sing the song. Once it's done I have their undivided attention and they have had a little fun. No harm no foul.

First year was busy and crazy.... Okay, that's normal. Your son enjoyed his first year.... Okay, that's good. You see problems on the horizon..... Okay, like Brewmeister said, get involved. One must also realize that kids at that age are really a handful to begin with. Dividing the group in half is a really good idea. So, the stage is set. Players are all "off the wall". At least that's what you think. The year has yet to begin, the dynamics of the group have yet to be determined. I would wait and see what the real issues are and not go looking for them. If you think there's going to be problems, self-fulfilling prophesy will find them. I would take on ADL and them while the DL is working with the boys, just sit and watch, learn, and deal with them. As an ASM I did this and would strategically sit in the problem areas and what I found was that such proximity, most of the problems never arose. I had one group of boys that had one "problem" boy. At least that's what the prior DL told me. After the boys sat down, I sat next to him. As he began showing a disruption, I simply put my hand on his arm and didn't say a word, just went on with what I was doing. After the meeting, he came to me and said, he liked me and said he wasn't going to cause me any problems. He didn't either. Sometimes a good defense is a good offense. Sometimes kids are looking for attention and they'll take negative attention if that's all they can get. However, set the stage with something positive and the problem goes away. Hope this helps.

If civilization after civilization collapses because of Factor X and one lone statistic anomaly succeeds because of Factor Y, why would any sane person ever want to go along with Factor X. I guess it all boils down to misery loves company. The Great American Experiment worked as long as it stuck to the plan. However, deviation after deviation has simply put us back into the nice try, too bad category as we see the rope slipping through our fingers. Seriously I only worry about the situation we find ourselves in. If for 300+ years it held the Great American Experiment together, and now we are experiencing a subtle but steady decline, then I'm all in favor of the conservative approach rather than start a new "experiment" of failed policies that other countries tried and are abandoning because they didn't work. Of course once "critical mass" has been crossed, it really doesn't matter anymore. Just another name added to a long list of failed civilizations. I guess I'm just a strong believer in: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Your mileage may vary.

Everyone of those expeditions had required clergy with them. You also must remember Father Marquette lead the first expedition that explored the Great Lakes/Mississippi connection. I never said the established Christianity of Europe was all that benign. After all, those same institutions were the ones the Puritians and others were fleeing from to form the colonies. And that emphasizes the point I was making in the first place. Yes, the US is far different than the other countries in the Western Hemisphere. It was based on a different set of principles than what they were fleeing Europe. It became the strongest most influential country of the Western Hemisphere because of it.

And if the establishment of cities under Christian principles were one thing, look up the histories of the 9 Colonial Colleges established prior to the Revolutionary War. All had religious affiliation. Harvard, the first, was primarily instruction for the clergy. You'd never guess that today. The early motto of Harvard was Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae, meaning "Truth for Christ and the Church." In the early classes half the graduates became ministers. Today the motto is only Truth.

Yep, at the time they did. But most of those cities popped up around Spanish missions and the French being quite Catholic named cities after their patron saints. La Salle, Dubuque, Des Moines and Prairie du Chien, Fond du Lac such were given names after their founders and geographic identifiers. If it were merely an economic issue, why were all these French and Spanish territories first settled by Christian missionaries?

Hmmm, those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. The first uniquely American doctrine precedes the Constitution by 156 years. The Mayflower Compact is a Christian doctrine. Many of the others that followed were groups of people that were persecuted by various European political entities. By the time the Founding Fathers got around to officially cutting political ties with Europe, many of the principles they considered were based in 156 years of colonial religious tradition almost exclusively based in Christianity. The form of government they set up was like no other known at that time nor in history for that matter. Whereas revisionist historians tend to downplay these dynamics in light of current political dynamics, the fact that history can't be changed doesn't seem to matter to them at all. No, our Founding Fathers were not atheist, agnostics or unchurched. They did not share a common tradition of Christianity, but the Christian basis was there. Because of the persecution history they shared from European, they opened the doors of religion and used terms reflective of this, i.e. "Creator" clearly indicating that the basis of their beliefs were not based in atheism or agnosticism. Thus the basic change between then and now is the obvious persecution of Christians in modern US society, especially those areas of government oversight. i.e. military, schools, etc. Wereas I don't worry at all about the persecution, Christians have survived worse and thus came out even stronger than without the persecution. Of course none of this "evidence" proves why as each successive generation as they expanded westward seemed to deem civilization in an emerging community was based on building the local church, which in fact often times doubled as both a school and town hall which eventually were put in place as funds became available. Of course, the development of the southwest was a bit different. The number of towns that begin with San (Saint) San Franciso, San Diego, San Louisobisbo, San Antonio, etc. indicate Christianity seemed to have an influence as the people moved into the area. St. Paul, St. Louis, etc. Of course none of this is indicative of how important religion was to any of the founders of those cities as well...... Of course, it's real easy to ignore any of this "evidence" in light of revisionist history.

Whereas the freedom, liberty and desirous form of government of our unique situation, never before experienced in world history was based on the principles of Christianity. Just about all the founding settlers of American were fleeing the abusive state-religions and political infighting of Europe. They set up a form of government far different than any before. The Founding Fathers also applied the principles to the official doctrines of the United States. Up until 1963 the US government printed Bibles for use in public schools because they felt it important to know the principles upon which the doctrines of our citizenry operate. In a mere 50 years we have totally reversed everything that was established. Our culture has steadily declined, as well as our economic welfare and most of the governance we once had. A recent poll conducted, which didn't get much media coverage is that about 65% of our society believe the US will be engaged in a shooting second civil war within 5 years. The America Dream is a thing of the past. Now the "dream" is working hard to keep what you got, not dreaming about what you might be able to get out of life if you work hard. We live in a godless nation. That means the principles upon which we based our society are now gone or who will soon be gone. Once our unique original principles are replaced with those of every other country, we will have come full circle and be no different than any other third-world country. At lease it will solve our immigration problem. Why come here illegally when one can stay home and get the same thing, maybe even more if your country is an emerging new superpower. Like England, France, and Russia, we will become a passing side note of a long list of one time superpowers that pretty much passed off into history with little more than a whimper.

Whereas the Greeks complained about their young disrespectful youth (Aristotle), so did the Romans, and probably every other major civilization out there. That's not the issue. Living in the Golden Age of days gone by isn't the issue either. Read the whole comment, not just what you want to hear, and blow off the rest. Then maybe you'll get the point. Hint: So, how's the Greek Empire thingy working out nowadays?

First of all training for one's position in the unit is not such a bad idea. Would you want some guy doing surgery on you that doesn't have the training? Extreme example, but it does apply for a lot of other smaller issues. Why would we expect anyone, even the boys, to do a job that they are not trained to do. After all BSA is a training ground for boys. Surely one would expect qualified instructors leading the program. All the other "stuff" is to keep having to talk to lawyers and judges. It's kinda like "due diligence". Would you want your son being driven around the countryside by someone who doesn't have a license or insurance? Is the vehicle a pickup truck where the boys are expected to ride in the back? Are there enough seat belts for the number of riders? etc. Sure, there are a lot of common sense people out there that would check all that stuff out before a trip, but then not all people have common sense and even some of them do could have a tendency to cut some safety corners here and there. I think it's a hassle, no doubt, but requiring everyone to cross all the t's and dot all the i's might just catch something for the 1% who cut one too many corners. I just think of it as a self-protection issue. If I have done everything right, it protects me down the road. After all, I really don't think 2-deep leadership issues is to protect the scouts. But I really think it's in MY best interest to have backup when some scout with a beef with me goes and tells his parents I "touched" him improperly. If it comes down to your word against a kid's, you're gonna lose!

Be Prepared! is not a sign of paranoia, but if one wished to carry it to the extreme, I'm sure a case could be made for it.

As long as everyone is getting into the minutia of the issue. A DC's responsibility is to the DEN, this activity is a PACK activity. That's beyond the scope of a DC. I think the call it a DEN chief, and he is answerable to the DL, NOT the CM. He remains responsible for the den while they are AT a pack activity. Surely he shouldn't be penalized of such petty legalese. Every time someone someone comes up with questions like these is because I get the uncanny feeling that it arises out of sense of uneasiness and then seeking justification for something that just doesn't seem quite right. The SPL is getting credit for a POR, does he then not count his community service hours if he gets the boys together to clean up a park? Does the QM not get credit for it if he provides the tools for the project? Just because someone is getting credit for a POR (ANY POR) doesn't mean that one doesn't count their community service. Hmmm, community service? How does community service apply to a cub pack? OMG! does that mean if one does their daily good turn for another scout it doesn't count? Or what about his best friend? Have fun running that one into the ground.

Romanticizing my youth wasn't my point. Sorry you missed it. By the way, my father grew up in a rural area and his only positive recollection of those years was the farm could produce a subsistence lifestyle that got them through. Maybe child abuse is no longer "taken care by turning a blind eye", but why hasn't the child abuse issue abated? No, we have just gotten good at pointing out the problem and putting bandaids on it. Rapes haven't been subsiding either, regardless of whose fault it is. So, how far has human nature progressed since the 1880's. One would think with all the insight, knowledge, lessons learned, that there would be a better dent in the problem. Has the poverty problem improved even with both parents working? Nope, life goes on and the only thing that changes is technology and political structures of society. Like I said, make sure your grandkids bone up on their Chinese, the Spanish classes aren't going to cut it in the future. Heck, our country doesn't even know whose its citizenry is and who isn't. Good luck with that. Talk about issues that are dealt with by turning a blind eye.

Yep, anyone who doesn't want to look closely at the world around them can, with a mere flip of one's hand write off the conspiratorists pretty easily. Yet the world of a mere 50 years ago was far different than what we see today. Natural Mom, Dad and kids were not the rarity we have today. Kids today really do have a village of fighting ex's raising them. Marriage has taken more of hit with divorce than what homosexuality can ever do. Parents are paranoid for the safety of their children. Bicycles are not for kids anymore, they are ridden by spandex advertised cool sports minded people. The instant communication of 50 years ago took 2-3 days to "instantly" let everyone back home get a view of some disaster somewhere in the world. Now one can watch live immediately on our smart phones. Women in the workforce instead of home "raising the kids" Latch key kids are everywhere Kids today aren't raised by parents, they are raised by nannies, and day care workers. I used to think how terrible it was in the Soviet Union that made both parents work and the kids were shipped off to day care centers. I wonder if that's where we're headed? Nope, already there. Drugs? Don't even go there. Crime? We used to think the St. Valentines Day massacre was terrible with organized crime and all. Heck a Mexican cartel does that kind of a thing on a daily basis. Communism was tried in Russia and China, socialism spread eventually into the European theater where they are now struggling economically. BTW, Russia and China are back at the altar of capitalism making a bundle in the process. Say, were are all those American jobs going, nowadays? Conceal Carry is a big thing. Heck I thought we gave that up with Wyatt Earp and Jessie James. Homeland security is 1984's Big Brother for real. The US used to be a land of opportunity, but with all the bureaucratic red tape, see how that's going to work out for you. I for one has lived long enough to have seen a steady decline in what used to be a really good thing. I wonder what kind of world my grandchildren will have. I know that it surely isn't going to be as good as the one I had. Even in the midst of the Cold War, I always thought I grew up in the Golden Age of America. My parents gave me a life better than they had, but I couldn't do it for my kids and they haven't been able to do it for the grand-kids either. One can say all they want about 2013 with it's technology, crime, gangs, divorce, fear of predators, needing the carry guns, etc and I can always offer that the worse thing that happened in 1963 was Kennedy being assassinated. Yet the very next day we still took our sack lunches (which back then were legal) and rode our bikes to school, dad had the car and so there wasn't much choice, it was either walk or ride your bike. I know what I lived through, I don't need some sort of conspiracy theory to prop up my story. I seriously don't think all the progress we think we've made over the past 50 years is all that its cracked up to be. All in all I think that we are definitely in decline mode in America.

Oh, I'm not at all promoting the idea that a society will adapt and change, I'm more in favor of the historical truism that the culture will collapse entirely and need to be rebuilt all over again. That seems to be the predominant course of action. Those that adapt and change may take a bit longer (Holy Roman Empire), but eventually they collapse as well. Who would have thought that the mighty Roman Empire would fall (and it wasn't that it was too big), and be replaced by the Holy Roman Empire only to be ravaged by the tribes of northern Europe, toss in a few Asian Mongols and you will soon realize that starting all over from scratch means starting all over from scratch. A few tribes, a few wars, and the cycle simply repeats itself all over again. The world changes all the time, but humans remain basically the same. Small clans of like minded people hanging on to common survival don't need many codes to survive. Then the clans merge into tribes, etc. etc. and eventually it will build and finally collapse. Don't believe me? Look at Rome 2000 years ago, then Italy with the Rennaissance, followed by the rise of colonialism that engulfed the world as nationalism drew itself into the game, Italy followed by the Spanish, then with fall of the Armada England takes over as world power, followed then with the collapse of WWI, Hitler's rise to world power status in but a few short years only to collapse back into the void. Out of the ashes rose Russia and US, Russia takes a dive, US is next and the new emerging super power is China, They are about where we were in the 50's and 60's. Think not??? who owns our land? Who just bought a chunk of our food supply, where are more than half the consumer goods being produced? And our main concern is whether or not homosexuals can get married? Critical Mass? We've been on a slippery slope for 20 years and most people haven't even noticed. I wonder how much faster we need to slide before the people of this country will be eating trees instead of hugging them. I wonder what the teachings of Mao have to say about homosexuality. Might be kinda nice to know.

Why wouldn't the DC count? He does service to the pack/den on an ongoing basis. If the DC doesn't get it, why would anyone else. This idea you propose just doesn't set well with me. Boy Scouts are always working with the packs/dens. Next thing one will wonder if having the Webelos come visit would count as service project hours. Hmmmm, maybe not. I have always used the rule of thumb that focuses on the Eagle project as to who the project can be for. Something other than a BSA entity. I would in fact feel more comfortable doing something for the CO than I would for a pack. My former troop always volunteered to help our with our CO's major fundraiser and helped out with 2 days manning a food booth for them. Kind of a way of saying thanks for their support. Even that was a bit "borderline" because they did a lot to help out the troop. Cleaning up parks rings more true to me than pack support. I guess if I felt it necessary to ask if it is okay, that maybe something in the back of my mind is telling me it might not be appropriate. SM makes the final decision, he/she's in charge of the program and advancement.

A number of years ago I heard someone say that the 10 Commandments of Judeo-Christian origin were nothing more than the minimum requirements for civilization. Having pondered that over the years it seems that any code of conduct (normally derived from some religious source) seems to be the du jour for any particular society. Everyone has some sort of code. They tend to be fluid and never absolute. With that being said as modern cultures collide so do the underlying societal codes. One culture might think that beheading is the way to go to correct the outcast, others toss rocks and still others do the hanging/electric chair thingy. Firing squads seem to prefer the military codes. While in feudal or tribal societies this cross-over is kept at a minimum. This was eventually replaced by larger groupings and the rise of nationalism seemed to dictate the limits, but as long as those lines are clear cut and everyone plays by the rules, (when in Rome do as the Romans) nothing is going to do much to stir the pot. But with the information age and somewhat "global village" mentality emerging, these rules are becoming more and more in conflict with each other. Every fundamental Christian will rally to the death over the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman, while their historical roots are firmly entrenched in polygamy. For thousands of years arranged marriages dominated the countryside, but not in our culture. Depending on how far one wants to carry the issue, most Americans would abhor eating bugs, while the people of India would rather die than chomp into a McDonald's Big-Mac. In some cultures young men at the age of 13 are considered adults and are free to take a mate. One would be arrested in the US for such a thing and label a child abuser. For all the Fundamentals out there, remember Joseph was an older gentleman who took Mary a very young teen as a mate. He would be arrested today in America. So were does that leave us today??? Bickering and fighting until the cows come home probably. Society is changing, some for the good, some for the bad (remember all major civilizations have collapsed after but a few years of their Golden Ages.) The handwriting is on the wall. Adjust. With the pace of society changing as rapidly as it does in the "modern" world, it only means those changes are going to happen that much faster and if there is any societal decline it will be at the same pace. Maybe it's time to read the handwriting on the wall.

It is always interesting to note that any situation one finds oneself in is rather "fluid". Things change and they change quickly. A police officer responding to a dispute will testify this. A man and woman are arguing and the police are called. Surely the officer does not approach the scene with a gun drawn. However, if things turn bad, there might be the need for the officer to not only defend one or the other parties, but also himself/herself and they need to draw their weapon. It is irrelevant how the situation started, it is only relevant how the situation unfolded and eventually ended. I don't think there is any evidence that Zimmerman pulled out his gun until after he was being actively attacked. Could things have been different so as to not have the situation escalate to self defense? Maybe, no one but Zimmerman knows for sure. Did Zimmerman draw his gun before he accosted Martin? No evidence of that, and that would be appropriate for any law officer not walking into a situation drawing his gun prematurely and escalating the situation. It would seem that the situation deteriorated and unfortunate circumstances went from confrontation to self defense. Did Martin confront Zimmerman or was it the other way around? We don't know. Zimmerman was judged only on the end results of the situation, and it was deemed to be self-defense. I would be concerned if Zimmerman did not have evidence of being attacked. However, he did. The evidence seems to indicate that he would have suffered severe injury or even death if he didn't react the way he did. There is no evidence that indicates Zimmerman tried to restrain Martin at gunpoint or do anything that would have kept Martin from simply walking away.

Our founding fathers built this nation on the principle of tolerance. With all the zero tolerance rules/laws out there, what our founding fathers designed is not what we now have. Our melting pot status seems to be boiling over.