johndaigler

It's funny how we can come back to a conversation a year later without missing a beat! Lodge Chief, it wouldn't take much vision-bending to argue that many Atheists are Reverent of Nature and Science and Art and Mathematics and the Human Machine and get that same awestruck feeling ya get when you've been climbing for 4 hours and reach the mountain crest from where you can see the prettiest parts of 3 states. Anyone standing in that place feels Reverence. IMHO, they just give God another name, but then again so does most of the planet. I'm neither an Atheist nor a homosexual, but I don't see the need for angst when we consider them. I don't fear for my children if they hang around atheists or homosexuals -- the common cold is more contagious than either of those dreaded conditions. It's not like they're smokers, or anything! If there were Local COs who started Units that allowed homosexuals and atheists, it wouldn't impact me, or my sons. I might have to choose a different Unit to join, and the organizationa as a whole might lose 10%of members who "couldn't live with the change". IMHO, the influx of new members would more than offset that loss - numerically. Obviously, the conflict isn't about membership numbers, don't misread me. I'm not saying I'd prefer one type of Scout over another. I'm saying there could be, if we wanted, room for additional types of Scouts. It's an old argument, but I'm still on Hunt's Local Option Bandwagon. It's another old argument, but I don't think you could find 4 posters who disagree with what B:)b White says. They just won't like the way he says it. It's tough to disagree with truth, but style . . . jd

scotiacat, First, I hope you didn't feel my posts in the "Limbo" thread were "raking you over the coals". I thought I was just answering your question and offering suggestions for activities. Second, if you and other parents are willing to pay for patches, beltloops, etc. your CM can't keep your boys from wearing them. He might not appreciate your end run, but you'll force the conversation on the issue -- especially if other boys and parents see the bling!bling! and want some o' their own. Third, with the exception of rank badges, anyone with $ can buy patches and belt loops in the two service centers near me. You're right, they wouldn't have much 'value' to anyone who didn't truly earn them, but the Council gets it's 6%, so ... If you're willing to see the worms crawl, I say crack open your wallet and go shopping. Actually, why don't you try to get your Den parents involved, as well? When the conversation turns edgy - and it will - and you're standing alone, it's not always enough to be right. jd

I wonder how many COs take the time to think through such "rules"? Tortdog, if such a Unit policy exists; all the boys know it; and it's consistently applied; then that's fine. My issue with this scenario has always been the wayward BOR member creating his own rule and thinking he has the authority to enforce it. I know we've discussed the Scout's sense of "obedient", but all along I've felt this whole thread should have focused more on the adult's actions - not to mention the other Unit Leaders and adults in the vicinity. jd

LOL Hunt, I didn't notice, till you told me to notice!! Welcome, KunatahKid!!! At this point I'm thinking that's the important part of this thread! Glad you could (re)join us!! Is there a smiley face for shaking my head, feeling a bit silly???? jd

Welcome! jd

The President doesn't get elected by the far-right or the far-left. Those voter bases offset each other every election. Their representative spokespeople generally turn off more voters than they bring into the fold. You've seen the myriad political talk shows that say they're giving you both sides. It amazes me that they can find so many great talkers who are deaf! Most Americans tune them out because their "strength of conviction" is shown only by intolerance, rudeness and an inability to accept or collaborate with thinkers who don't agree with their thoughts. Occasionally, some of us slip into this category, as well. Anyway, my point is . . . it's that grand chunk of voting mass in the middle that elects Presidents and sets public opinion and agenda. Presently in the US, that mass of humanity is not 100% behind BSA's hardened stances. I don't think we should be looking to either extreme to see from where Leadership and new directions will come. Americans are growing tired of all this blue state vs. red state crap! The guys we need to think about are going to be talking about purple states, etc. Where those people land on the issues is where much of the middlin mass will gravitate. In truth, maybe we don't need to worry anyway. I know we all feel strongly about what we do, but that doesn't mean others care. I'm thinking we're not as much on the minds of non-Scouters as we often think. To see ourselves as "politically important" or even "politically charged" may well be an arrogance that doesn't serve us well. Maybe that was only worth $.01, but . . . jd (This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Ed, I went back to your other post - it still reads the same way to me. However, I apologize if I've misinterpreted your thoughts and responded inapprpriately. jd

Ed, apparently, you didn't get my initial point. Your post hammering alcoholics as immoral was so off base as to require a retraction or apology. Secondly, the immorality of humans is a given Christian concept. It is only through God's grace and the value of the Christ's sacrifice that we can hope to be redeemed. (If I understand what I've been taught all these years) Third, IMHO, a person can't accidentally be immoral. There has to be an understanding by that individual that they are crossing a line (their own or someone else's) - either truly intending to do damage or hurt others, or ignoring/accepting a high level of risk that their behavior may cause damage or harm. Drinking, then driving, is a prime example of this type of disregard for the harm you might cause - sinking DWI to the level of immorality. jd

YO, ED, BEING SICK IS NOT IMMORAL!!!!!!!!!!!! I believe immorality, at it's most basic level, must include intent or, at least, a disregard for the negative consequences of your actions. jd

Welcome!! jd

First, I'm not an advocate of unecessary rules and rulebooks. . . . I'm sure that surprises many of you! However, working with Cubs we use written and/or spoken rules to help young boys see how the Law of the Pack and the CS Promise can have everyday meaning for them; and, help them choose situationally appropriate actions. The Law and Promise are great starting points, but the Cubs benefit from explanation and examplification (though I think I may have just made up that word!). Just as important, however, is the value these examples and explanations have for adults - Leaders and Parents. Adults involved in Cubbing are at such widely varying places in their Scouting knowledge and experience, that clarifying and explaining expectations is necessary for success and safety. I'm not talking about adding unique local rules, I'm just talking about bringing the knowledge and experiences of trained Scouters to the masses. An obvious group in need is Tiger parents, but it's every bit as true for the whole group. Furthermore, my Unit is putting into print many Pack policies for future leaders. Cub Scout leaders are notoriously short-term and undertrained, so rather than allow future leaders to ignorantly re-invent wheels, our hope is to establish clearly thought out structures that can be used and/or evaluated and modified by future leaders. You may have seen my comments elsewhere about "Stewardship". BW, publicizing additional National policies in the Scout Handbook would help protect Scouts and Parents from Scouters who are undertrained and/or undercommitted to the National Program. I'm guessing that Hunt's example correctly highlights a few nagging situations, like "neither add nor delete requirements". Putting that knowledge directly into the hands of Scouts and parents would greatly diminish the ability of local Leaders to misuse their authority. It's difficult to sell junk to an informed customer base. It's for this reason, among others, that schools require teachers (professors) to distribute syllabi and grading practices. It's not considered enough that these documents exist filed away somewhere, but often students sign that they've received this information. Actually, at first thought, I'd add two-deep leadership to the Scout Handbook as well, but that might create rather than resolve concerns. I'd have have to think about that and hear what others thought. I suppose, you could argue that mentioning two leaders for camping on page 223 does that but it's less comprehensive than what I'm considering. jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Karl_, Welcome! Most people will probably just ignore you, and perhaps, I should, as well. This electronic campfire is a truly important tool for people interested in Scouting. You don't have to be a Scout, but most of us here are pretty serious about our efforts to help boys grow up in an increasingly complicated world. They're not just Scout Leaders, but most are Mothers and Fathers doing their best for their children. If you have something worthwhile to bring to the table, these people will take you seriously. If you're just here to entertain yourself, you probably won't get much farther than me. Good Luck, wherever you go. jd

I hate to jump in at the last minute (and after reading 4 pages, I hope we are nearing the last minute!!) but I have some questions. (I had some witty comments, but at this point I think they would just come off as stirring the pot, so I'll stick to my questions!) Semantics aside, is the problem with "rules" that they have specific consequences, or perhaps their inconsistency with the Oath and Law? Are you guys comfortable with guidelines that are developed to clarify situational adherence of the Oath and Law? How about examples that help Cubs and younger Scouts learn and internalize the Law and Oath? Enforced "recommendations" that help ensure safety and success for participants? The Cub Promise and Law of the Pack are both simpler, and more complicated, for young boys to learn, understand and execute. I'm thinking that, as learning tools, things that some of you might call "rules", are quite useful. Thus, the following paragraph in the CS Leader Book (chapter 16): Positive behavior can be achieved by using many of the tools provided by Cub Scouting, such as -Expressing clear expectations of good behavior to the boy and his family -Developing a den code of conduct with the boys . . . (This section goes on for over two pages giving many fine examples of techniques for "Youth Member Behavior Guidelines", "Den Discipline, "Guidance Using Values", "Solutions to Problems") Also, there are BSA policies that are important, but not well publicized to Scouts and Parents. I hope we're comfortable sharing BSA regs and "rules" - assuming that the individual Unit doesn't alter them. ? jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Illinois - No Michigan - yes jd

OGE, Isn't it a great feeling when your own ideas start to make sense!?!?!?!?! BW, I believe you want all units to follow BSA policies - advancement, and everything else; and units should be able to state it the way you posted - but many, by choice could not. Doesn't Hunt make a good point that most parents only know what the local unit tells them? If a unit isn't following the rules it would be complicated for a parent to ever figure it out. Maybe, OGE has a point. And maybe Hunt's idea needs to be tweaked a bit, but his point is there. I think National could go a little further out of its way to communicate certain basic issues that continually create conflicts because local units often bend them. The most common example is advancement requirements. The Troop Committtee Handbook and the Scoutmaster Handbook include the "neither add nor subtract from the requirements" statements. Unfortunately, neither the Scout Handbook nor the BS Requirements 2004 is that demonstrative or clear (at least I couldn't find the language in either resource). Certainly, the Scout Handbook is the Scout's, and therefore the parents', first/best resource. Putting the clear statement there would certainly prevent (minimize) misuse on the Unit's part. As for Cubs, the Cub Leader book is clear that the standard for success on Achievements and Electives is the Cub's "best", but doesn't clearly include the admonition against adding or subtracting. jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Dug, I know it's not simple, but it's a negative if he stays, AND a negative if he goes?? I'm comfortable viewing shades of gray, but that's got even me wishing for black and white! Respectfully, I suggest putting all that adult socio-poltical gooo on the side and ask yourself, and your co-leaders, what's best for the largest number of boys -- looking long term, of course. A wise man once said, "...Honestly, if this scout was any other scout he would have been cut a long while ago . . . hes a constant moral (The wise man probably meant "morale" ) sapper and has installed zero confidence in all involved in our summer program . . . If he is to stay he is a huge liability to the group going west and is a constant distraction for all leaders adult and scout and sets a horrible example. " Respectfully, it seems like it's time to "walk the walk". However, I disagree with another thing the wise man said: "We are beginning to come to the conclusion that this scout is beyond salvaging." He's not ready for this adventure, so he stays home. I get that, but I don't think that means we have to Pontious Pilate him. It's still our responsibility and vocation to help him grow and become better than what he is. Keeping him from this trip doesn't need to equal excommunication. (Apparently, I've got white metaphorical smoke in my eyes.) Anyway, Dug, just do it. Stop making yourself crazy. Some additional dominoes may fall, but won't your outfit be better off in the long run because you have standards and expectations? Good Luck, jd

acco40, oh, Great Worm Can Opener, Well played, but tell me do you prefer the newer lighter bullet proof vests or the traditional heavier, more solid ones?? You must have truly troubled many of your teachers along your journey!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shades of gray, all I see are shades of gray . . . jd

or-scouter, luckily these types are few and far between! Haven't you ever seen a teacher who seemingly didn't like children or a librarian who didn't want to let you take books out of the library? A lawyer who broke the law? A doctor who smoked? Don't let it get to ya! Solve this problem and move past it. There's too much good to celebrate - focus on that!! There's a lot of foibles in all of us, I guess. Thankfully, most of us don't suffer too publicly for quirks that are too extreme!!! Atleast I keep telling myself, no one's noticing!! jd

Even if the boys/Pack/families can't find a way to pay for the belt loops, those are still great activities! The offer a wide range of fun topics to explore. Also, try any of the "Other" awards (not for the patch, but for the fun and adventure!) like, World Conservation, Leave no Trace, Religious Awards, etc. Does your state offer a "state" badge? Take day trips to local museums, take a tour of the "big kids" school, if you've been to the fire dept. and police dept, try a doctor's office, local politicians, supermarkets, teachers, libraries and restaurants, etc. You just CAN'T run out of opportunities - it's just not possible!! Highway dept., water, waste mgmt., power, etc. In may cases these things are free and will often come to you. Go find nature - take a one inch hike in your back yard, a bird watch, plant some seeds, stay up late some night and see the stars or the moon, GO FISHING, have a cook out, learn some campfire songs and have an indoor campout in the school gym, investigate each other's pets, go visit a farm, find someone who has an exotic pet like a tarantula or boa, etc. Try Native American Lore, BSA Lore, go to a hobby shop and investigate models and table top strategy games, spend a day playing board games, invent your own! Electrical tape whip both ends of a 16 inch piece of rope then duct tape the two ends together making rings and stick a stick in the back yard and play ring toss, go, man, go. get a Wolf handbook and start practicing! Have FUN!! Search, Discover, Share!!!!!! jd

Snakeeater, good point about the job interview, but that's really the difference between a "formal" occasion and a "casual/less formal" occasion. We wouldn't expect the boy to show up for his BOR in a troop t-shirt or even a BSA Activity shirt, either. But what I was getting at was that there didn't seem to be an established "no earring" standard for other "formal" uniformed events in this troop. As a Cub Scouter, I will confess to the limit of my BSA knowledge. I understand the BOR is significant, but the Scout's best uniformed look is worn throughout the year for other reasons. What's the troop's standard expectation? Again, why would you have a different standard for the BOR? Even your interview analogy is a bit off because the BOR should not be deciding whether the boy "gets the job or not". His previous efforts should pre-determine that. The BOR is "not a time to retest the Scout". jd

Sorry, I can't give you the names (I'm just a lowly Wolf DL - we're not really aloowed out into the woods too much!), but I'm sure there are camp songs about Scout Leaders. Isn't the point that these colleagues are (can be) heroes becuase of their impact on boys? Don't forget the Fire Magic!!

Dug, it seems like you know the answer just not the method of achieving it. I'm a Cub leader (DL, CC and Trainer), so keep my views in perspective. I do. But, I know kids (12 years of high/middle school teaching and 4 years of Principaling), and I did Philmont twice as a teen - once as crew chief with my father as crew leader. He was not physically prepared for the trip; it almost killed him. Luckily, his head was stronger than his body and together we found ways to make it work. The better answer would have been for him to stay home, but it's hard to tell a Scouter (eventually a Silver Beaver) that Philmont can't be part of his Scouting adventure. Someone who knew should have cared enough and been strong enough to tell my Dad the truth. You've set the standards with your PTs and preparatory campouts - now follow through. If the boy and his dad don't meet expectations, then you owe it to everyone else to keep them home. Philmont's a blast, but there are safety concerns, and these two will be endangering their teammates. At the very least, they'll be lessening the experience for others. They've already gotten to you. Why should your trip or anyone else's suffer because of them? If one other Scout's adventure is lessened by this family's behavior then it's pretty obvious that you'd be doing the wrong thing if you let them go. Anyway, the question remains, how to tell this Scout and his involved family that he shouldn't be going on this trip? Direct and honest is the way to go. The point is you care about them and the rest of the boys. "We're sorry, but no, you're not meeting the standards/expectations we've set for this experience. If you're interested, we're willing to work with you between now and the next Expedition. You're not ready for this, but we know that by working hard, you can be a strong teammate on the next trip." A Scout is Brave - do the right thing. I know, easier said than done -- it's even easier to type! Good Luck! jd

Thank you, Scoutldr. And, Thank You, Capt. Edge. Though not all Eagles, and often without a forum member to speak for their remembrance, we can be sure that MANY of our soldiers were Scouts. One of the humbling parts of our work is that we often succeed. Helping boys grow into the kind of men who will give everything for others, is what we do; it's who we are; it's who we help them to become -- "Two!"(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Time to ask the COR to find a new CC! jd Who borrowed my copy of the "add nothing to the requirements ..." lecture????(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

I didn't mean to sidetrack the thread and I'd rather not be the processed-cheese-food-slice in a Packsaddle/Rooster7 sandwich. I'm already fed up with Dusty Baker and the Cubs, and I always wait till after the NFL draft to talk about it, so back to this alcohol/driving thing . . . I think, that if you accept the first glass, but know that somewhere along the line Mr. Z is going to cross into immorality - then aren't we saying that morality is gray and flexibly applied? Mind you, I'm not making that argument. I'm asking a question. Someone spoke to the cultural traditions of sharing wine with dinner - even with minors. Culturally, these traditions come from places that would have different views on nudity, fidelity, gender roles, work family balance, etc. Cultural norms are culture-centric. Is morality? Again a question. This is a dimly lit, slippery path . . . jd