KC9DDI

I was skimming through the requirements, and it looks like this is not the only case where the BSA demands that a particular method be used, rather than just requiring a particular result. For example, we require use of the buddy system and Leave No Trace. We require that a camp fire be built using certain camp tools, or that first aid be demonstrated using certain techniques. I think its obvious why we do this. For example, we require that Scouts build a campfire using a set of camp tools because the point we are trying to hammer home is how to use those tools safely and effectively, not just to see whether or not they can light something on fire. I think its a similar idea to how teachers often won't let students use calculators on a math test. Sure, if the student uses a calculator, he'd get the right answer, and maybe even get it faster than doing the problem by hand. But the real goal isn't just to get the right answer on a few specific math problems, its really to develop the critical thinking necessary to understand and internalize the underlying concepts, and to be able to apply them to any situation.

Tying this back into that pesky Life Scout requirement - clearly the purpose of that requirement is not just to teach another scout how to tie a knot or build a fire. Its to evaluate the Life Scout candidate's development as a trainer and as a leader. I think the BSA requires a specific method be used as a sort of metric to determine the effectiveness of the training. For example, if I'm able to teach a Scout to tie a square knot, but it takes me several hours, and I thouroughly confuse the Scout, am I really an effective trainer? I think the one of the reasons that the BSA requires EDGE is to try to have a consistent metric for evaluating effective training.

Of course, the BSA is basing all this on the assumption that EDGE, well, works. And the evidence supporting the effectiveness of EDGE is somewhere between shaky and non-existant. So, I don't think the problem is so much that the BSA requires a given method be used, but that the method they require has not been shown to be more effective than just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks, so to speak. I don't think we'd be having this conversation if EDGE was in the same camp as LNT, the buddy system, or the first aid methods we teach, which are all pretty consistent with the best practices used by the rest of the world, are regularly reviewed and updated, and have some evidence supporting their success.

So, bottom line for me is that I'd be fine with requiring the use of a certain training method, provided the chosen method meets the criteria I've mentioned above.

Beav - I think you're hitting on two separate issues. The first is whether the EDGE method itself has any merit, the second is whether we should require its use in rank requirements.

Skimming over the Scout to Life requirements, it looks like that a good number of requirements do specify a general process or method to use. I would think that this is because, in some cases, the process is just as important, or more important, than the end result. We require Scouts to use the buddy system, Leave No Trace, certain first aid methods, certain fire building tools, etc. I think there's good reason for that - to teach a reusable method that can be applied to many situations, not just to go on a hike, build a fire, or stop a bloody nose.

Now, whether or not EDGE should be the standard we use is another question - but I think its important to distinguish between the two issues.

SR540Beaver - That's not quite what I'm talking about. The closed loop in that situation is a result of that specific rank requirement, not the training/instruction method. I don't have a background in education, but annecdotally most of the "train-the-trainer" type courses I've taken have taught that learner progress and understanding should be measured continually through the training, and the trainer's delivery should be adjusted to meet the learner's needs in "real time."

The situation you described is more like the trainer thinking he's done, sending the learner off to someone else to be tested, and then having that someone else tell him whether he was a successful trainer or not based on whether the learner passed the test. And again, that's only in the context of this single specific requirement, not part of the training method as a whole.

I've also made a game by blind folding a Scout and having his patrol verbally guide him on how to put up a tent while racing a different patrol doing the same thing

Hmmm... Sounds very similar to an activity we do during NYLT, which is based on EDGE.

I've also let Scouts put up their tents "wrong" and allowed them to experience what happens when it rains or the wind blows.

Did you first explain, demonstrate or guide them on the correct way to assemble the tent? But, when it comes time to enable, you enable the group for either success or failure.

I guess this highlights two of my problems with EDGE. 1) It can be argued that EDGE applies to any training situation, (all you have to do is show that you've explained, demonstrated, guided or enabled the group at some point). Which leads me to #2) EDGE seems to be missing a component that evaluates the training method was appropriate or successful. A mantra from some of the "old" training materials was "For teaching to be effective, learning must take place." The old material (although inadequate in many different areas) seemed to get this part right - that the ultimate goal in effective teaching is successful learning, that's the measure of success. That's one of the things EDGE seems to lack - the component that closes the loop between trainer and learner, and guages whether or not the trainer has been successful in conducting training.

Are you asking whether the BSA should standardize on a single training/education model? Or whether EDGE should be the particular one they choose to use?

I think it makes sense for the BSA to standardize on a single training delivery model, mainly to contribute to creating a consistent experience from unit to unit and training program to training program. I think it also helps in the development of train-the-trainer type course, so that all of the BSA's resources can go into creating training material based around a single delivery method, rather than needing to devote resources to developing material for multiple methods.

That said, I think that the single model the BSA uses should meet some criteria before using used and forced upon the Scouting community as a whole. For example:

- Have some evidence that it is at least a better-than-most-alternatives way to deliver BSA training to BSA members

- Have some evidence that trainers themselves can easily become trained in its use

- Have a reasonable ratio between the amount of effort put into training using the method compared to the complexity of the skill being taught? (In other words, it should be relatively simple to teach simple concepts, while the effort needing to teach difficult concepts is proportional to their difficulty)

- Enable the trainer to adjust his training style based on the audience's needs and characters, and adapt the training style as the audience's characterics change.

In my opinion, EDGE meets some of these criteria, but not others.

But, in general I'm very much in favor of standardizing on a worth while training model. When so much of Scouting is based on learning new skills and transferring information between different people, I think that it is important for the BSA to have a decent model in place to guide those of us who aren't natural born educators*. It makes more sense than saying "just do whatever you want until you find something that works." That's not how we teach any other Scouting skill, and isn't compatible with the Scout Motto of "Be Prepared."

*I am not a naturally born educator, and I realize I may not have explained myself very well in this post. It gets kind of complicated trying to discuss the training methods trainers should use when training other trainers to train others...

Chrispy- Welcome. I'm going to nit-pick with you a little bit. NYLT has historically been part of the continuum of youth leader training at the Boy Scout level, supporting the troop Scoutmaster in his/her obligation to develop quality youth leaders for his/her troop. Sure, we're not just telling the participants how to run a Boy Scout troop, we're immersing them in a model Scout troop, and giving them the tools they need to be successful in their own troops. Yes, of course these leadership skills are applicable outside of the Boy Scout context, but I think the primary purpose is to develop quality Boy Scout (and now Venturing) youth leaders. I think that's pretty consistent with any advanced leadership training program, be it through Scouting, church, school, job-based or corporate - the leadership skills taught might be applicable outside of that specific context, but the primary goal is to develop the skills needed to be successful in that specific goal. I think that, up until now, the NYLT program had managed to do both this well - train youth leaders very well in the context of a Scout troop, while conveying leadership skills that can be applied to any situation., within or outside of Scouting.

moose - Has the LDS church had any reaction to this particular change? I know that when they want to the LDS groups kind of just do their own thing, and usually seem to have National behind them. I wouldn't be surprised if councils with strong LDS membership adapt the NYLT program to serve those needs. Though, I hope that any discussion at the National level doesn't focus so much on keeping young ladies out of NYLT just because they're young ladies, but rather on developing quality advanced training courses targeted to the different programs' unique goals and methods. I have no problem welcoming young ladies to NYLT, and am sure that they will be excellent participants and staff members, and the councils can make any logistical adjustments necessary to accommodate both genders. However, I'm still sceptical that either the Boy Scout program or the Venturing program is *best* served by a combined training course.

Wayne - I've never heard anything but good things about WEMT programs. As a paramedic myself, I frequently find myself frustrated with "cookbook providers" who treat the protocol as kind of a check list, and don't or can't think critically about what's actually going on with the patient, and how to treat the patient most effectively. I'm glad to hear that the WEMT program works on changing that line of thinking - now if only initial EMT and paramedic training programs would adopt that same mentality! But I'm still unclear on which, if any, states offer a legal EMT-W certification with an expanded scope of practice. I had thought that the course was like AMLS, for example, that offered valuable in-depth training, but wasn't credentialled at a legal level.

Getting back to the larger theme of this thread, I don't think that any nebulous-ness about the alleged legal standing (or lack thereof) of those trained as WFR or EMT-W should dissuade Scouters from taking advantage of these training programs where they are available.

Beavah - I think that sums it up pretty accurately. Like I said before, I think dScouter is referring to some issues internal to the EMS profession, and while I don't necessarily disagree with him/her, I don't think this forum is really an appropriate place to fight that battle.

I do have one question though - I didn't know that any state offered an EMT-W certification with a scope of practice beyond that of a Basic EMT (or that states equivalent if it doesn't call them EMT-Bs). Could you tell me what state/s have this legal certification level, as I'd like to learn more about their program. Thanks!

moose - I agree, was just trying to maybe show the origin of some rumors that NYLT deceives or surprises participants.

Am I understanding you right that your council operates by advertising a program a certain way (maybe an advancement-focused camp judging by the "Trail To Eagle" name), and then when scouts arrive for this camp they find out that they're getting NYLT instead?? That certainly doesn't sound like a good idea at all, and I can't think of any justification for doing it that way. I'm surprised the council goes along with that. Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

I'd like to try to address the issue of "surprise" in terms of the course content not being revealed ahead of time to the participants.

We do not give the participants a copy of the whole weekly schedule on Day 1. This is mainly to help simulate the "real troop" atmosphere. Each day the patrols elect a new patrol leader, who attends a PLC meeting around lunch time. At each PLC meeting, the schedule for the next 24 hours is shared with the PLs, who then take it back to their patrol and guide the patrol in preparing for the next day's worth of activities. There is also at least one activity that comes to mind that just will not work if the scouts know about it ahead of time.

That said, we don't keep the participants completely in the dark. Before the course starts, we have a "pre-course briefing" session with all the participants and their parents, where we give a general overview of what the course will consist of, and what kinds of activities to expect, so that everyone comes prepared. But, we don't share a detailed hour-by-hour breakdown of the schedule except during the PLC meetings.

It sounds like some councils might take this to a further extreme, and I can see where that can produce some unhappy scouts. But, that certainly doesn't seem to be the way National intends for the course to be run anymore.

studentscout - I'd point out that if your faith is something that you 'live,' it is something that you openly display to everyone every day. I don't think that giving youth the option of describing or discussing their beliefs with their Scouting peers is the same as trying to proselytize or evangelize.

It sounds like most of the ideas here involve encouraging Scouts to grow within their own faith, whatever tht might be, and maybe to provide a forum for Scouts to explain and discuss their beliefs and traditions, which I something that I would consider healthy for that age group.

Glad to see their willing to invest all of $50 in walmart gift cards for this project...

moose -

That's how I understand it. I haven't had time yet to do a page-by-page comparission between the new syllabus and the previous one, so there may be some minor tweaks to the activities and presentation sessions. But, based on how it was explained to me, we're mainly looking at changes in terminology and logistics, not a radical change to the core content like we saw around 2004/2005.

I'm sure that it is a good thing for Boy Scouts to see some exposure to how Venturing crews are run, and vice versa. But, I don't think that NYLT is the best place to do that. Up until now, one of the fundamentals of NYLT was that it simulated a month in the life of a Boy Scout troop, and really immersed the participants in this idea. Many of the methods of Scouting - patrol method, outdoor skills, adult association, ideals, leadership development, uniform and personal growth - weren't just discussed or simulated. They were put into real practice by the adult and youth staff, and by the participants. The NYLT course thus served several purposes - leadership development, development of scout skills, and a real model of the methods of Boy Scouting at its best.

I'm not saying that it will be a bad thing to open the program to Venturers, and in my council our staff development is right on track to conduct a fun and quality program for Boy Scouts and Venturers this summer. However, if you were going to ask me what the *best* way to provide advanced leadership training to Boy Scouts and Venturers would be, I would answer that each program deserves its own training courses specifically tailored to that program's unique goals and methods.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

Beavah - It sounds like you're using an awful lot of absolutes in your last post. "...the group is always stormin' about the process..." "...having a process in place that wasn't followed is da only way you're likely to recover those monies..."

I think part of the reason there's some resistance to your train of thought is that others on this forum have been able to handle these kind of problems without needing bylaws or anything else at the committee level. There may be some ruffled feathers and people who feel they've been treated unfairly, but I don't think the existance of bylaws would change that. And I would worry that the discussion would also include "the rules aren't fair," "the rules don't cover this situation," "I wasn't here when we made these rules, and I think that..." - which really just seem to add further unnecessary complication to the issue.

As I've said, I'm in favor of troops developing a written set of procedures covering various situations. I guess I have a few questions of you regarding the extent that the troop committee should develop bylaws or policies:

1) How to identify which situations require a written bylaw or policy?

2) How to develop, vote on, ratify these policies?

3) If it is so essential for every , why does the BSA not offer guideance or training on developing such documents?

moosetracker - Can I ask which particular NYLT program change you're referring to? The program underwent a major rehaul around 2004 or so, which certainly caused some ruffled feathers. Recently there have been some more minor changes, where the core content of the course remains the same, but some administrative and logistical issues have been changed.

Most notably is opening the course to the Venturing program. Let me emphasize that I am a huge supporter of the Venturing program, and am involved with a couple different crews. I think its a fantastic program, and has the potential to contribute to solving the BSA's long term membership problems. But, I just think that Boy Scouting and Venturing are two different programs, with two different sets of goals and methods. Sure, there is some overlap, and many Venturers are former or current Boy Scouts. But, I don't think that NYLT, which is supposed to be an advanced leadership training program, and thus somewhat narrowly targetted and focused, can adequately address both programs. My skepticism isn't related to inviting females to the course (it does present some new logistical problems we'd have to address, but we can solve those). Instead, I'm more concerned about the program content itself. For example, Venturing does not make use of the patrol method, which is fundamental to the Boy Scout program, and had been a core component of the NYLT program. Now, there's some debate as to whether we can continue to use and teach the patrol method in NYLT. There's also some terminology updates - eg, we can't say "patrol" anymore, we have to say "team." Even the terms "troop," "SPL," "SM," etc are taboo, based on how this new program has been explained to me.

Again, with no disrespect intended towards the Venturing program as a whole, I do honestly feel that opening NYLT to Venturers has watered down what once was a very strong Boy Scout leader training program. I feel that both program would be much better served if they had their own training programs that were specifically targetted towards both programs' unique goals and methods.

As far as staff retention goes, I think there's a couple issues there. Firstly, in my council anyway, NYLT doesn't have the strong traditions and loyalties behind it that Woodbadge does. We also don't really offer any incentive other than job satisfaction for adult volunteers - no beads, neckerchiefs, critters, dongles, doodles, knots, etc. So maybe the Course Director position is less attractive. Also, in my council, it seems like while the professional staff and council-level volunteers certainly do support NYLT, its not to the same extent the Woodbadge receives council support. So we rely on NYLT volunteers with a couple of years of experience to provide much needed expertise, wisdom and continuity from year to year. We don't have any formal requirements as to how many years one can serve as a CD, but we do try to bring new people into the position, mainly so that no one gets too burnt out too fast. However, we do have an unwritten rule that a volunteer serve for 2 years or so as an NYLT troop-level ASM or SM to get familiar with the program before serving as a CD.

Hope this helps.

I've come to realize that unit by-laws can take on a variety of forms in practice. While I'm wary of unit by-laws that rival the US Code in terms of length and complexity, I do feel that its important that some things be put down on paper. I think there's something to be said for having an authoritative source of information, rather than relying on word-of-mouth and oral tradition. I think this is especially important in a volunteer organization where adult volunteers can come and go fairly routinely - having a set of general guidelines for all to follow helps create a sense of consistency in the unit as a whole, as volunteer leaders come and go.

My troop does have a "Troop Handbook." Its about 10 pages long, which sounds like a lot, but isn't so bad when you consider how it is set up and what information it contains. The first several pages contain a brief welcome/introduction letter from the Chartered Org and CC, a brief history of the troop, and general information like where/when we meet, our goals for how often we go camping, our uniform policy, an overview of the patrol method and where the Scout "fits" in the greater scheme of world-wide Scouting, some emergency contact phone numbers, etc.

The meatiest part of the document addresses some processes and procedures that the troop makes use of. It's almost like an FAQ, and exists mainly to describe how we handle the logistics of the troop's day-to-day operations. For example: boards of review are typically conducted the 3rd meeting of the month, please contact the advancement chair at least a week ahead of time to schedule yours. Money and permission slips for camping trips must be turned in by the Tuesday before the camping trip. Courts of honor are held 3 times a year, all families are invited and asked to bring a dessert to share. Etc, etc. It is written in almost a conversational tone, and explains why we have each procedure (eg, "Turning in camping money and registration on time allows us to have an accurate head count, which helps ensure we have enough food and supplies on hand.") It is intended to be informative rather than imperative (if that makes any sense.)

There is a short bit of legalese that basically says we follow all BSA policies and local laws, that the SPL and SM are responsible for discipline issues at troop events, and that the troop reserves the right to remove any Scout or adult from a troop function, and that there is a procedure to have a Scout or adult removed from the troop. The legalese is about 6 sentences long, and has never really been an issue for us. Overall, we're looking at about 48% introductory material, 50% FAQs/procedures, and 2% legalese, which I think is pretty good by today's standards.

I wouldn't consider this document to be a set of "bylaws," but apparently some think that it is. What we do not have is any kind of guidelines for our PLC or committee meetings. This has, on occasion, caused some problems. Over the past several years, there have been some heated discussions and hurt feelings over the way money was spent, that certain decisions were made with or without certain people present, etc. Some may say that this is an example of why we need more detailed bylaws, but I don't think so. One, I think that when these disagreements do occur, its better for the subsequent discussions to focus on the core issue, be it poor judgement, lack of courtesy, or violation of somebody else's existing applicable policy (local law, BSA policy or CR guidelines). I'd rather have that kind of discussion that someone pulling out a rule book and saying "you violated rule 256.36a, punishable by 6 months of KP duty at camp!" Second, and to be blunt, I don't want some gung-ho amateur lawyer to devise volumes and volumes of bylaws, 90% of which are duplicates of other laws we already have (courtesy of the government or the BSA or the CR), 5% of which cover situations we'll never realistically encounter, 4% of which are self serving political crud, and the remaining 1% being stuff we already knew to begin with.

To tie all this back into the original question- semperfi, you mentioned that all the "normal" stuff is in those bylaws - but what exactly is that normal stuff?

A couple tidbits: first, you seem to be dealing with a relatively minor disciplinary issue (taking of a couple cans of soda), so if it were me I'd try to let the SPL and PLs make the first attempt and resolving the issue. If they're not having any success, I'd escalate by calling a troop assembly, reminding everyone of the scout Oath and Law, and asking for the culprit to step forward so we can all get on with having fun.

My personal preference, in addition to having a talk with the whole troop like you did, is to give the culprit an opportunity to confess in private. I might have said something like "the adult leaders are definitely going to think twice from here out about bringing in special treats for a group of Scouts that doesn't act respectfully. Why don't you guys all get the camp site cleanup up and prepared for an early lights-out. If anyone has anything they'd like to confess or bring to my attention, I'll be over here by my tent." If someone did come forward, thank them for their honesty, ensure they are adequately repentant, and leave it at that. If no one steps forward, go ahead and give the boys an early bed time. The next morning I might recap similar to what you did that I do not enjoy having a great day hiking and camping end like the previous night did, and remind the Scouts that the adult leaders won't be providing any future treats until the stealing issue has been resolved. And then leave it at that. That way, if it was an honest mistake, the culprit still has the opportunity to admit that he was wrong and apologize, but doesn't have to deal with the public humiliation.

I'm a big fan of the early bed time / lights out punishment when needed for relatively minor issues, but not so big on troop wide exercises or public apologies, in most cases.

I'm not suggesting that you're overreacting, but its clear that some of the boys in your troop think you are. I don't you if they're right or wrong, but I would offer the idea that if they see you reacting strongly to what's a really a pretty minor issue, how will you react to a more serious discipline issue? Will they appreciate that a different problem is more serious or more wrong if the punishment is about the same level of severity? I understand that you're personally pretty upset about this issue, and I've been there too myself, but its important to remember to step back and look at the big picture, and also plan for the future.

From this point forward, I'd just drop it unless a Scout brings the issue back up. It sounds like you gave the Scouts a memorable lesson, and it sounds like they got the picture. Maybe its best to just leave it at that and move on.

As far as I understand urine (as an aside, how many time can you start a sentence like that??), urine is sterile until it reaches the urethra, at which point it can mingle with bacteria, so its not really sterile by the time it exits the body. But, I think the general concern is less about bacteria, and more about some of the other components found in urine (urea, chloride, potassium, other ions, etc). From what I understand urine typically doesn't have much effect on soil, vegetation, etc, but its odor may attract some unwanted critters. I can't say for sure, but common sense is telling me that urinating into a relatively large non-stagnant body of water (stream, river, large lake, etc) probably isn't that harmful to anything, considering the very small concentration of urine to the very large amount of flowing water. I would think the concentration of yucky stuff that comes from human urine would be insignificant compared to the yucky stuff from other sources (other animals' urine and feces, carcasses of dead animals and fish, bird droppings, insect and fish eggs and larvae, rain water run-off, etc). I'd also think that it might be preferable to urinate into river rather than on land as the urine will then be quickly diluted and spread across a very very large area, rather than soaking into the soil in a very small area.

This is all just conjecture, but it makes sense to me. Anyone have any evidence suggesting this is not the case?

I guess there would be some advantages to buying them in bulk. Particularly, you may be able to negotiate a volume discount, you'll know that everyone will be provided with an identical kit to start with, and you can ensure that everyone has a roughly equal amount of time to work on their cars. The downside, obviously, is that its more work for you and other organizers.

I guess if I were in your shoes, and I was working with a group of trustworthy and responsible Boy Scouts, and was in relatively close proximity to a Scout Shop or other PWD car vendor, I'd leave it up to each Scout to purchase a car on his own. But, if for some reason you're concerned about cheating, etc, or maybe if the nearest Scout Shop is very far away, you might buy them in bulk.

Either way, if you're not going to be doing this during your council's standard "pinewood derby season," you may want to give your Scout Shop a head's up that you'll be looking for 80 or so PWD cars in a short period, as they might not keep that many in stock in the "off season."

Maybe I'm incredibly naive, but is it possible that its purpose is just to describe a set of best practices for safely conducting Scouting activities? Maybe we all read too much into the uncertain legal and liability boogeymen, and forget that the overall goal is to provide a safe and quality program, not to avoid liability. Honestly, I think that if the G2SS was truly designed to provide liability protection to everyone, it would be a lot less vague, and we wouldn't be seeing 10 threads a week on the differences between policy vs. suggestion, and "does this really apply to me?" type questions.

That's the way I look at it - its a resource that should be used with other resources to help promote safety during Scouting events. It doesn't cover every possible situation you may run into, and it certainly shouldn't be viewed as a gold standard to determine whether a given function is "safe" or not. However, it is an excellent tool that can be used to supplement common sense, training, event-specific planning, additional safety resources, etc.

Perhaps if law enforcement is involved, the problem is already solved, and needs no further handling at the unit level? I'd definitely give a head's up to your DE, and they may elect to revoke the adult's membership, just to cross the i's and dot the t's, but maybe you'll be lucky enough where you want have anything else to worry about at the unit level.

It may be worth reviewing the whole situation, and see if there are any root causes that can be fixed or adjusted, though.

Wow. I don't post very often on this forum, but I want to jump in real quick. dScouter15, I too am a paramedic, and, as a paramedic, I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've posted here. As a Scouter, though, I have to ask why you chose this forum to to have this discussion. I know that matters of training and professionalism are kind of "hot button" issues within the EMS industry right now, but your comments on the subject don't really have anything to do with what Beavah originally posted, nor do they really fit in the context of this thread. Maybe that's why arrogance was perceived in your first comment on this thread - because your average Scouter doesn't know or really care about the issues internal to our profession, and interpreted some of your criticism to be towards them personally.

As a medic who is fairly involved in training and education, both for EMS providers and non-EMS community members, I can assure you that the quality of EMS training programs varies just as must as the quality of ARC trainings. Like you, I'm not overly impressed with the ARC as an organization, but I wouldn't extend that attitude towards volunteers who are trying to better themselves by taking advantage of first training.

eagle97,

Maybe you could provide some more information about the area you serve in. I agree that troops should try to be more visible in the community, but I don't really know what you have in mind. In my area, its common for troops to be in local parades, have booths are town carnivals, volunteer at special events, and, of course, work in the community as part of Eagle scout and other service projects. I'm guessing you think that the outreach should be directed to a different area?

Maybe I'm reading into your post too much, but it seems like you're trying to make the scouting program into something that it is not. To me, scouting is a program that develops good citizenship, leadership, morals, values and outdoor skills in young men. Its not necessarily intended to be an "intervention" or "diversion" type program, though I guess it could play a part in this type of service. I'm in no way trying to diminish the value and importance of scouting, but I just don't see scouting as being an effective program for addressing the concerns you mention.

Your statement "What happens to the rest of those youth. Well some of them end up alright but then someof those youth end up drug addicts, gang members, or even just in trouble." seems to be somewhat pessimistic. While I think that scouting, for many people, can be a very positive influence, I again feel that its not an effective way to directly address drug use, gang membership, etc. Even the best scouting program will not prevent this from happening - it even occurs within scout groups! As a corollary, there will always be people who are able to lead good lives without scouting.

Also, don't ignore the positive contributions you make to scouts who voluntarily joined your troop. As their leader, you can make a difference in their lives. You might not even realize the positive impact you have.

Remember, you're either with us, or, you're with the terrorists.

Seems like a false dichotomy. I think there's a couple more possibilities: (assuming that, in using the word "with", you actually meant "support")

1. You don't support "us", i.e., Bush and his military strategies and priorities, and you do support the terrorists (the terrorists themselves, and those who aid them)

2. You do support "us", and you do not support the terrorists (a good chunk of the American people, probably including yourself)

3. You do support "us", and you do support the terrorists (probably not possible, save for a few wacky conspiracy theories)

4. You do not support "us", and you do not support the terrorists (another good sized portion of the American population, who do not support terrorism, but feel that Bush is not addressing the problem in an effective way)

Granted, your rhetoric is nice, but plenty of Americans can disagree with how the president is addressing the terrorism problem, without supporting terrorism itself. Your dichotomy assumes that the president is somehow infallible in how he makes policy, and directs this way, and that assumption is untrue.

As far as comments made about Bush not sending his daughters off to die... we still have a volunteer military, and if Bush's daughter decides to enlist, I'm sure she could.

As for the original idea of remembering that real people are fighting this fight, I don't think anybody (short of that wacko Phelps guy who protests soldier's funerals) is ignoring the fact the soldiers are putting it all on the line. I think the issue is whether or not the higher-ups, (i.e., the president) is making the best use possible of these people's dedication and sacrifice.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

I've heard it said that a priest could REFUSE to give comunin just because someone believes in this or that, like say, abortion.

I doubt seriously a priest would marry a Jew and Catholic, but I could be wrong.

You may be right, but I don't think the debate involves Catholic doctrine.

I agree that comparing the two is not quite apples and apples. My point is that both have rules. I think the DRP rule is OK. There are other rules BSA has that I don't agree with, but I'll support them.

Yes, both do have rules. I respect your opinion that the DRP is OK.

In your example, you don't believe its' an issue. Well, we're sitting around a campfire and i ask, "so, where do you go to church?" or "hey, what's the matter with you? you didn't say the Pledge of Allegiance, your arm broke? can't place your hand on your heart?" And yes, I'd probably have that tone too. So, now it's an issue. Now what? The atheist can't answer.

Well, now we're finally getting to the "what's the harm" question I asked. So, if I'm hearing you right, the issue is a religious person who cannot accept people who have beliefs which differ from theirs. To me, it sounds like the issue is the religious person, not the atheist. As far as the atheist not being able to answer, why not? Does his (lack of) religious belief prevent him from engaging in a friendly, respectful conversation with his friends?

Is it right (always) that some guy in a black robes (or 9 of them) say something is the law of the land and that's it? That what the "Left" is saying with Roe vs Wade or about any other left leaning decision.

I don't quite see where you're going with this, but I think the answer is no. However, as citizens, we do have the right and ability to influence the making of laws. Hopefully, if it comes to 9 wo/men having to make a decision and clarify the law, it is something that the majority of Americans can accept. If they cannot accept it, there are reasonable means to attempt to change the law.

The BSA and DRP isn't something that's really been that controversial. If you believe in God and meet other requirement, you can join.

No, I don't think it has been that controversial, because no one really cares at the unit level. I'm sure we're all familiar with the requirements, all I'm asking is: are they GOOD requirements? What's the benefit? Where's the harm in not having them? From what you've said, the biggest concern is atheists having to deal with intolerance - and the atheist is not the cause of that problem!

Now, I believe citing those snipets is exactly the point. The applicant knows in advance what the rule and requirements are BEFORE joining.

Again, what makes those rules and requirements a good thing?

So, I think it's positive to exclude.

It does not follow that exclusion is positive if the excluded is made aware of his exclusion.

How important is it that a scout attribute a duty to God? I think it's at the very foundation of scouting.

How so? I would say moral decision making, leadership developing, a healthy lifestyle, appreciation for the outdoors, etc are the foundations of scouting. Many people base their ethics, morals and values on their religious beliefs, but there are other sources of morals and values.

There are plenty of other groups out there. Try Campfire, they used to be Campfire Girls, but now they admit boys too.

That's true. But if the BSA sets arbitrary rules for joining, and we cannot identify a good reason for having them, or a negative consequence of not having them, why not just get rid of the rules in question? If it will not harm the organization, and will possibly improve the organization, why stick to the status quo? Granted, change can be difficult, but I haven't really heard a concrete reason for excluding people on the basis of the religious beliefs, or lack thereof.