KC9DDI

Rules are rules.

Right... I'm suggesting that perhaps the rules aren't practical, and might be changed.

OK, you declare yourself here to be Catholic. If I'm a Methodist can I just go to church one Sunday and take communion?

If not, why not?

If you want to. The church says you shouldn't, but you have free will, and provided you can physically walk up to the minister, and consume the wafer and wine, you can take communion.

Can a muslim enter your church?

If not, why not?

Do you mean just walk in the door? Sure, why not? We don't really ask for ID before allowing entry. If you mean convert and become a Catholic, sure, that's also possible.

Can a Jewish person marry one of your members in your church?, that is, the actual building?

Short answer... it depends on some obscure canon laws that I doubt anyone really cares about. However, if two people love each other, and wish to be married, I'm sure they can find a way to do it that satisfies both of them.

See where this is going? Your church has rules, BSA has rules.

Again, I'm saying that the rules might not be good rules. This may be the case both within the church and within the BSA. Comparing the BSA with the Catholic Church is not really a good comparison, as the two organizations have very little in common. Catholics believe that the church is tied to their eternal salvation... the BSA is a youth group. Also, I don't think that "well, if a church can do it, we can too!" is a good argument.

The harm is that they don't qualify for membership. Can an atheist truly be trustworthy, loyal, ....... AND REVERENT? Can he do Duty to God? Uh, I don't think so.

With all due respect, you're ignoring the issue. Maybe I wasn't very clear in what I meant... The issue I'm addressing is, in fact, that they don't qualify for membership. In the hypothetical situation I'm presenting, they DO qualify for membership. My question is: what's the harm in that? Responding with "but they don't qualify for membership!" is perfectly true, though doesn't address my question. Can an atheist be reverent? Of course not towards god. But can an atheist show reverence for role models, nature, etc? I think so. And, no, an atheist cannot do his duty to god. How important is it that a scout attribute his reason for being trustworthy, etc to a "duty to god", rather than just being those twelve things for whatever reason he finds important?

The adult application for membership states in part that the BSA "maintains that no member can grow into the best possible citizen without recognizing an obligation to God" and is "absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training". Oh yeah, it also says that "Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principles and to the bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitiled to certificates of leadership"

Just because the BSA says so does not make it correct. I acknowledge that the BSA is well within its rights to exclude whomever the want - its perfectly legal. I'm questioning whether their current choices on who to exclude (specifically atheists, for this conversation) is a positive choice. Citing snippets from the BSA application does not address that question.

(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

TheScout - that's a very unfortunate truth. However, at some point, doesn't someone in power have to weigh the positive vs. negative consequences? At what point have too many American soldiers died for a "mission" that continues to be ambiguous, and, many might say, unnecessary?

To take a slightly different approach: what's the harm in allowing atheist scouts/leaders to join the BSA? No one would be challenging another's religious beliefs, as it wouldn't be an issue. The "issue" would be their outward actions - a scout will still be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, etc. Whether their decision to be these things comes from a religious obligation, social contract theory, or simple desire to be in the BSA is not relevant. So... why not? I, as a practicing Catholic, do not feel at all threatened by atheists, or by those who practice different religions - all long as their action do not affect me in a negative way, I really don't have a problem. I wonder if the BSA simply maintains this regulation for philosophical reasons, or for any kind of practical reason.

"I would state this more forcefully--I think a boy has an obligation to thank those people who helped him get where he is. To deny them the opportunity to attend his COH is unkind."

Hunt - I think its important to remember that there's many ways for a scout to thank his leaders and those who've helped him earn his Eagle. A letter that's been well thought-out, a notice in the troop newsletter, a brief address at a weekly meeting, etc. The COH isn't meant to be a means for the scout to thank his leaders, its meant to recognize the scout. Of course, I agree that the scout has an obligation to offer thanks, and that often occurs at a COH, but it can definitely occur outside of or in addition to the COH. I think that a scout being pressured into having a ceremony he doesn't feel comfortable with is unkind, to say the least.

Calico - I agree with most of what you said, though its important to note that the regulations of EMT's vary from state to state, and even between hospital affiliations within states. In some states, a 16 year old EMT can only practice under the direct supervision of an adult EMT or other health care provider. Additionally, an EMT working or volunteering at a camp will probably not have oversight from an MD, or the liability protection provided by an EMS agency, which would limit the care they're able to provide.

But that's not so much the point - I guess I'm wondering whether youth (whether certified EMT's, FR's, or otherwise) should be allowed (or are legally allowed) to manage medical forms and medications. I think there's two issues here: 1) is it legal (probably a simple yes/no question) and 2) does it make sense? Do youth have the maturity necessary to handle this responsibility. Take, for instance, somewhat embarrassing medical problems including bed wetting, depression, OCD, ADHD, etc - should a youth be entrusted with knowing and safeguarding this information?

Quick question: If the BSA were to drop a rank requirement (eg, as they did for some of the swimming reqs for 1st class), how does that effect scouts who already began working on the rank, but have not yet completed the dropped requirements? Are those requirements automatically waived. I know that if new requirements are added (eg, the "tell someone why they should join scouts" requirement), scouts who began working on 1st class already have until a certain date to complete the rank without having to complete the new requirement. I'm wondering if there's a similar rule for when requirements are dropped. Thanks.

Has anyone had any experience with youth serving as the primary "first aid officers" at a summer camp/day camp/etc? I've seen this occur in some situations, and I'm not convinced its the best idea. Granted, some youth do have the maturity to handle that responsibility (some states will certify 16 year olds as EMT-B's, and 18 year olds as EMT-P's). I don't think there's a problem with youth handling basic band-aids, ice packs, etc (after all, that's what we teach them to do!) But, there seems to be a greater problem when it comes to medications, health history, etc - stuff thats pretty confidential. So, I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this matter - at this point, I'm not referring to any specific instance, just trying to get a feel for what others think.

Well, I think it comes down to who really wants it - the scout? his parents? his troop? If the scout isn't really interested, or only interested in putting it on a college application, the ECOH really isn't a big deal.

That's the worst-case scenario. A couple other, more positive thoughts: scouts #1 and #2 seem to both have valid reasons for the delay, so I don't see the issue. Perhaps scout #3 is a person who shies away from big pomp-and-circumstance ceremonies.

I don't see the problem with some time passing between the EBOR and the ECOH - for me, there was almost 7 months between the BOR and the COH. I do see the problem with the parents nixing the scout's plans - whatever reasonable decision the scout makes, whether is a big shin-dig or a small affair conducted at a weekend campout, should be supported by the troop (again, provided its reasonable).

Sometimes the Eagle award just isn't as important as the path taken to the Eagle award. I've known scouts who didn't achieve Eagle, or earned Eagle as an afterthought, but had a blast working with the troop, mentoring younger scouts, serving on camp staff and training staff, went to Philmont and Jamboree, heavily involved with OA, etc. Some may have just joined Scouting for other reasons, and doesn't feel that the Eagle award is necessary for them (but, I wonder, what will they think 20 years from now?)

So, oldsm, I see your point - you, as their SM, are obviously proud of the work that your scouts put in to earning this rank, and you, as their SM, must have put many of those 1 hours a week into these scouts... but, unfortunately, the scouts have to line up their own priorities.

While the creation of a separate Venturing Honor Society is an excellent, at this point, I would think, Venturing still doesn't have the numbers that would make such as organization feasible.

However, I think that the OA could open up a little and let female Venturers become members. I don't really see the problem - female Venturers are full, dues-paying members of the Boy Scouts of America, and there is nothing preventing them from making the commitment to cheerful service and superior camping and outdoor skills. Female adult leaders can become OA members, and male Venturers may wear their OA Lodge flap on the green Venturing shirt - it only seems fair to make the option available to female Venturers as well.

Eaglescout06

I know what you're talking about - I was in a similar situation a few years ago. My troop is a very strong troop, but very weak with the patrol method. The SM staff and committee for the most part are a very good group of people, and really want the best for the troop. However, I felt (and still feel) that the patrol method wasn't being used very well, and the troop could improve if it placed greater emphasis on the patrols. The SM and other leaders and I had several lengthy conversations, and occasionally really aggravated each other. I'm not sure about the specific dynamics at work in your troop, but let me share some of my thoughts based on my experience.

1) Any change ain't gonna happen overnight. While sometimes messages on these forums suggest that creating a good troop is a "Plug-n-Play" operation (eg, just train the leaders, assign troop guides, get a good UC, wear the uniform and follow the G2SS and you'll be fine). In reality, its much more complicated than this. Both the adults and the youth really have to buy in to your idea, and running everything "by-the-book" won't make them believe that its a good idea. Positive change seems to take longer to come about than negative change, and sometimes its just best to be patient.

2) The SM may have other priorities, and sometimes it tough to recognize them while you're still a youth. The SM has to deal with the "problem scouts (and adults)," work with the district and council people, support the entire youth membership of the troop, their parents and community organizations, and hopefully have a few hours left for his job, and, most importantly, his family. Sometimes, the adult leadership just has too much on their plate to think about a drastic shift in how the troop is run. Remember: baby steps! While keeping your vision in mind, present small, attainable goals to your SM/PLC/Committee and listen to their feedback. You may have to put some ideas on the back burner, and come back to them later. Definitely, you don't want to end up with an us-vs.-them scenario.

3) Avoid statements like, "But BSA publication #12345 says to do it *this* way" or "at NYLT they told us we should be doing *this*". That's great, and probably is the right way to do it, but the adults need to see the benefit of going through the work of changing their program.

4) Most importantly - share your vision. Make sure you, the SM, PLC and Committee are all aiming for the same thing. This requires communication and patience. But, if the people running your troop can't agree on where it should go, it won't go anywhere! (Anywhere good, anyway). This could be the most important and difficult part, but has to be completed before you can start making specific goals and plans (if you've ever attended an NYLT, this should sound familiar).

Just some thoughts - This may not all apply to your situation, but this is what I've learned through trial and error (mostly error) in a similar situation. Good luck!

One idea I'd like to bring up is that of group identity. It makes sense to require a unit that wishes to call itself a "Boy Scouts Of America Troop" (or pack or crew or team, etc.) to incorporate some key characteristics. For instance, the "Boy Scouts of America" organization requires male-only membership in units (outside Venturing), certain youth protection and safety guidelines, etc. In return, the organization provides services such as camp facilities, training opportunities, insurance, etc. There is nothing stopping a church/other community organization from developing a program similar to the BSA, except incorporating females/atheists/homosexuals - the Boy Scouts of America would simply not be involved with that organization, and they could not claim membership within the BSA. Whether or not the BSA is "right" in some of its policies is a separate discussion. Ideally, each troop calling itself a "Boy Scout Troop" should be similar to other Boy Scout Troops in these key areas - that is, a "Boy Scout" in Troop 100 should have the same meaning as a "Boy Scout" in Troop 500. The two troops may have different programs, traditions, etc, but share the essential characteristics set by the national organization. With this type of policy, my Eagle scout badge should be equivalent to anyone else's Eagle badge - we should have completed the same requirements, though perhaps through different methods. Of course, this obviously is not always the case, but, to me, this seems to be a good explanation of the authority thing.

Eagle90, I'd disagree with you on this point. You asked for a personal record for a scout who was not in your troop. Why should anyone need a scout's record if that scout is not in your troop? I can completely understand and support the council's position in this case. Is this a matter of national security? No, of course not. Its a matter of the privacy and security of a youth. What did she think you were going to do with the information? Who cares - they have a privacy policy which they have to follow - and I am glad that they stuck to their guns!

It sounds like there's a couple courses of action you could have taken. 1) Turned in the paperwork to do the transfer (Which, I believe, is a half-sheet of paper which the scout/his family should have filled out, and $1. If you didn't want to do this because you want to "do the paperwork all in one shot", you could 2) have the scout or his family contact the council office and request his record - an action which I doubt would violate the privacy policy.

I'm sure you had no malicious intent in requesting his personal record, and just wanted to get a head start on updating your records, but I'd argue that your convenience is secondary to protecting the privacy and security of scouts and their personal information. I would also add that before the "so-called professionals" are acting very professional in developing and enforcing a privacy policy. Maybe there's more to this story, but it seems like the pro's were acting completely correctly in this case (which, I will agree, is unexpected.)

EagleFoot,

If the summer camp staff blew you off, I would definately contact the camp director and/or the council program director. The campfire program was clearly inappropriate, and I would hope that it would be addressed at a council level.

I agree that there is a lot of "grey area" in deciding what skits are appropriate for a campfire. I think a lot depends on the audience - a summer camp's campwide campfire program should be different than at a casual patrol or troop overnight, which should be different from the program at a Webelos visit weekend, etc.

Dan pointed out that some BSA publications, eg the NYLT syllabus, list areas that should be avoided. Some are obvious, such as references to drugs/alcohol, etc. Others were more controversial: cross-gender impersonations, for example. These kinds of guidelines caused some discussion and argument among the staff as to which skits we could do. For instance, the "I've Come to Marry the Princess!" skit (my favorite EVER!) includes "cross-gender impersonations." Everytime I've done this skit, the extent of the impersonation has been silly stuff like a wig made out of twine, a dress made from a rain fly, neckerchief slides as earings, etc. (The male characters wore equally rediculous items including cook-pot crowns, a scepter made from a hiking stick and nerf football, etc). Now, was this degrading or disrespectful to women? I personally don't think so. The purpose of impersonating a woman was to simply show that this character is female. The humor in the skit comes from two guys trying to act out six different characters at once, not from degrading stereotypes. However, according to these "guidelines", this skit would be inappropriate.

Why can't we just use common sense, respect others, and run through the Scout Law if we have any questions?

I've seen similar situations - in this case, at a training event. The nature of this event lends itself to staff that are experienced, active and confident of themselves. Unfortunately, this also means that everybody has their own way of wanting to do things, and some people just couldn't handle compromising or defering to other staff. This lead to *nasty* conversations between various adult leaders regarding what other staff (both adult and *youth*). It ranged from criticism of plans and methods (which can often be valid and useful) to nasty ad hominem attacks. This all occured behind everyone's back, and solely for the purpose of degrading the other staff. At times I just wanted to say, "So go talk to [the person] and tell him what you think - you may have a point, but no one will take you seriously if you keep doing this!" I just couldn't understand why no one made any effort to politely and constructively communicate with the person they had a disagreement with - that way, it might actually get *solved*! But, I guess its just more fun for the ego to declare someone a stupid ****** just because they do things differently than you.

Sorry - looks like this kind of turned into a rant, but I needed to vent. It really amazes me that some "Scouters" place so little real value in the Scout Law that they ignore it when they think that they just know better.

Hi - we have an odd situation in our troop - an ASM has transfered into the troop, having attended WB at his previous unit. He currently is working on his ticket with our troop. Unfortunately, this has not been an all-together pleasant experience for the troop. For example, this gentleman has been known to challenge the Scoutmaster's authority in front of the ENTIRE troop in a loud, confrontation tone (pertaining to a spontaneous change that HE wanted made in the PLC's troop meeting plan.) Other times he has gone around the PLC, SM and Committee and developed his own plans, which he expects the troop to use, superceding our own 18-month calendar, which the PLC adds to and revises every 6-12 months. In all of these situations (and there are more) he says that he's doing these things due to his WoodBadge training obligations.

So, my question is, what's the procedure when the WB staff reviews his progress on his ticket? Will there be any communication between the WB people and the SM, kind of as an evaluation of this guy's actions? I'm just a third-party observer to this situation (trying to stay out of this guy's way as much as possible), but I'm interested to know what the procedure is for evaluating this kind of thing.

One idea: perhaps request that your SPL and other key youth leaders participate in preparing this report. This would have a number of positive effects: the youth leaders may become more aware of the troop's strengths and weaknesses, the youths' perspectives and input would be included in the report, and the Committee and CO would get to see that the youth are developing leadership, communication, critical thinking, etc skills. You might have the youth write a cover letter, or "year-in-review" document, in which they summarize the past year's activities, while the adults complete the report with specific numbers and other details. Also, if you plan on giving an oral report to the committee and/or CO, you might consider asking the SPL to handle some of the presentation.

That site still doesn't seem to mention about tearing off corners... I pretty sure that there is no official policy on this, and individual troops make up their own "corner cutting" guidelines. In my troop, we used to have some silly rule about "any scout with a rank higher than you can cut off a corner and if you loose all four you have to retake the 'Totin Chip Class'". We've since moved away from this, to the "common sense method": minor safety violations are addressed by a firm reminder of the safety rules, or as an excellent opportunity for the youth leaders of the troops to conduct a refresher skills instruction of proper knife/ax safety. More serious or repeated offenses are handled by adult leaders, and may involve revocation of knife/ax privileges for a certain duration of time.

In related news, there seems to be a fair amount of myth surrounding these mysterious Totin Chip and Firemn Chit cards. A popular one in my troop this time last year was that the "Paul Bunyan Chip" [sic] allowed you to use a ax to cut down trees in the forest, and some other stuff.

Basically, I think that most of the regulations involving the monitoring of appropriate knife/ax/fire use are troop-specific, and its probably better left that way. Just no sense in further spreading urban legends about this kind of thing.

Let me also add that I am sad to see you go. To be honest, I've disagreed with much of the content of many of your postings - but, you always presented your views clearly, politely and with conviction. I firmly believe that reasonable people can have disagreements, and you are a reasonable person. Without disagreement, constructive criticism, and unique perspectives, an organization cannot recognize its faults, and work for improvement. I always have appreciated your method of using common sense and the "reasonable man theory" in giving advice, rather than immediately quoting some BSA policy, or suggesting that the "troops in the silver loops" be brought in. Its also discouraging to see other forum members, whose ideas I often agree with, present them in such a rude, arrogant "greater-than-thou" manner -- goes to show you we can all benefit from reviewing the Scout Law every now and then. I'm sorry to see you go, and I hope that you continue to keep up your good work.

Wow - ask him where he's shopping that he can find that stuff at those prices! Just kidding.

Well, I found this quote in an old program from a school awards ceremony. I'm sure there's several directions to take it for an SM minute - maybe also appropriate at a committee/district training level.

"Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child." -- Anonymous

Maybe it is just for the LDS church... Based on that fact sheet, I don't understand why they don't just charter as Venturing Crews -- the only difference seems to be that the crews are Co-ed, and go up to age 21.

Trevorum,

Just out of curiosity, what would you have said to the young man had the other Scouts in the restaurant not spoken up? That may also make a good SM-minute... Being a youth in Scouting up until a few days ago, I can assure you this issue ("ah - the cool guys are gonna see me in the stupid uniform!") is very important to youth scouters. For adults, perhaps it isn't a big deal - chances are, you're never going to see the kid who started to give you a hard time again, and its easy for you to brush off rude comments like that. However, for the 13-15 year old, its a much harder thing to do, especially when they may encounter the rude kid each and every day at school, in the neighborhood, etc.

So - I think this is a great story, and shows the power and commradery of the Brotherhood of Scouting. But, I'm still interested - what would you have said to the young man, and what how would you suggest your Scouts handle similar situations?

I understand that Varsity Scouting is a well-established older scout program, that functions as almost a parallel program to traditional scouting troops, in that rank advancement after 1st class can occur in a varsity team. My question is - what exactly is the Varsity program supposed to be? There's very few teams in my area, so I'm not at all familiar with the program - is it more popular elsewhere? What's the structure of a team (youth/adult leaders, patrols, etc)? What are the program focuses.

Also, I understand that the LDS Church makes extensive use of Varsity Scouting in their "customized" version of Scouting - my question, though, relates to the program in traditional scouting.

"MB sashes and OA sashes are just that SASHES not belt dangles."

I realize that - hence the idea to create a new uniform item. Just to be clear, I am not and do not advocate the improper wearing of the Scout uniform - as long as MB's can only be worn on a sash (and the long sleave shirt), that's how they should be worn. I was trying to stimulate discussion on a change in uniform policy, permitting some sort of belt-dangle to be worn, which seems to be regarded as nicer looking and more comfortable by the scouts.

As for the OA sash, I'm not sure whether its allowed to be worn outside of OA events, which is another discussion entirely. However, often I see scouts attempting to wear both at once, and it bothers me a lot more to see the OA sash wrapped around the belt than the MB sash.

I'm sure we all know that the MB sashes are often worn wrapped around the belt, rather than "correctly" over the shoulder. I wondering - is this really a bad thing? Wouldn't it make sense for the BSA to allow this as correct uniform? Perhaps produce a "mini-sash" with clips to fit on the belt, in the same color and width as the current sash, but only 16-18 inches long. Seeing as this is already the popular style, why not just make it official. In my opinion, it still looks neat and sharp - sometimes even better than with the sash worn over the shoulder. This might even make it more comfortable to wear the neckerchief, and make it possible to wear the OA sash (which is far more comfortable) at the same time as the MB sash.

Again, other than that this is presently not correct uniform according to National, are there any comments/thoughts?