Lisabob

Mark, Fscouter, thanks for your feedback thus far. Just a couple of clarifications. The PLC was held w/o the SM present because the SM wasn't able to attend. There is always 2 deep adult leadership but the ASMs present may not have been very actively involved and/or may not know the back story with regard to the boys in question. Committee members do occasionally visit the PLC upon request, but that wasn't the case here. In fact the committee only got involved when the SPL was making his monthly report to the committee (I don't know if that is standard or not, but it is something our troop always does). At that point, which was - I'm pretty sure - also the first time the SM heard about it, some committee members told the SPL he was overstepping his authority. They did so nicely and explained why, but that was still the message. Yeah, communication, right? That's been an on-going issue. If the SM and SPL don't communicate very well, it causes all sorts of issues. I wish I could wave my magic wand and help all adults learn to communicate better. But some simply don't have that as a strength, no matter how good they may be at other aspects of their position, and adults are a lot harder to teach new behaviors to than kids are. Really, I'm not sure which part of this is bothering me. Is it that the SPL did what we try to teach the boys to do - he took initiative, showed leadership, tried to deal with an intransigent problem - only to have the rug pulled out from under him? Or is it that there doesn't seem to be a good solution to the patrol membership issue, since leaving the three boys in the same patrol doesn't work and splitting them up into other (currently stable, functional, happy) patrols causes a host of other problems? Or maybe, it is that we want our youth leadership to make (reasonably) good decisions yet we also feel a need to withhold key information. For example, the PLC is not aware of the various medical diagnoses of the boys in question for privacy reasons. Consequently they may view certain behaviors as just "bad" or "annoying" while, with a little more knowledge, they might view them with more patience. Most likely it is all of these. I'm just thinking about how else one can handle such issues in the future.

OK so this might not work, depending on how well you really know them and how open they will be to honest discussion. But maybe...what about simply telling them that boy scouting is all ABOUT learning to be independent and facing (age-appropriate) challenges? By refusing to let her boy do these activities, mom is actually keeping him from developing his own self confidence, skill, and judgment - all of which he will need later in life when she can't always be there to smooth the way for him. Of course she isn't doing so intentionally - everyone understands that all parents want to keep their children safe. But perfect safety means never having new adventures or being able to learn from experience, or growing up. Does she really want her son to remain a helpless little child his whole life? Now maybe that'll work, maybe it won't, and it depends an awful lot on mom's personality and your relationship with the family, so proceed with caution. But sometimes laying it on the line is what it takes for parents to realize that, in their understandable desire just to protect the children they love, they are actually doing them a big dis-service.

You said you know the dad. Does anybody else (or their wife, their sister, somebody) know the mom? Because it doesn't sound to me like you have a big chance of convincing her unless someone she already knows is talking directly to her, not through dad or the nanny. If there's someone who has a personal connection to "mom," see if they can find out what she is afraid of. Is it that the camp out sounds too challenging as Hunt suggested? Is it wildlife issues? (which are usually not founded on fact and so are fairly easy to dispel) Is it that Johnny scout might be asked to do his own cooking and cleaning (gasp)? Is it child abductors? Is it supervision issues? (we continually stress independence, and parents sometimes wonder how we can allow a boy to be independent while still ensuring his safety. They wrongly assume "independence" means a "free for all with no supervision.") Once someone she already knows and trusts understands what the problem is from her perspective, then and only then do you have a chance of addressing it to "mom's" satisfaction. And maybe you won't be able to, or maybe she just doesn't want her son to get his hands dirty or something equally unfortunate.

Hi there owl, glad to see you are back. I'll be happy to retract my conjecture that you had started this thread for kicks and giggles. I don't see anybody here disagreeing with your basic premise that teenagers who aren't ready for commitment and responsibility are probably going to face difficulty being parents. Not to say that it could never happen, but the basic problem itself is fairly uncontroversial. The question is, what to do about it, and there we differ. I still disagree with your proposal. If the problem you wish to address is unplanned/teen/unmarried parenthood in our society as a whole, I have doubts about the effectiveness of any proposed boy scouts policy on the larger issue. In particular I have doubts that the policy you proposed could ever be workable even within boy scouts. I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree on the particulars though. It is a little to easy though, as well as wrong, to suggest that people who don't agree with your proposal are somehow unwilling to address larger societal issues. That's the sort of "with us or against us" garbage that political pundits seeking ratings or selling books and politicians seeking re-election spew and it isn't worth much of anything in terms of actually dealing with real issues in all their complexity.

We have some boys in our troop who are just difficult to get along with. While in some cases the boys in question have emotional and behavioral disorders that are part of the problem, regardless of the cause, the result is that the other boys find them to be obnoxious in a big way. By pure chance, three of our more challenging scouts ended up in a new scout patrol together when they crossed over a year ago and it has been oil and water since that time. It is really difficult for any other boys in this patrol because this is a pretty dysfunctional group and they feed off of each other's problems/goad each other a lot. A couple of weeks ago the PLC met (w/out the SM, who was out of town) and decided to juggle patrol membership to split up these three boys. They did this without knowing some of the background to the boys, except what they see - that they are obnoxious, and worse when they're together. The SPL took the responsibility for deciding which patrols the boys would be re-assigned to, since none of the patrols actually wants any of these boys to join them. A couple of committee members, all longtime Scouters, told the SPL he had over-stepped his bounds because there were things he didn't know about the boys' backgrounds and/or about balancing other patrols' needs. (Example: a boy in another patrol has had chronic problems at school with one of our challenging scouts, and putting the two of them in a patrol together would very likely cause this boy to drop out of the troop) Watching this exchange, I saw that they were both "right." The SPL seemed deflated; he had taken responsibility for a difficult decision, done what he thought was best, only to have that decision remanded. If I had been in his shoes I probably would have resented this. The two Scouters who raised the point though, were acting on more info than the SPL had, and they're right that re-assigning some of these boys without careful consideration of all the facts is likely to cause as many or more problems than it will solve. Without going on at length about who knows the theory of the patrol method better - spare me please - I'd like some practical suggestions for how one empowers the SPL in such situations, without radically disrupting the troop? It is one thing to say, well if the SPL makes a bad choice (not that I'm even certain he did make a bad choice, mind you) then the troop just has to deal with it, but it is another if that choice directly results in boys leaving the program. How do you balance these competing needs? Oh, and no, I don't think the committee was the best place to handle this. But the SM wasn't aware of the decision prior to the committee meeting, either.

Eamonn says: I feel very strongly that Scouting isn't just for the "Good little Boys and Girls". Bingo! Ed, no your last post didn't really answer my question about HOW you would ascertain those facts, but I'm done pushing it. I've noticed that, having stopped in to start this little tempest, our friend owl has taken off again. I begin to wonder if maybe that was his intent? And since we're talking about purely hypothetical situations which are, at least, exceedingly rare (how many of us have dealt with Eagle candidates who are reputed to be fathers...), I'm moving on to other threads.

Ed, with respect, what does it mean to you to say that you'd "handle the situation appropriately?" And exactly how would you engage in that investigation? You make this sound easy. I don't want to suggest that a boy who comes to a troop meeting bragging about his sexual exploits and his impending fatherhood should then be clapped on the back and handed an Eagle badge without serious thought and discussion. But much of the time, unless (even if) you are in a VERY small town, things are just not that blatant. Unless your own family is somehow directly involved, you're going to be dealing with RUMORS, which as we all know, are problematic, messy matters. And these are not the sorts of questions you can just slip into conversation over a cup of coffee at the local diner. So in order to do this investigation, who exactly are you going to ask, and how? Supposing that there is a rumor in "need" of investigation, I see three possibilities: 1) Ask the boy(s) and/or girl directly. 2) Ask their parents. 3) Ask some school official or the girl's doctor or the families' religious leaders. In the first case, as a parent if I found out that some adult was giving my kid the third degree about something like this, I'd be down your throat in a heartbeat and it would not be pleasant. "How dare you?" comes to mind, followed by a string of uncivil comments about minding your own darn business. And double the problematic reception you're going to get if some of the people involved don't know you well (from scouting, perhaps) to start with. In the second case - I'd tell you to go jump in a lake. In either of the above, supposing you don't get tossed out on your ear for merely asking, how are you going to secure proof if the subjects of your investigation aren't forthcoming? Will you demand to see a birth certificate or DNA test results? By what authority? Keep in mind that at least one of the parties involved is NOT in your boy scout troop so you have even less authority with the girl's family. In the third case, I doubt you'd get any information (confidentiality, etc.) but if you did, and if I were the parent of one of the kids in question, again, I'd be so far beyond ticked off. Now, suppose that this turns out to be nothing more than a rumor - or at least, no pregnancy seems to materialize after all. Now what? You may have inadvertently helped to spread a malicious rumor about one, or all, of the parties involved. And don't tell me that wouldn't ever happen. High school kids, girls especially, can be mean and ruthless and they do, sometimes, spread these kinds of nasty rumors. Again, speaking as a parent, if my child became the unwarranted subject of your investigation, not only would I be letting you know in no uncertain terms how I felt, but I'd also be letting the SE, the DE, and your CO know too, in writing and face to face. And if my kid were in the same troop with you? Either we'd be switching troops or you'd be leaving because no way would I ever trust you with my child again. If this comes across as a bit harsh, I'm sorry. Ed, I do believe you're a "good guy" with the best of intentions. And I am not suggesting that we simply turn our backs to morality issues. But there are so many, very messy, questions and problems that arise from what you seem to view as a fairly simple investigation. And if you're wrong, the blowback for you personally, for the troop, for the CO, and for the image of Scouting in the community in general, could be tremendously negative. So here's the thing with uz2bnowl's proposal: Most of the time there'd be no way to enforce it, short of engaging in inquisitorial behavior. Inquisitions have a tendency to harm more people than they "help." I'm not willing to put up with, or be part of, such behavior. Nor do I believe the BSA would want to actively pursue such a policy. As for "Prepar[ing] young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law," my thought is that this is something we do in small doses, by practical example, every day rather than through investigations of youth members' alleged sexual activity.

With regard to discussing sexual behavior/activity with youth, I think it matters a great deal whether the topic is broached by the scout or by the adult. I would be profoundly uncomfortable with some adult initiating such a conversation with my son. So much so, in fact, that I would probably move my child to a different troop. It isn't that I'm squeamish, nor that I feel I'm the only person my son should ever talk to about these issues. But I don't think most troop leaders can or should presume to know what every family in the troop believes and teaches their children at home about these issues. They can't know what the family's experiences are or have been. And given that we live in a society where people have, sometimes, widely different standards of acceptable behavior in this area, the potential for stepping into a minefield by initiating such a conversation is huge. And I don't mean political correctness - I mean giving "advice" that is contrary to what parents believe or are teaching at home on this deeply personal and complex topic. I mean sitting in judgment of a family without necessarily meaning to, or knowing the details of their lives. And of course there are tremendous emotional implications to discussing this topic. Do you really want to open that can of worms with the youth in your troop? Are you equipped to deal with it? Not to mention that there is always a risk of inadvertently passing along incorrect information. Unless, of course, there's going to be some sort of official BSA training on this (ugh, I don't really want to see that! Look, we can't even get the right information at training about awards and advancement half the time - imagine how badly some hapless district flunky could mess up this topic!). Even the public middle schools and high schools around here offer parents a preview of the health/sex ed curriculum with opt-outs along the way and that should give us, as volunteers not trained in teaching this subject matter or dealing with the consequences, serious pause. Now, if a scout were to approach a Scouter with these sorts of questions or seeking advice, that's different. It provides an opening for the scouter to share his or her view - clearly labeled as such, with a strong prompt for the scout to discuss the same issue with parents/guardian. And if I were that Scouter in question, I'd make sure some other adult knew that the conversation had occurred, the circumstances, and what was said. I guess, to my way of thinking, something Eamonn said a while back in another thread makes the best sense. He said something along the lines that the BSA views youth members as asexual beings. (I believe this was in context of a discussion on homosexuality but please correct me if I'm wrong Eamonn.) I think this is a very smart decision on the part of the BSA. And I think the mere fact that Scouting is a place where sexuality is NOT part of the daily fare makes a strong statement to our scouts, in contrast to some elements of pop culture.

"I'm out of control because my loins have taken over" And to be clear, I never said anything like that. Nor did I ascribe that view to you, or to anyone else. Not sure where that quote came from. If it was from someone else's post, I must have missed it.

No owl, you misunderstand what I was saying. Perhaps that's a result of the method of communication. But let me clarify. I did not intend to suggest that you, personally, hold the view that it is ok to engage in such behavior as long as one does not get caught. I don't know you so I'm certainly not interested in ascribing intent to your post. My point, however, is that there would be plenty of other people who would interpret the policy you propose in such a manner. Part of the problem with writing such policies is that they often have unintended negative consequences. This might very easily be one of them. And yes, that would be insulting in my view too, for people to return to an era where boys could, and sometimes did, engage in sexual behavior with few consequences while girls tended to have more, ah, obvious consequences if/when things "went wrong." Of course today we have DNA tests, but who exactly is going to order those tests if the girl/her family doesn't? And even if they do, the information in those tests is not necessarily public knowledge. I can imagine situations in which a girl would become pregnant and the boy in question would not be terribly forthcoming about that situation with his Scoutmaster. That then puts the SM in a position to have to inquire about scouts' sexual behaviors - which most SM's I know would not touch with a ten foot pole - or, failing that, it could allow for the scout to go ahead and refrain from taking responsibility for his actions all the way to Eagle. After all, doing the "right" thing by being an involved father would mean no advancement so the "obvious" answer for some people would be "just deny it/ignore it." And no, that's not ethical. But scan through some of the threads about pushy parents who want their sons to "get" Eagle and it doesn't take long to see that some parents would probably actually *encourage* their son to do that. Sad, but I'm afraid, probably true. And as for removing Scouters, it seems to me that this is the logical conclusion of such a policy toward youth. I am aware you didn't suggest that but I don't see how it could work any other way. Otherwise we're in the "do as I say but not as I do" mode. And my thoughts are that such a policy toward adults would be more than I'd personally put up with. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with my own marital status as you seemed to suggest? I just don't want any volunteer organization poking its nose into its members' bedrooms. (This is one reason why I also don't agree with the BSA's ban on gay leaders but that's another thread). If a scout wants to discuss these sorts of things and has the level of trust in one of the Scouters in a troop to do that, then that's one thing. As Eamonn says, in such a case I hope that the Scouter would be honest but would speak from his or her personal view rather than from BSA policy. If it comes up in a BOR situation like someone else described then I also think it is fair game for discussion. But I think the approach you suggest is too routinely invasive on the part of the BSA and I don't think it would be advantageous to do that. So no, I'm not suggesting that YOU were advocating "giddy up and go." I am suggesting that some people would interpret a policy like the one you describe to mean that boys should be more worried about getting "caught" than about anything else, leading boys (and perhaps their parents in some cases) to make even worse choices about what to do if they do find themselves in such a situation.

Why the answer is obvious isn't it? Cover the sticky spot with...a sticker! (preferably a scout sticker) Thanks for the laugh though, and seriously, sorry about the floor.

No I think that goes way too far. Looking at it from the perspective of working with youth, it is the parents' or guardians' job to deal with youth sexual behavior - NOT the BSA leaders' job. Looking at it from the perspective of adult volunteer leaders, the BSA can darn well keep its nose out of the bedroom. This is a volunteer organization, not a religion and not a cult, and the BSA doesn't/shouldn't expect to regulate these most personal aspects of people's lives. Such a position reminds me of advice that was once commonly given to boys (but not usually to girls): "Do what you want but don't get caught." Further, such a position would encourage boys NOT TO take responsibility for their actions if such actions resulted in a girl becoming pregnant. That is not ethical.

Actually I think it is a fine idea for the SM to ask the scout whether or not he/she ought to sign off on "scout spirit." And of course that means that when the boy says "yes" they can explain why, too. In a convincing, clear, direct manner. This is a wonderful opportunity for serious discussion about what scout spirit means and how one demonstrates it. That's part of the mentoring job of the SM. A while back I sat on a very uncomfortable BOR for a scout seeking Life rank. I did not then, and do not now, think he was ready but I was over-ridden at the time. One reason, among many, for my concern was because he could not look any of us in the eye and give a coherent answer as to how or when he had demonstrated scout spirit. Nor could he provide any recent examples of how he had demonstrated any of the 12 points of the scout law. If the SM had asked him "Do you think I ought to sign off on scout spirit for you and if so, why?" then maybe this young man would've given the meaning of scout spirit in his life at least a passing thought. And if he had given the SM the lousy non-answer he gave us? I hope the SM would've said, not good enough, let's give it a week and talk about it again. As it was, with the SM's signature in place for scout spirit, other members of the BOR (perhaps rightly) felt it would be wrong to delay the boy's advancement on that basis.

Well now wait a moment, as SM don't you have the ability to decide whether or not this scout is demonstrating scout spirit? I'm not saying that this is necessarily the issue in the specific cases mentioned above, but people make it sound like the SM is powerless and in fact he/she is not. But it is like any process, you have to follow the steps all along to get the desired results. "No surprises" doesn't mean "automatic advancement;" it means, don't wait until the last minute to tell a boy he isn't living up to expectations. I see the problem as follows: 1) Too many SMs don't want to do the heavy lifting of truly mentoring scouts, especially scouts who are not 110% gung ho all the time about scouts. Ie, those young men have other priorities in their lives and we take that a little too personally sometimes. 2) Because too many SMs don't want to do the mentoring mentioned above, the problem drags on and on, with the scout never getting a clear signal that he isn't doing what is expected of him. 3) So that when the scout asks for his SM conference for rank advancement, the SM feels as though his or her hands are tied. 4) Then the problem falls into the laps of the BOR members, who are not generally in a position to DO anything about it. Does the SM hope that the BOR will bail him/her out by showing fortitude where the SM didn't? Or does the SM want someone else to blame? Or does the SM simply want to complain - because any or all of these are the likely results of dumping this sort of problem in the BOR's lap. At the end of the day we have to make some tough calls. SM's need to be more upfront, earlier in the process, about what their expectations are regarding scout spirit and how it might be demonstrated.

Pretty good deal for your $24! Be careful w/ those Tiger T shirts though. If you mean the orange ones, remember that the Tiger uniform was changed about a year ago so that now Tigers wear the same blue cub scout shirts as wolves & bears. Those orange shirts are cute and might be popular but they're no longer considered uniforms.

OGE, I completely agree. My frustration, and I think Beavah's, is that sometimes there's nothing any one adult (other than the SM, maybe the CC, or the COR if they even have a clue) can do about it if/when the other adults in positions of authority don't (want to?) see the problem. But that's probably a whole 'nother thread. (OGE here, I agree Lisa, that's why I delted my original comment that I posted here and started a new thread so as not to hijack this one, aplogies to all) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Yeah Beavah, my annoyance factor kicks in when we have scouts serving as "troop historian" who do absolutely NOTHING for 4-6 months. But it counts, because a) they held the position and b) the SM (or his designate) never required anything from the boy in terms of actual leadership. At the very least, our troop librarian brings the MB book library with him from time to time, though I agree that's pretty lame in terms of showing leadership. Still, if the SM isn't going to follow through then there's little to nothing anybody else can do about it. As for scoutmaster assigned projects - I know of one where the SM assigned an older boy to be a "buddy" to a scout with rather serious emotional and developmental challenges. As this scout's "buddy" the older scout's assignment was to help integrate this boy into as much of his normal patrol life as possible. For example, if the boy was assigned to be grubmaster, this older scout would assist him. If the boy was being excluded/excluding himself from patrol conversation, his "buddy" would try to draw him into the conversation. If the boy was beginning to act out inappropriately, the "buddy" and the boy had a private signal they used to let him know to back off (the boy in question has difficulty interpreting normal social cues). This was certainly a leadership challenge (how to incorporate difficult people into a team) and to some extent it worked. The boy went from being ostracized to being at least somewhat accepted and he also modified his own behavior a bit better. Not just any scout could take on this sort of special leadership project though.

I agree with John re: the simple answer - if he met the official requirements (active for at least 6 months as a Life Scout, no matter when those 6 months were) then you shouldn't hold him back based on this criterion. If you have a troop policy that contradicts the BSA advancement policy then you should ask whether your troop policy is valid to begin with; as John suggests, you'd probably lose any challenge that the scout made to the District under those circumstances. Still I think it makes sense to have a conversation with this boy about what it means to be an Eagle, how it is impossible to be a leader when you aren't there, etc.. He may not fully understand the expectations that go with the rank. Or, he may have good reasons for being absent from your camp outs. To me, the fact that he is attending 1/3 of the troop meetings even though he hasn't camped with you in a year and a half is, frankly, astounding and suggests he still cares about scouting. Otherwise he'd have been missing from those meetings too - not very many boys stay in scouts for the meetings! And as a matter of practical advice you might point out to him that he should consider being more active in the present tense if he expects his troop-mates to help him on his Eagle project. After all, many of them probably joined the troop since his last camp out and they probably won't be as inclined to lend a hand if they don't know him.

This year we're doing a planning camp out, which I think is a good idea. Last year our planning meeting was squeezed into two hours and that really was nowhere near enough time. What ended up happening is the SM pretty much told the guys what they ought to do. I'm sure he realized it, and actually we had a really good year in terms of program this year - but it would have been nice to give more ownership to the guys. One thing that's come up in conversation with my son about this topic is that a lot of the scouts don't really know what is available locally, except for things they've already done. Given that, how do you help your guys develop/explore new ideas? Now that my son has been in the troop for 2+ years he says he wants to see the troop do some "different" things, but he isn't sure what that means. I've got some thoughts myself but I hesitate to insert my thoughts too far into the process.

Now Gonzo, there's just no call for that. You've intentionally wandered into a debate on a contentious issue and then broadsided someone just because you don't agree. OK, score a point for Merlyn here. Who cares whether you agree or not, there's no need to stoop to personal attacks. A Scout is ... what? On another note I guess we're all spending a little too much time on this thread (myself included) because we can spew forth all day long and it won't change much of anything. Let's go start some threads on hiking and fishing and other scout stuff instead.

"For the last month or so the Boatswain has sent out e-mails saying that we needed another leader to attend or this was going to be canceled. " CNY, sorry but this reminds me of all the times I naively stood up at pack meetings and announced we needed "somebody" to do "something." "Somebody" was never in attendance and so if "something" was going to get done, I often ended up doing it. First rule of recruiting - ask individual people to do individual tasks.

More detail is always good. OK so either you or your boatswain need to call this other adult today and explain the situation to them in (polite) blunt terms. Chances are they'll say oh, well I can drop off a check to you tonight/tomorrow if they're the CO, repeatedly have stated that they're going, and are just oblivious to the deadline. Or, if they've been on the fence, this will give them the push they need to say either yes or no. Then you'll know for sure what the situation is. At the moment it sounds like you're mind reading. Sure they should have given the money already. They didn't. Ask them why and you'll be out of the mess. If they say no, let your boatswain know you'll need to cancel unless there's someone else pronto.

Since this is planning time for many units, I thought I'd put this out there for your info. In October, Great Sauk Trail Council (southeast Michigan) is hosting a council camporee at the Michigan International Speedway. They are expecting to draw scouts from not only MI, but also from OH, IN, WI, and IL and Canada. It is being unofficially billed as a "regional jambo" type of event. The program includes activities for packs (including cub family camping), troops, and crews. They do this event once every 3-5 years and it is always very well done. If you are in the region and are interested, check it out at: http://www.gstcbsa.org/mis/ And hey, I know we'll probably never get a Scouter.com gathering together on our own - my "hour a week" is already spoken for, thank you - but if you attend this camporee, let me know!

Eaglein KY - sounds to me like you need to have a parents/adult leader meeting. Since your troop is still new(ish) and you are only now reaching the point where there's beginning to be some serious adult turn-over and shortages as your original group moves up, moves on, it seems this is a critical juncture for you to bring new parents into the fold. What I am finding is that a lot of new parents do not understand how a boy scout troop works. They joined "your" troop because you do all these great things and have all these adults in place already. They often do not understand that not all of those adults are willing or able to be there in perpetuity, and so if they want to see the program continue along on the same footing, THEY are going to have to be actively involved too. Nor do they understand how to do that, or what support (training) is available to help them do that - and I mean seriously, in some detail - not just a matter of "hey council is holding some training next week that'll help you." Sometimes, it is a matter of willingness (parents who are dysfunctional adults or uninvolved with their kids, or unbearably self-centered - ugh). Often it is a matter of not knowing how they "fit" into your needs, or of thinking they don't have the right skills, or of being wary (afraid?) of committing themselves to doing something where they're not sure what they're getting into. In the first case, you're out of luck. In the others, it is a matter of education and you do have some control there.

Just to throw a slightly less ambiguous example than the girl scouts out there: There's a group called Kingdom Bound Ministries that holds a large festival in upstate NY every year. They say they attracted 60,000 participants last year and they are among the 25 largest Christian festivals in America. This is explicitly a Christian organization and the purpose of the even is to celebrate and promote their faith. From their website: "KINGDOM BOUND MINISTRIES INC. EXISTS TO PRESENT THE GOSPEL THROUGH A VARIETY OF ART FORMS INCLUDING CONCERTS OUTREACHES AND AN ANNUAL PERFORMING ARTS FESTIVAL; TO BRING PEOPLE TO A SAVING KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST AND TO ENCOURAGE BELIEVERS IN THEIR WALK WITH GOD." http://www.kingdombound.org/mission.html Suppose they wanted to hold a jambo-type event in coordination with the DoD. Now I'm not saying they plan this, but let's suppose for the sake of discussion. Consider the arguments DoD apparently made for supporting the BSA event, and whether they apply equally to this group: 1) Staging/training practice in dealing with large groups (check) 2) Emergency preparedness practice w/ large groups (check) 3) Public Relations and Recruiting, emphasizing that many members of our armed forces have connections with the large group in question (check) How would we feel about the DoD serving punch and cookies to Kingdom Bound participants? If the answer is "no" to Kingdom Bound, why is the boy scouts (or maybe girl scouts) a special case, given the arguments the DoD apparently put forth to defend the practice of jambo involvement? I'm not sure I'm opposed to DoD's involvement actually, but I'm interested in hearing your take on this.