Lisabob

JoeBob, are you seriously suggesting that many people intentionally opt not to buy insurance (when they could otherwise afford to buy it), just because they can get emergency care in public hospitals even without insurance? Have you talked to very many people who do not have insurance and asked them about this? Have you talked to very many people who have had to delay medical care until it gets to the point of a medical emergency, simply because they could not afford insurance to help them cover the cost of preventive or routine maintenance care? Have you spent much time in public hospital emergency rooms, paying close attention to the kind of treatment and atmosphere often exist there? Not to belittle the over-worked, under-resourced public hospital staff whom i have known, but going to the emergency room is not exactly a desirable way for anybody with half a brain to get regular medical care. I don't think your argument holds much water. I have very rarely met wealthy people who simply decide to forego insurance so that they can use publicly mandated emergency services. I have met many poor and middle class people who would dearly love to be able to afford health insurance, but who must make choices between paying the rent or mortgage, putting food on the table, or having health insurance.

"What does my God (Catholic) want me to do about Muslim expansionism? If we keep turning the other cheek for another few decades, Christianity won't be here any more... " Oh dear. This is how religious wars get going. I hope nobody's religious entity is "telling" them to do anything about the growth of other religions... There is certainly more focus on Islam these days in many places (including the US) because of world events. But Islam has long been among the largest religions in the world. This is not new. Yet, there is no reason to view it as a threat to other established religions. I am not sure where you are coming from with this comment, JoeBob, but it strikes me very much along the same lines as people who get all upset that someday the US won't be a majority "white" nation any more. My question is: So what?

Minimum of 21 total, including the Eagle-required ones. The books specify "ten more than you already have" because the boys are required to have a specific minimum number (including a certain minimum number of Eagle-required) of badges in order to earn Star, and again at Life. So the "ten more..." is based on those prior minimums. It does *not* mean that a Life scout with, say, 50 badges including all his Eagle-required badges, would then need to have a total of 60 to earn Eagle. Hope this helps

No, of course a scoutmaster cannot do this. And it is just as much an issue for tenderfoot-2nd class-1st class ranks, where scouts are required to do all sorts of activities within their patrols (specific to the patrol, not the whole troop). You know that this SM is making things up as he goes along. Don't second-guess yourself on this. You're correct, he is not. The question is really only what you will do with this information.

Many troops do age or grade based patrols these days. Some do mixed age patrols instead, but I suspect it is less common than it used to be. One reason I have heard is that the older fellows really aren't that interested in hanging around with the younger guys all the time. Both methods have their advantages, and both can probably work, if done well. Of course, done poorly, both have significant problems associated with them. Patrol camping is a good idea and can work. But let's not kid ourselves. If you are working with a troop where adults in charge aren't supportive, then it will take more than just a couple of parents who are willing to go with a patrol, to change that troop's culture.

Agreed, not a smart thing for the pack committee to do. Canoeing is a lot of fun. Probably a lot of cub-aged boys can handle it, in many circumstances. But the G2SS exists for a reason, and we leaders should have enough integrity to follow it when it comes to selecting activities for the scout unit. Your leaders are not portraying themselves as trustworthy individuals in this instance. Not only would a waiver of the sort being kicked about be rather useless if things came down to a legal mess, but also, you (collective "you," not "you" personally, Scoutfish) are putting in writing that you know it isn't a sanctioned activity, but you plan to do it anyway (nod nod, wink wink). That's stupid. What other rules are your pack leaders willing to blithely ignore, and why should any parent trust these people with the safety of their children?

Well I admit, I have talked with boys about Gandhi. But then, Gandhi was a civic and spiritual leader, along the lines of Martin Luther King, Jr, in US history, and not a deity. On occasion we have talked about other moral role models (Mother Theresa, for example), too. I don't spend scouting time trying to teach anybody religion, though.

You asked what other troops mean when they say they go camping every month. While the troop my son is part of is far from perfect, when they say they go camping, they mean in tents, away from the comforts of home. They cook outside, play outside, and generally live outside the whole weekend, one weekend a month. (exceptions in December and August) They also do a lock-in event every year, but that's in addition to that month's camp out. That is at least one troop's definition of what it means to go camping.

Yech. If there are others who share your sentiments, make sure you let the committee chair and your COR (if they are even minimally involved) know your sentiments. The boys should do the same. If you are the lone voice in the wilderness and you aren't going to get anywhere, and you are pretty certain that this new SM with no experience to speak of is going to be supported for quite some time by the committee and the CO, then help your son find a different troop because this sounds like a disaster in the making. If you think this new SM's harebrained idea will die a quick death, consider whether you want to stick it out and help the troop pick up the pieces in, say, 4-6 months' time.

Great post, Calico. I have to ask this tangential question though (curiosity is killing me). You wrote: "There was a gay bar in Chicago that decided they were going to stop letting straight people in" My question - how did they know??? Sexuality pledges at the door?

Barry, I see that our posts crossed on the last one there. I have no doubt that you've been a fair-minded person who strives to keep your specific political and religious views out of your dealings with others where it might be inappropriate to do otherwise. I appreciate that about you, and I would say I've known many good scouters about whom I think the same could be said. I see this as a strength of scouting, that boys can see lots of different role models using lots of different personal/internal measuring sticks to figure out what it means to be a decent human being, without ever trying to force our various beliefs on the boys. I also don't spend my scouting time talking about religion and politics with youth, or attempting to proselytize in any way. Most scouters don't. So here we are on this thread though, talking about the basis for our beliefs and our views on the BSA's membership policies. Not a topic that comes up in day-to-day scouting very often (thankfully), but one that I hope we can still talk about here in a more abstract kind of a way.

So Barry, if I understand your arguments, they are essentially that 1) There is a written rule (in the bible) and people ought to follow this written rule, and 2) You believe that the behavior has tangible, negative, impacts on families and children. On the second argument, I can only say that you are entitled to your beliefs, but that one person's beliefs are a very poor basis for creating national policy for a larger group where not everyone shares that belief. There needs to be something more substantive than just what you believe to back up this policy. On the first argument, I have to say that your comparison between biblical writings and traffic laws is a poor one. We follow the law - hopefully - because that's part of good citizenship, something that all responsible members of a society are ethically and legally bound to do. It doesn't matter what our religious backgrounds are, the law is the law and applies equally to all. You follow the bible because you believe it to be true, and/or because you feel you have a moral and religious obligation to do so. I do not begrudge you your beliefs, or the fact that you, personally, use these beliefs to guide you in your everyday life. But if I am not of the same religious persuasion as you are, then I am not morally, ethically, or religiously obligated to follow your bible. On the basis of your argument, if I were Muslim, I might say to you that *you* have to follow the Koran because it spells out religious rules which *I* believe to be true. As a non-Muslim, my guess is that you would decline to accept such an approach, no? Since the BSA is not a Christian organization, using the bible as the source or explanation for BSA policy simply doesn't work so well. People who are not Christian, yet who are BSA members, may not recognize rules that are derived from specific Christian religious texts to be applicable to them. To say otherwise is to suggest that the BSA welcomes non-Christians, but only if they accept Christian teachings. I don't think that is the BSA's position.

Barry, I wonder what you say to people who are not Christian and who, therefore, do not follow the same religious text as you do? I am not asking about your view of the eternal state of their soul, but rather, what you tell them in a scouting context, since (as we all know), the BSA is not a Christian organization? When someone uses a specific religion's sacred texts to make an argument about policy for the wider group, does that not present a problem?

I think I'd respond the way you just did - still serious, and seriously stupid, and will cause people not to trust him even though he didn't mean it. People need to be able to believe and trust each other, in order for a group to function. He has put himself in a poor light by his behavior (whether he really had the substance, or not). He has also been a poor role model to other scouts, who obviously do not know whether he was only kidding or not, and who might think that they ought to *actually* do this in order to "measure up" to him. How would he feel if some younger fellow who looks up to him actually went and did what he only pretended to do, and the other fellow got caught? Even if he was pretending, what did he hope to gain? Did he think that playing around with this topic would make him "cool" or the "big man on campus," so to speak? That reflects a lack of judgment, lack of maturity, lack of trustworthiness, and lack of self-respect. Pull no punches on this.

After several years of do-nothing PORs (the appointed ones, primarily), this year my son's troop took the approach that people in PORs would be removed if they failed to attend 3 consecutive PLCs and did not submit some kind of report indicating what they had done in their POR during that same time frame. Frankly, this is a pretty minimal bar. A boy who can't call, email, text, mail an old-fashioned letter, or otherwise communicate with the SPL or ASPL and who doesn't attend any PLCs for three months straight, is almost certainly not doing the job to which he has been appointed.

There are so many dynamics here that it really not possible to come up with a one size fits all solution. For example, Stosh is absolutely right that boys do not have to cross over just because they have received their AoL. They certainly could wait to the end of the year and cross over at that time. As a Webelos DL, that was something I thought made a lot more sense, and not least because Feb, March, and even April can be among the toughest camping conditions up here in the frozen north. Throwing brand new scouts who aren't used to camping and often as not, lack the proper gear for winter camping, into that situation isn't an obvious winner in my mind. On the other hand... many troops greatly prefer Feb and March crossovers to June crossovers. They also really want the boys to go to summer camp with the troop, that first year, because the boys who do tend to come back in the fall. They boys who don't are at a higher likelihood of dropping scouts and not returning at all in September. And many 5th graders are tired of cub scouting and really ready for a new adventure. Making them all wait until the end of 5th grade would probably mean losing the ones who are mentally done with being cubs. In fact at other times on this forum, we have debated whether or not Webelos ought to truly be a one year program and not an 18 month (or, as now suggested, a 2 year) program. There are ways around all of this, I am sure, but we come back again to the fact that standard practices among packs and troops in your area can create structural barriers to doing things differently, colliding with the fact that sometimes doing things differently is really what would be the best for one or more of the boys. The answer tends to get a little messy when that happens. The best thing is for pack and troop leaders and parents to communicate openly about each individual case, and then to be a little flexible.

Post-Dale, these rules became more widely known, I think. But there are still a LOT of people who take the BSA application at face value, and the Scout oath and law at face value, and nowhere in any of those does it specifically indicate that homosexual individuals cannot be members. And in re: Dale, this was probably even less clear, since my understanding is that a public spotlight had not been shone on this particular aspect of the BSA's membership policies prior to his being kicked out. It is disingenuous to suggest that someone is dishonest, or not trustworthy, for failing to abide by a policy that they had no idea existed, and about which reasonable people would have no clue, either.

First off, I KNOW! DON'T GO FOR THE EASY TARGET HERE! (sorry about the yelling) Ok, now that that's clear... I have agreed to offer a merit badge at an upcoming merit badge day. I am not a huge fan of "MB Universities" and thought long and hard about whether I would be willing to do this again (having done it twice, under very unsatisfactory conditions, in the past). But I'll have a max of 12 boys, it is for a seldom-earned and not eagle required badge, We get 4 hours, and it is not expected that all requirements will be finished that day. Under those conditions, I figured I would give it a try one more time. I'll be doing the American Cultures badge. I've been a counselor for this badge for about 6 years now, and have never had any scout approach me about it. I am looking for ideas for how to make this fun for the boys who sign up. Does anybody have experience with this badge, and/or good ideas they want to share?

Sorry about that Eagle92... here's your thunder back (handing it over)...

Of course she can sign up. And she can do so via your district or council (not the troop AC, whose job does not include this). Having multiple MBCs gives boys choices. Some people just do better with certain types of counselors. When she signs up, encourage her to register as a MBC for the whole council, and not exclusive to your troop. Ideally, boys will work with some counselors who are not as well-known to them (like, from other troops or people not affiliated with a troop). This broadens their circle and allows for different sorts of adult interaction than if they are only ever working with adults that they have known for many years.

I find it interesting to see how this conversation is progressing. I would say that there is seldom or never a "too bad, we don't need you" attitude. At least, I have never seen or heard that sort of attitude from any troop leaders, and since I spent a few years on our district membership team(focusing in particular on webelos-scout transition), I did talk to a lot of troop leaders about this stuff. The thing I have seen is that there are different perspectives on this issue from the cub, and from the troop, end of the program. Many cub packs do use cross-over as the end of the Webelos II program. Many W II leaders *are* burned out and counting the days til the end of their tenure. Many do not have a good option to replace them and so they stay to help their boys get to cross-over, but they're really ready to be done with it. In packs like that, which are quite common, getting a W II den leader to stay around for another 4-6 months is a tall order. And if it is only one or two boys who aren't crossing over, it is also rather impractical. I know - I did it. So, from the cub end, there's pressure to move the boys up together because of programmatic weaknesses, tired leaders, not wanting to strand one or two boys while the rest move on, etc. Not to mention that, in many packs, the boys (and parents, and leaders) have grown accustomed to a system where the boys *have* advanced together for 4-5 years, and it seems odd not to do so at the very end of the cub experience. Maybe even unfair, in some eyes. Now on the boy scout end. Troops already include a huge range of boys, ages 10-18, with a huge range of experiences. It becomes quite a challenge to broaden that further, and troop leaders worry that boys who lack the AoL will also lack any basic sense of what it means to be outdoor-oriented. The boys with the weakest skills are often the same boys who struggle and are miserable on their first few camp outs, with the result that many of them may quit scouting early on, before they ever find their comfort zone. At least by waiting until the end of 5th grade (or age 11), those boys might have matured a little bit and be more ready to tough things out. All of us who have worked with this age group know that the difference 4-6 months makes at that age can be quite a lot. Also, the requirements for AoL mirror many requirements for Scout and Tenderfoot, so a boy who has AoL is likely to advance a bit more quickly at first - feeding a sense of success and keeping him involved in the program. So, from the troop end, they're (hopefully) prioritizing based on what works for new boys entering the program. They're not thinking about things from the same place as many cub leaders. This doesn't make either side right or wrong. There are holes to be poked in both sides' arguments (we could quibble about whether boys who have the AoL actually learned anything, for example). But I think it is better to recognize that there are different perspectives based on real needs and experiences, than to suggest that anybody is actively trying to send the message that they don't want new scouts, or that Webelos den leaders are somehow being intolerably selfish by saying they're done after cross-overs.

"So anyway, my point is: Why join a club that you know that you can not meet or see eye to eye over it's requirements. " Here is part of the problem. When people get involved in scouting, whether because they're signing up their bright-eyed 7 year old as a Tiger cub, or because they are excited about becoming adult leaders, there is relatively little awareness of exactly what the professed values of the BSA might actually be. Everybody knows the scouts help little old ladies across the street and do good deeds and stuff. Most people are aware that there is a citizenship focus. I think (hope?) people associate scouting with strong outdoor program and skills. How many average people actually know that the BSA systematically excludes "avowed homosexuals" and atheists and agnostics? Where, exactly, is that clearly stated on the form Joe and Jane Smith sign, when they register their eager Tiger cub and sign up as "Tiger Partners?" Yes the BSA has an actual policy document that states this stuff (the DRP - Declaration of Religious Principles, I think). But no, it isn't widely available for reading with a critical eye. And then in reality, most units do not waste much time trying to grapple with this stuff, either. As you noted, Scoutfish, this is a "hot topic" on this board, but it isn't the day to day reality of scouting on the ground in most locales. So it is entirely reasonable and possible for someone to be connected to scouting for a pretty darn long time - especially as a youth - without grasping the restrictive nature of the BSA's membership policies, or the implications of those policies. By the way, the Dale case was the Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court said that the BSA has a right to hold exclusionary membership policies because it is a private club. Imagine Dale's surprise to discover that he was no longer welcome in a program that he'd been part of for much of his life. I ask: is that just? He wasn't an outsider looking to join a club with which he didn't agree. He probably viewed himself as an insider - active and loyal to the organization, and wanting to continue his lifelong connection. It really is a lot more complicated than just saying that people shouldn't seek to join a club where they know they don't meet key membership requirements.

MNBob, some packs address this by having boys who don't meet the age/grade/AOL requirement stay with the other Webelos until the end of the year. This might mean being put into the W I den, which might/might not work, depending on the boy in question. Some packs address it by not dissolving the Webelos II den, and running a 2-year Webelos program for all boys who have not yet earned AOL and aren't old enough to join boy scouts in the middle of 5th grade. This can be a challenge if only one or two boys are left in the den after February. Some packs address it by not having separate Webelos I/Webelos II dens at all, which makes some sense since that way, there is always an existing Webelos den and the remaining boys aren't so much "left behind" as they are "still journeying." Some packs address it by telling the ineligible boy to wait on the sideline until the end of school (which doesn't seem like a great solution, since in the intervening months, the boy may lose interest in scouting) Some packs address it by working with the troop to ensure that the boy is included as a "guest" of the troop, until such time as he is old enough to join. This requires a clear understanding that he can participate, but that nothing "counts" toward any ranks or awards until he is officially a member. Those are the approaches I have seen. Some work better than others, depending on the situation.

Somebody mentioned earlier how little many long-time boy scout leaders seem to know (as a group) about the current cub program. That has always been a pet peeve of mine, along with the fact that a lot of troops who are heavy on adult leaders do a lot of complaining about how poorly run local packs - who are desperate for adult leaders - happen to be. My solution: If you believe that the cubs in your area are not getting a good experience and you are affiliated with a troop, push your troop to provide den chiefs, make sure those den chiefs are well-prepared to be useful to den leaders, and take a hard look at your ASM and committee members. If you've got as many adults as boys active in the troop, see about asking some of those adults to consider offering their services to a local pack that needs help, instead.

The only places where I have seen Tigers work as it is intended, are where the pack has an established Tiger den leader do the job. (rather than expecting parents who are brand new to scouting and still sort of new to parenting and adult community involvement - heck the kid is only 6 or 7 in first grade and many of their parents are still in their early/mid 20s!)