mikemayer67

"We have 15 boys and the guys try to spend this campout time working on Rank requirements with them. But if they keep leaving, they won't finish the requirement yet are expecting to be signed off! We just don't have the time or manpower to keep repeating the things these boys have missed"

One of the key points I make with all scouts at every scoutmaster conference I have with them (and when I meet with them in their Webelos dens before they even join the troop) is that it is the scouts' responsiblity to move through the advancement process. It is the troop's responsibility to provide opportunities for advancement, not to move them through the ranks.

I make sure all scouts (and their parents) understand that the scouts must set personal goals based on the priorities in their lives. I do not care what the scouts' goals are... just that they have them. The scout must realize that if they want to do scouting, marching band, soccer, party with friends, and "chill on the weekend" that something will have to give and odds are they will "fall behind" their peers in scouting advancment. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the scout realizes the cause/effect and makes a conscience decision that this is how his priorities lie.

My point? If a scout elects to put something ahead of "completing a camping trip," then they have no reasonable expectation that the program will be repeated explicitly for them. They will need to wait until enough critical mass forms for it to be repeated. (Of course, very few of the requirements need a special program in order be completed...)

Just my 2c,

mike

I find it interesting that those of us willing to take the time to do careful soul searching and to carefully examine all sides of an issue are called "intellectual cowards" while those who take up one side of an issue and refuse to see that there is any ambiguity to it are somehow brave.

By definition, "intellect" is the use of those cells between your ears. So, I'll take being called "intellectual" as a complement. By definition "coward" is someone who doesn't take action out of fear. Yep the fits me all right. I'm refusing to make my opinion known and refusing to stick with it out of fear.... Oh wait, that's not what I'm doing at all... so how again am I a coward?

But you know what? Those of us who live in the middle of the road and can see the validity and value in both sides of an issue are pretty used to being vilified by those folks too afraid to allow for the possibility that life is gray and not just white or black.

I know I said I would walk away from this topic, but being part of the crowd that was directly attacked, I felt the need to respond so that others don't think I'm running away with my tail between my legs. I would hate to think that someone else might subsequently fear standing up on an issue they feel passionate about.

YIS,

mike

This will be my last post on this thread unless it takes a new turn. Clearly nuance, subtlety, and gradation (the opposite of absolutism) is lost on some people and I do not wish to waste any more of my time.

My original purpose in joining this thread was a response to E61's statement,

"Wasn't the crux of the OP's question whether or not his son could advance in Scouting if he was an atheist? If so, then I think the answer is, no...he can't. So at that point, I should think they should go ahead and leaving Scouting."

It does not matter what God (or god) I believe applies to scouting. Nor does it matter what God (or god) he believes applies to scouting. It is up to the scout (and his family) to recognize that one of BSA's core tenets is that a scout is reverent. If said scout can accept that fact and does not feel a moral contradiction with his involvement in the scout program, then it is not up to me or E61 or anyone else to determine if the scout can or cannot stay in scouting.

My second post (directed at the OP) was there to help him help his son decide if he could or could not accept the premise that a scout is reverent and if he could or could not say the scout oath and law without feeling hypocritical.

When individuals take it on themselves to judge the hearts and minds of others, they are following in the grand tradition of jihad, crusade, the McCarthy Trials, and the Spanish Inquisition.

Scouting should (dare I say must) continue it's tradition of holding up the importance of reverence to something higher than ourselves! But let's not throw out "a scout is kind" in the process.....

KnoxDad (if you're still following this thread), I wish you and your son the best of luck in his scouting career. Do not lose heart.

YIS,

mike

For the record, I am a cradle-to-grave Lutheran. I have followed a long, twisted, but "scenic" route in my path of religious discovery. I have had the foundations of my beliefs and faith shaken and restored. And in the process, I learned that beliefs (with a small 'b') cause way too much trouble, hatred, and alienation from that which we seek. Faith (with a capital 'F') is so much more powerful and binds us all (no matter what we might believe) onto our common journey. Belief divides. Faith heals and binds.

Fortunately, there is not a financial element to this. The scout was given the troop bugle (after we sanitized it).

acco40,

AMEN to EVERYTHING you said. It's taken me over 18 months to come to this point, but I almost heard myself speaking while reading your post.

Engineer61,

I'll give you credit for doing your homework... but your logic does not hold up.

The text you cited was under the section of religious emblems. We can probably all agree that the OP probably is not going to be terribly upset if his son does not pursue one of these. And I would agree with your logic IF religious emblems were the only part of the scout program.

The flaw in your logic that made me actually laugh out loud was your use of Webster's to bolster your case. You actually gave the OP all the ammo he needed to prove that his son honestly satisfies the scout is reverent "requirement." Unless, of course, his son does not believe that theaters have upper balconies....

OK... So you want to argue that the "requirement" uses a capital G and definition 8 qualifies itself with 'usually lower case.' Fine, I'll concede that point. Definition 5 clearly uses a capital G and qualifies its definition of Supreme Being as "Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle."

This is a essentially what I said was a very useful working definition for applying the principle of reverence. I would bet the OP would be ok with his son professing to believe in life, truth, love, mind, soul, spirit, and principle as long as we can agree that soul and spirit are equally difficult to define.

Finally, if you want to ignore definitions 5-8 of God in your 'proof', then we need to start sending out memos to all of the Buddhists that they can no longer be scouts either.(This message has been edited by mikemayer67)

Are you looking in MD or VA?

I have not been to all of the state parks, but have always had good success with both the MD and VA state parks that I have attended. (In addition to nice facilities, the online reservation systems are very user friendly.)

Little Bennett is a GREAT place to take cubs... but it is probably too late to get reservations for a May weekend (unless you're talking 2011). Give them a call NOW and cross your fingers.

P64 out of Gaithersburg, MD routinely goes to Gambril State Park in MD because that works well for them as well. I just checked their reservation system. Plenty of sites left for 5/28-5/31... but you must stay for 3 nights over that holiday weekend!

Happy hunting! (that's hunting for a location, not prey)

mike

I am just about to complete my 2nd year as SM (and will jump at the chance for a 2nd 2 year term when it is offered to me---I see no reason that it won't be).

I must say that my reaction to this thread is very different now than it would have been 2 years ago. This change reflects my change as SM.

When I started, I felt very overwhelmed and turned very heavily to the committee, the ASMs, and the unit commissioner for guidance in making decisions. Not so much any more. No because I now know so much more how to be a SM, but because I now realize that I have known all along how to be a SM and just needed the confidence to acknowledge to myself that fact. Do I still make mistakes? Sure...(see my earlier post today).

This is NOT to say that I don't solicit the input from others. I still ask opinions from the same group (including those whose opinions I usually don't agree with on the off chance that might have a good one this time). I just no longer simply defer to the group consensus, rather I weigh it into my decision.

Why the change? Precisely because of the theme of this thread. The buck stops with me. Yes, that can be a daunting thought. But it is also very liberating if you look at it the correct way. It stops with me BECAUSE I have been given both the institutional and moral authority to make these decisions BECAUSE the committee and parents trust my judgement.

So yes, I will take the blame whenver blame needs to be assigned. BUT you sure can bet I'm also going to take the accolades and inherit pride that comes with watching these boys grow. On balance the latter GREATLY outweighs the former.

YIS,

mike

KnoxDad,

I truly hope you are able to find a pack and troop that is willing to not shut the door in your face. I know that when I was a den leader and then cubmaster in P64 and now as scoutmaster of T207, you would not have/be been turned away from scouting. In addition, I would have taken the time to explain to you much of what many of the responders to this thread have said. I can say this, because I HAVE had conversations like this with a couple of families concerned about the tie between scouting and religion.

Scouting clearly recognizes the importance of spirituality in the development/life of any individual. But as I explained in my prior post, the words "reverent" and "spirituality" are very slippery... as are the words god and God. The working definition that I have found most useful is that a scout is reverent when he/she recognizes that there is something out there that is much bigger then them. For most of my scouts (and myself to a large extent), this "thing" is a supernatural diety. For others it is something non-sentient. When a scout (or any person) first truly internalizes the fact that the world/universe extends well beyond them and that they are but a small part is something so much bigger than themselves, they cannot fail to feel some sort of reverence and in that moment transcend to a being a better person, ergo scout. [i will refrain from digressing into my discourse that most "religious folks" have sorely failed to attain this goal.]

Another point to consider...and I do not mean to insult you if you already know this. I have found that many people (in and out out of scout scouting) confuse refusal to follow the teachings of an organized religion with atheism. This confusion straddles all levels of education and intelligence. One of my favorite religious writers is Mark Twain. If you had asked him (or even if you didn't) I am sure he would have described himself as an atheist. But it is clear in his writings that he had a clearer vision of God than most Christians. He simply fell into the trap of accepting the religious institutions' definition of god as the correct/only definition. And when that god failed his lithmus test, he came to the conclusion that god must not exist. Every self-proclaimed atheist with which I have discussed this matter (note that I am not saying all atheists) have fallen into this mold.

I truly hope that you and your son are able to find a rewarding future in scouting.

YIS,

mike

Engineer61,

Please site which requirement is going to be the road block to advancement... I just did a quick re-read to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

If you choose to cite "Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life," I would ask you if we start blocking every scout who spends money foolishly (antithesis of thrifty) from advancement... And yes, I recognise the difference between "slipping up" on following each point the law and choosing to actively defy a point of the law.... BUT...

The word "reverent" is very slippery. So unless you want to nail it down for all of us once and for all to everyone's satisfaction, I would propose that we not declare this scout's future dead on a very subjective call.

I apologize if you're response was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. It did not come across that way.

Wow... I was torn on this one, having seen both sides of the fence. I'm not going to offer any practical advise, but hopefully my experience will help paint a background for you as you proceed (or not).

1) I absolutely despise when any scouter (at the den, pack, troop, district, or council level) espouses their personal opinions or rules as "official policy." [i have seen it in leader training... and when confronted they will either continue to hold the line even as I hold out G2SS and ask them to show me or will admit that it really is more of a "good idea" than a policy.] If a rule is added by council, district, troop, pack, or den over and above the official policies, just say so and don't try to hide behind a smoke curtain. (Violates both a scout is trustworthy and a scout is brave.)

2) I have been a den leader, a cubmaster, and am now a scoutmaster. I have learned that sometimes "fair" is not the same as "equal." Trying to lay down comprehensive/inviolable rules which are in the best interest of all scouts is a very hard (if not impossible) thing to do. Each scout is different. The rules that must be applied to him are not necessarily the same rules that must be applied to another scout. Example 1. I need to see Johnny's boots before he is allowed to leave with us from the parking lot for our hiking campout (because he notoriously forgets to bring them) but that does not mean I need to see every scouts' boots (because I know most of them are either wearing them or have them packed). Example 2. Billy is allowed to turn in his permission slip after the deadline because he hasn't been able to attend meetings due to a school conflict and has called me to let me know he wants to be on the list. In your case, the parents that "violated" the 1:1 rule may have precoordinated with the den leader.

I agree that as you posted the situation, it sounds like this could have been handled much better (not saying the outcome should necessarily have been different). I know neither you nor the den leader and therefore cannot be certain who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Just wanted you to see a little glimpse from the other side before taking a course of action that could result in a bad scouting experience.

YIS,

mike

Editorial correction... I was just informed by the scouts BOR chair that he was not asked to play for the troop, just for the BOR itself.

Thank you to all the replies. (I'm sure more will trickle in... thanks to you as well.)

Thanks especially to BrentAllen. Sometimes the right approach is so obvious you overlook it. Asking the scout to take responsibilty for his future and not just his past empowers him to have some control over the outcome of this mess and removes him from the status of "victim of circumstance."

Because his father is also (apprently) a little torqued about the situation, I will proceed by having a SMC with scout and dad so that we can come to a positive path forward.

Thanks again

Ok... First and foremost, before I describe the dilemma that I am facing, I fully acknowledge that I screwed up as SM. I do not need feedback informing me of that fact. I am looking for suggestions on how to move forward in the best interest in the scout while maintaining the integrity of the advancement process.

For as long as I have been associated with this troop, it has not had a bugler. So, when one of our 1st class scouts approached me about taking on the role, I very happily appointed him to that role. He told me up front that he had never played a bugle, but had played a trumpet and would need a little time before he could play at meetings. So far, so good.

Where I messed up is that although early on I routinely inquired how it was going with the bugle, I eventually dropped the pressure. Tonight during our SM conference for his Star advancement, while reviewing his Troopmaster report, I realized that he has held the office of bugler for 6 months but has never actually done anything with it...

Extrapolating from the various discussions in this forum on scout spirit, I took the position that his failure to execute the position was really my failure to follow through. He has officially held the position and therefore has met the letter (if not the intent) of the requirement.

We discussed this during the SM conference and I informed him that if he is not ready to actively perform the duty of bugler within 2 weeks that we would need to remove him from that office and find him a new POR.

Enter the board of review. Their take was that he did not fulfill his star requirements. They also tried to make the best of the situation and (independently) told him that to complete his star requirements, he must play something (quality will not be a factor) during the opening/closing at the next troop meeting.

He left the meeting with his brother and dad in a bit of a huff.

I am torn on how to best proceed in the scout's interest.

A couple of factors that are running through my head.

1) Scout also holds position of APL. In our troop, APLs do a lot more leadership than the scribe, librarian, or TOAR. (These scouts do their jobs... it's just that our APLs do a lot more.) It bugs me to no end that APL doesn't count for a leadership position, but nobody has asked me yet....

2) The scout was not totally trustworthy with me. He led me to believe that it would be an easy transition for him to pick up the bugle from his (very little, as it turned out) trumpet experience.

3) I should have redirected his POR much earlier and not failed to catch it until the SMC.

Thanks for any/all helpful suggestions.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I do want to weigh in on the side of those defending the notion that scouting pride is not dead.

The issues/concerns raised in this thread are neither new nor universal. When I was going through the program in the mid-1980s, my troop had a lot of pride (some individual scouts more/less than others). But we camped alongside many troops that clearly lacked pride. Today when I interact with other adult leaders at round tables, it is clear that some troops exude pride and others cannot seem to find it.

I am fortunate that I found a good troop as a boy (I switched troops because the first was lacking it.) I am fortunate that my son found a good troop. I pray that as SM, I have the ability to keep that sense of pride going and possibly even bump it up a notch.

mike

Welcome.

Your resume reads almost like mine. I wouldn't mind venturing to guess that next up for you will be ASM and SM. Yes, cubmaster is more hours than it looks from the outside. I found it very rewarding. But, I find SM so much more rewarding (even though the time commitment also goes up.)

One piece of advise. When your older scout bridges to boy scouts, take a year off as an adult leader so that you don't burn out. I did that and found myself eager to get back in the game, rather than feeling worn out.

"... it says that Webelos is only used as an adjective. The boy is a Webelos Scout, not a Webelos."

But issn't "Webelos Scout" redundant??? ("WE'll BE LOyal Scouts" Scout)

Wow... with the exception of the minor inconvenience of the button that doesn't hold patches correctly and the thread that doesn't hold buttons on (both easily fixed problems), I MUCH prefer the new shirt to the old one.

To be honest, I couldn't wait to get that old shirt off after meetings and once we arrived at our camping destinations. The cut and material were too binding and restrictive of motion. The first camping trip I went on with the new shirt I honestly forgot I was wearing it. The fabric is lighter (I have the 100% synthetic) and more flexible. It dries very quickly (important on those hot summer camp days). The cut is not as restrictive for arm/shoulder motion.

And I'm sure that this is a potential flame war, but I like the move to the green tabs and patches over the red. It feels more "field" and less "dress" to me.

Now... don't get me started on the pants. Although I like the look better than the "old" switchbacks, there is something off in the cut of the leg. They rub against the outside of my leg between the thigh and knee and often drive me up a wall.

Just my 2c.

"During IOLS I was told the same thing, that a 3/4 axe was to be used instead. The reasons had to do with the length of the handle and the height of the boy and where the strike would occur on the wood and control of the weight. Taller boys use the longer axe."

This makes sense. But at my IOLS, we were told that only hand axes could be swung. Anything more must be held stationary against the wood by one scout while another scout struck it with a wooden mallet or a shelele (sp?). Really inane part was that this was not for splitting wood but for cross cutting it. I could probably have done it quicker with a butter knife.

Another responder suggested that this might be a council policy as it certainly is not consistent with the Boy Scout Handbook.

Thanks for the thought.

mike

I couldn't help but empathise with you... but in reverse. I'm conservative leaning in a very liberal community. Trust me, the scathing remarks flow both directions equally. Fortunately, I have not experienced this to anywhere near the same extent as you have in scouting. But, I digress.

Taking over as SM just over a year ago, I found that there were a number of things that needed to be fixed with the troop. Principle among those was decline/disappearnce of patrol method, excessive adult interference in scout activities, and an unhealthy attitude towards advancement. Before making pushing for these changes, I made sure I had a solid base by precoordinating with the committee chair, unit commissioner, district commissioner (his son came through our troop), and the ASMs who shared my values. Knowning that I had their support made implementing these changes so much easier. Yes, I heard grumblings. But, the number of thank yous and "wow"s have dwarfed the discontent.

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Thanks to all the advice!!! I did apparently have the relationship backwards between the UC and myself and the CC. (I always involve the CC in any major decision I make so that I have a checkpoint.) The UC occasionally comes in with "decrees from above." Usually I concur. There have been cases where I did not, but I deferred to him. I will push back harder in the future.

THANKS AGAIN!

"I have to ask...why is your Unit Commissioner camping with you? (It's not prohibited, just unusual). If he/she is camping with you, they sure as heck should not be interfering with your leadership."

Our UC is not camping with us. The question was raised by one of our ASMs to me. I could not find the answer, so I redirected to the UC to see if he could point me to any pertinent policy. I was shocked by the answer. I fully expected him to help me address the ASM's concern. Not the other way around.

I discovered the forum while doing a web search to find a repository of "official BSA policies." I have been SM for just over a year now and basically, am getting very frustrated trying to discover what is and what is not official policy. I read one thing on various scouting resources. I hear another from my troop commissioner. Is there any place to "go to the source" to get the real scoop?

Example 1) During IOLS, we were taught that BSA policy does not allow a scout to swing a full axe. Yet the scout handbook gives directions how to do so.

Example 2) Last camping trip, I wanted to allow our older scouts 14+ to take a short hike on their own. I trust this group of boys and wanted to empower them so that they felt they still have something to get from the troop and are not just hanging around to give to the younger scouts. We went over the trail maps, discussed exactly what route they would take, planned for various contingencies, and as a last line of defense would be carrying a cell phone (I checked for coverage). My troop commissioner squashed this in the name of lacking 2 deep leadership. YET... in my exploration of the forums over the last hour or so, I saw a couple recommendations to do just what I had wanted to do and nobody raised an objection!!!

I am an Eagle scout and base most of my goals on what I remember having worked well when I was going through the program. I know things have changed. I simply want to know where to go to get the truth... and not someone's well meaning but potentially misguided opinion.

Thanks much,

mike mayer

SM Troop 207

Gaithersburg Presbyterian Church (Maryland)

Montgomery District

National Capital Area Council