NJCubScouter

DH is one of those acronyms people create and it eventually catches on, like FYI... or ASAP... or MYOB... or maybe it eventually doesn't catch on. But while it is in the process of catching on, or not, people who don't know it get confused -- until THEY catch on, which I did about a year ago.

DH, often spelled dh, stands for: Dear Husband. I do not think you will find a position code for it on the Adult Leader Application.

My son told me he asked the BOR member that asked the question what the answer was... he man said he couldn't remember, but knew it was something scouts should know!!

OK, this situation has just officially advanced into the Theater of the Absurd.

OK, if we're keeping score, now we have a Scoutmaster and BOR members who are ALL adding requirements to what is in the book. And in the case of the SM, adding to the requirements in a major, major way. (I guess what the BOR did is pretty major, too.)

I don't doubt for a moment that your son and this other boy are "determined," and as I suggested before, I think the "average boy" would have long since found "better things to do" than be a member of this troop. "Determination" is great, and they should be allowed to channel their determination into earning the NEXT rank -- not one for which they have already fulfilled the requirements.

ExplorerCaptainLafferty,

The reason for my questions was that when I read your first post, I thought you might have meant that members of your Explorer post were working on Boy Scout ranks as part of their activity in the post. Your second post makes clear that you did NOT mean that. So everything is fine. I apologize for any confusion.

Speaking of confusion, I just checked my council's web site to see what THEY say about Learning for Life and Exploring, in light of some of the comments in this thread about how "separate" they are from Scouting. I was first surprised to see that Learning for Life was listed as a "district" on the web site along with all of the actual districts. When I clicked on the LFL "district," this is what I found (I have deleted the council's name to protect the innocent, or perhaps just the mistaken):

------------------------------------

Learning for Life/Exploring/ScoutReach

These areas are our Non-traditional outreach programs. The --------- Council is continuing its efforts in reaching all youth through many different formats. Our Learning for Life program is our curriculum base focus that is done during classroom time or after school. The other areas that are covered by Learning for Life is the career focus program aimed at middle and high school youth. Exploring in the council is made up of career focused opportunities. Law Enforcement stands out the most and is a prime area to direct any young adult interested.

There are many other career opportunities in exploring that are listed directly. ScoutReach gives those youth in our urban areas a chance to experience scouting that may not have been offered to them. In this program we eliminate any barriers which may be financial or lack of leadership. There are many opportunities to be experienced by giving a boy a chance of scouting.

ScoutReach also reaches out to the rural areas of the council and those geographical areas that are culturally sensitive.

------------------------------------

Now, it sure sounds to me from this description that LFL is a council program. OUR curriculum based focus, it says. (I think the council needs to hire an English teacher or someone to edit the web site for grammar, too.) When they get to Exploring, its a bit more ambiguous. IN the council, not OF the council. But its placement in the same paragraph would still lead one to believe that this is fact a council program.

And then the part about ScoutReach surprised me too, they list it as a "non-traditional" program. I thought the BSA was using the traditional/non-traditional terminology to mean those programs that maintain the "membership standards" that we like to discuss in the Issues and Politics topic, i.e. Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, Venturing, Varsity Scouts, and those that do not have those same membership standards, i.e. Learning for Life and Exploring. As far as I knew, ScoutReach was a program to get boys (and I guess girls over 14) into the TRADITIONAL Scouting programs in areas where recruiting has become extremely difficult due to demographic factors, i.e. urban and some rural areas. So why is ScoutReach being referred to as a "non-traditional program."

dsteele says:

3) The theory two of my DE's and I came up with are that the top 3 stars stand for the 3 duties of a Scout: God, Country, others and the bottom two are carried over from the first class patch for the ideals of truth and knowledge.

It may turn out that you are correct, but I don't think so. The explanation of the top three points is reasonable enough. But why would it be necessary to have points depicting truth and knowledge, when the stars (the little ones) depicting truth and knowledge are ALREADY on the Star badge. The entire First Class badge, including what have by now become very tiny stars, is right there superimposed on the big star.

I don't have a better answer, though. Except that MaineScouter's troop needs to stop denying boys rank advancement based on obscure trivia questions, and also needs to stop making them wait months for a Scoutmasters conference.

MaineScouter says:

Heck, it took my son nearly 6 months since completing the Life requirements just to get a SM conference! Another boy just got his SM conference for Life on Wednesday night. He's been waiting since early December!

Whoa! Six months to get a Scoutmasters conference?? And this other boy, EIGHT months and counting! That is just wrong. Now, just to make sure, did these boys actually go to the Scoutmaster and say "I need a Scoutmaster conference"? And then have to wait all that time? It may seem like a silly question, but there are some boys (including, sometimes, my son) who seem to think that other people can read their minds. But assuming that a conference was requested, and not given for all that time, there is something very, very wrong. I am surprised these boys weren't out the door months ago. In my son's troop, a boy would have to wait AT MOST until the next weekly troop meeting, and that is only if the boy were to make a request near the end of a meeting. Otherwise, the SM would take the boy aside while the meeting is going on and do the conference the same night. I am sure he did several at summer camp (and in fact they were ready to do BORs at camp, since 3 committee members were there.)

As for a boy being "scared to death" about a BOR, again, it sounds like some changes need to be made in your troop's advancement system. "Scared to death" is an appropriate reaction to your first parachute jump, not a board of review. Scouting is supposed to be an enjoyable experience. A kid shouldn't have to be on Xanax or something because he is worried about a BOR.

I think I once read somewhere (I don't know where) that the five points stand for the five merit badges that must be earned for Star. Of course, somewhere between the time that I earned Star with five merit badges, and today, they changed the requirements so you need six for Star. I have not noticed them changing the Star badge so it has a 6-pointed star, so whether the 1-point-per-merit-badge theory is accurate, or ever was, I can't really say.

I have to comment, though, it seems somehow wrong to me that a board of review would even ask a Scout this sort of trivia question, much less decline to pass the boy for this reason. The board of review is not supposed to be a "re-test" anyway. Now, if someone wanted to ask a question to which the answer is IN THE HANDBOOK, that would seem reasonable. Like, what do the 2 stars under the wings of eagle on the First Class badge mean? The answer is right in the handbook. (This might not be the greatest example since I think knowing this is actually part of the requirements for Tenderfoot.) But I don't know why a board of review would be making rank advancement contingent on knowing information that is NOT part of a rank requirement and NOT included in the handbook.

ExplorerCaptainLafferty, first of all, welcome to the forum. Second of all, I want to make sure you understand that the questions I ask below are not meant in any sort of a negative way toward you. I just want to make sure I understand some things I thought I understood, but maybe I don't. You sound like a very fine young man who is a good example of the spirit and true ideals of Scouting, and of special service to the community, regardless (as you say) of the color of your uniform.

Here is what I want to understand. You mention members of your Police Explorer Post wearing the Eagle rank badge. Are you saying that members of your post are currently earning Boy Scout ranks, as members of the post? Or, are they also registered as members of a Boy Scout troop or Venture crew and earning the ranks through that other unit? Or, are these Eagles that were earned a few years ago. The reason I ask these questions is that it was my understanding that as of a certain date (the one I have seen on the Internet, not always an authoritative source, is Dec. 31, 1999), Explorers were no longer eligible to earn Boy Scout ranks unless they also were registered in a troop or crew. Maybe that is incorrect. What is your understanding?

And maybe I shouldn't ask this question, but are some of the people earning Eagle, shall we say, female? Actually, if the answer to that is yes, I'd prefer you not answer it, since you have provided enough information to identify your unit.

Yes, Rooster, by all means, let's give the boys a good lesson in power politics and the coercive, my-way-or-the-highway attitude present in most of our economic and financial relationships today. That will certainly teach them to be fine citizens. A good dose of realism will prepare them to do what it takes to get what they want in the future, no matter who has to pushed out of the way or climbed over in the process.

Of course, to avoid any hypocrisy, it might be necessary to delete some words from the Scout Law. Let's see: Helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, all would have to be crossed out, maybe a couple others as well. I'm afraid these words just aren't compatible with the example you want to set for the boys, Rooster.

I wish my son's troop had 4 candidates, or even 2 candidates, for SPL. It is my understanding that only 1 boy has expressed interest in running for SPL, namely the current ASPL. After spending a week with him at summer camp, my son (11 years old, still finishing up Tenderfoot) described this ASPL as "irresponsible" and said he "spent the entire week setting things on fire." That sounds really great. But I guess I should see the bright side for my own son, that he recognizes how people are supposed to behave, and sets a higher standard for himself than what he sees going on around him.

I can't stand this. Why can't I edit my posts.

OK, here is the errata sheet on my previous post.

The first time I say 20 years, I mean 20 years AGO.

And then there is this paragraph, which I did not edit very well at the end the first time around. Here is what it is supposed to say:

And what are those traits for which national would come down and say, you can't have this person as a leader? Well, murder would be a good guess. Any other serious (meaning violent)crime, including sexual abuse of children. I also suppose anyone who expressed an intention to commit a serious crime, such as an "open pedophile" who had not been charged with that crime (like maybe a member of NAMBLA who expresses agreement with the aims of the organization.)

That's it. Carry on.

OK, it's time again, happy campers, for a new thread, and a new opportunity to discuss the real controversy. I was also getting a bit weary of BobWhite's personal attacks against me, such as:

Your posts are rife with opinion but little knowledge, giving your thoughts volume but no substance.

Very poetic, however false and un-Scoutlike it may be. But rather than continue in that vein, let's look at this statement by Bob:

Lets through a little logic at just one 'opinion' reoccurring here. That of local option. How does an organization have a national program AND local option when it comes to policies? Imagine the NFL if every team could determine its own rules. McDonalds if every restaurant could fix whatever they chose however they chose. The Military if every base determined its own function and policies.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that as a national organization the policies, methods, and membership of scouting will always be determined by the nation executive committee of the BSA. There is no other way to insure a "national" program.

I have no doubt that the membership of Scouting will always be determined by the national executive committee. That is what I am counting on. Because on the vast majority of membership issues, the BSA national executive committee allows local option. Here, Bob, is how a national program has local option:

A unit (specifically a CO) can decide it wants to have only male Scoutmasters. Or it can decide it wants to have male or female Scoutmasters. Either is fine with the BSA. That's local option.

A unit can decide that a person who had a conviction for smoking pot 20 years is acceptable as a Scoutmaster, or it can decide the opposite. That's local option.

I believe, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that there is no national policy against having a leader who is cohabiting with a member of the opposite gender, to whom they are not married. Many units would not accept such a leader, on moral grounds. But I am sure that some would. If there is no hard-and-fast rule against this, then this too is an example of local option.

Other examples: an overweight Scoutmaster; a recovering alcoholic Scoutmaster (no drinking in front of the boys of course); a Scoutmaster with tatoos. You name it. There is local option on all but a small number of traits, including traits that some might classify as involving "morality."

And what are those traits for which national would come down and say, you can't have this person as a leader? Well, murder would be a good guess. Any other serious (meaning violent)crime, including sexual abuse of children. I also suppose anyone who expressed an intention to commit a serious crime, such as an "open pedophile" who had not been charged with that crime (like maybe a member of NAMBLA who expresses agreement with the aims of the organization), if there are in there anything else it wants to have a Scoutmaster.

For serious but non-violent crimes, I suppose it would depend on the severity and how long ago they took place. If someone embezzled a few thousand dollars 20 years ago, served his time (if any), and had no other record, would national or council come in and say no, you can't make that person a leader? They might advise not making the person troop treasurer, but something else, why not if that is what the unit wants?

So, to summarize. Violent crimes and serious crimes above a certain level of severity and recent-ness, NO local option. Everything else, local option. Except, of course, being gay. It makes no sense. The national program goes along just fine with all sorts of local options regarding membership, but this one is not permitted. Why?

Bob says:

A number of posters including you tossed around the phrase "owned and operated a Girl Scout troop" if in fact you were aware that only the Girl Scouts owned and operated their units you made no attempt to rectify that misinformation.

That statement is completely false as it relates to me. What I had said is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Here is my post in the other thread that you are referring to, in its entirety:

Ed, I don't know, it seems to me that Merlyn is treating BSA and GSUSA even-handedly. He is saying that a military unit can "own and operate" a unit of either organization as long as the organization follows the same principles of non-discrimination that the military unit (as a part of the government) is required to follow.

Of course, the issue would not arise in the case of a GSUSA unit, for two reasons:

1. The GSUSA (apparently) does not exclude atheists. (I say "apparently" because this is what I have heard, and I have tried to find a clear statement confirming this on the Internet, but the statements I find are somewhat ambiguous. I think they do mean that a girl will not be excluded for being an atheist.

2. Girl Scout units apparently (there's that word again) are owned and operated by the GSUSA or sub-units within it -- not by chartering organizations as the BSA does. Girl Scout units do have "sponsors" but it is not the same kind of relationship as a CO has with the BSA unit. Therefore, a governmental unit or agency would not be in a position of owner/operator of a GSUSA unit, and the same legal issues would not arise.

Read it, Bob. I did say that Girl Scout units are "owned an operated" solely by the Girl Scouts and not outside organizations. I gave accurate information. You, on the other hand, did not. In response to the above post, you said:

There is no such thing as the Girls Scouts being sponsored by a government agency or any other kind of group.

I then responded to your statement, with links, proving that Girl Scout troops do indeed have sponsors, though the relationship is not the same as in the Boy Scout context, as I had already said in the above-quoted post.

Bob, I am ready to accept your apology.

Bob, before you talk about people "making stuff up," I suggest you read my latest post in the other thread.

As for my comments about your hypothetical reaction to something that never happened, I prefaced them by saying "I suspect." Obviously I can't prove what you would have done, and neither can you. But I think I'm right, and I notice you didn't bother to deny it.

I was actually thinking that I was paying you a compliment by saying that your focus was and is on the BSA and not on the "culture war." I have always viewed your position on this issue not as being anti-gay, but pro-BSA. Faced with criticism of something the BSA is doing, you seek to defend it. I understand that the best you can do is to imply that the anti-gay policy is an inevitable result of the "goals, methods, and policies of the program." That of course is just your opinion, and I don't agree with it.

Oops, I did it again.

I said:

I agree. (See above.)

I meant to say:

I agree. (See above.)

Let's see how THAT comes out.

Bob says:

It would really be swell if folks took some time to get some facts.

I agree. (See below.)

There is no such thing as the Girls Scouts being sponsored by a government agency or any other kind of group. The Girl Scouts do not use a chartering organization system. All Girl Scout units are owned by the Girl Scouts. They just meet at various locations, they are not owned by the location.

The second, third and fourth sentences above are absolutely correct, and are what I already said. The first sentence is NOT true. Organizations do sponsor Girl Scout troops, but (as I also already said), the relationship is not the same as the CO-unit relationship in Boy Scouting. The sponsor does not own the unit. The exact nature of the relationship is flexible and is agreed to between the troop and the sponsor, within council and national guidelines. Here is the form one council uses as the agreement to be signed by a sponsor:

http://www.gsvsc.org/forms/troopsponsoragree.pdf

Here is a different, more elaborate one:

http://www.gsgv.org/pdf/2235A.PDF

And here, from the archives of this very web site, is a discussion that basically confirms everything I said:

http://www.scouter.com/archives/Scouts-L/199309/0258.asp

Sheesh!

I agree. (See above.)

I said:

if the BSA had decided in late 1991 to permit local option, ...

What I really meant to type was late 2000 or in 2001. That all somehow got morphed into 1991. Which certainly would have avoided the whole issue, but that is not what I meant. What I meant is the BSA doing what it did after winning the court case on exclusion of women from being Scoutmasters -- saying ok, we won, but we'll let them in anyway. Graciousness in victory, sort of like how we'd like the boys to act. That's what should have been done in this case, and 2000-2001 was the window of opportunity to do it. When they came out with that statement in Feb. 2002, that closed the window on local option. It will happen eventually, it will just take a lot longer.

BobWhite asks Rooster:

Rooster,

How exactly does the BSA decide to remove an CO before they do anything wrong?

I can't wait to hear the answer to this one.

So I'll give it myself, though perhaps not as Rooster would give it. Bob, although you and Rooster agree on the overall BSA policy on gays, you reach that conclusion from two different directions. You treat this whole subject as if its about rules and regulations decided in meetings, majority rules. I suspect, though obviously I can't prove it, that if the BSA had decided in late 1991 to permit local option, your reaction would have been along the lines of "oh well, if that's the decision, let's move on, when is the next district training committee meeting?"

That's not Rooster's approach at all. Rooster is in a war. Remember, the "culture war"? This is what the culture war is all about, and Rooster is a soldier in the war. The supposed "homosexual groups that want to destroy the BSA" are among the enemies. And as we have seen from our nation's most recent real war, waiting for your enemy in a war to shoot first is passe, a thing of the past. Now we shoot first. We don't need to wait for an organization to have done anything "wrong." What are you, a liberal or something? We don't like them or what they stand for, just kick them out. That's "wrong" enough for us.

Rooster says:

I think the BSA would be wiser by being proactive and rejecting these chartering organizations before they have the opportunity to exploit the Scouting movement.

I have no doubt that you do, Rooster. That is one of the "options" I was talking about earlier. The one I said would take the BSA further down a path that it shouldn't be travelling in the first place. I have no doubt that that is exactly the path you would like the BSA to take.

And at the same time, society is on its own, opposite path. I think that as time goes on, more and more religions are going to stop teaching that being gay is immoral and that gays should be excluded. More and more states, and eventually the federal government, will outlaw discrimination against gays. Some sort of "union" of people of the same gender, having most or all of the characteristics of marriage, will become commonplace. The military ban on gay conduct, and with it the ban on gays in the military, will be repealed (if it is not already unconstitutional based on the recent Texas case, which it probably is.) Rooster, you recently said in some thread that in 100 years, the issue will all be resolved, and I think you're right, though I don't think you will like the resolution. In the meantime, I am afraid that as the paths of the BSA and society diverge, the BSA will become more and more of a marginal organization. And that would be a real shame.

Bob, as a purely technical matter, you are probably correct. But think about the messages being sent here. A boy is a member of a church or a student at a school (and let's make it a private school to avoid entangling Merlyn into this.) His pastor (or principal) is openly gay. The church (or school) is CO of the troop the boy is a member of. The openly gay pastor (or principal) is IH. The Boy Scouts says an openly gay man is not a good role model. The church (or school) has placed an openly gay man into a position that by definition is supposed to be role model for both youth and adults. (Maybe not in all aspects, like if the pastor is required to be celibate, but you know what I mean.) The church (school) owns the troop and to paraphrase the BSA, uses the Scouting program as part of its service to youth. The same individual is being identified as a good role model and a bad role model within the same organization.

Doesn't this strike you as being just a bit incongruous?

By the way, I do realize that this is why this situation would almost never arise. But on a theoretical level, it could, and it doesn't make much sense. At least Ed and I can agree about something.

Ed, who I think knows better, says:

The GSUSA doesn't admit boys as members. That's discrimination! The BSA doesn't admit girls! That's discrimination! What's the difference!

Um, I think the difference is that that's only one "g" in common. And it's the least controversial of the 3 "g"s, precisely because both organizations exist. Though, I guess that in the case of the GSUSA, that "g" stands for "guys." If the other 2 "g"s were resolved, you'd never hear another word about that "g."

Ed, how is it contradictory? There have been openly gay Episcopal priests for years. There have been openly gay Reform Jewish rabbis for years (probably more years, I would guess.) I am sure there are a few other faiths in the same category. The BSA has never banned Episcopal or Reform Jewish places of worship from being CO's. How does changing one gay clergyman's title from "priest" to "bishop" change that? (It has probably never come up with Reform Judaism because there is no Jewish counterpart to a bishop. The only higher authority in Judaism is, as they say in the Hebrew National hot dog commercials, The Higher Authority.)

So Ed, what are YOU saying about the issue of gay clergy and the BSA? Do you think a religion should be barred from being a CO if it permits gay clergy?

The BSA's answer to that last question, so far anyway, has been: No. I think Bob's point, if I put it in my own words, is that if the answer is no, then promoting a clergyman from priest to bishop wouldn't make a difference. Now, you may think that a religion that permits gay clergy at any level is not suitable to be a BSA CO, but the BSA would not agree with you.

On the other hand, if you think that the BSA is being "contradictory" by banning gay leaders but allowing religions with gay clergy to be CO's, I wouldn't disagree with that. I would probably phrase it as "sending a mixed message" rather than "contradictory." Of course, there are two ways that I can think of to resolve such a mixed message. One way, perhaps the way you would choose, would send the BSA further down a path that I do not think it should be travelling in the first place. I would choose the other way. And it would fit right into the idea of local option. An Episcopal Church or Reform Jewish synagogue might have an openly gay pastor or rabbi, and probably would have a policy of non-discrimination against gay leaders. A Catholic or LDS or Baptist church, or an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, would not have an openly gay pastor or rabbi, and almost certainly would not have a policy of non-discrimination against gay leaders. Sounds like a plan to me. It certainly would resolve this particular "mixed message."

Ed, I don't know, it seems to me that Merlyn is treating BSA and GSUSA even-handedly. He is saying that a military unit can "own and operate" a unit of either organization as long as the organization follows the same principles of non-discrimination that the military unit (as a part of the government) is required to follow.

Of course, the issue would not arise in the case of a GSUSA unit, for two reasons:

1. The GSUSA (apparently) does not exclude atheists. (I say "apparently" because this is what I have heard, and I have tried to find a clear statement confirming this on the Internet, but the statements I find are somewhat ambiguous. I think they do mean that a girl will not be excluded for being an atheist.

2. Girl Scout units apparently (there's that word again) are owned and operated by the GSUSA or sub-units within it -- not by chartering organizations as the BSA does. Girl Scout units do have "sponsors" but it is not the same kind of relationship as a CO has with the BSA unit. Therefore, a governmental unit or agency would not be in a position of owner/operator of a GSUSA unit, and the same legal issues would not arise.

Packsaddle says:

It is my understanding that the degree of difficulty for the religious award is also dependent on age group. Cubs may not be held to as rigorous requirements as Boy Scouts or older children.

Actually, in looking around the Internet a bit, many of the religions have different awards depending on age group. "God and Country" is actually four different awards with eligibility determined by grade level (1-3, 4-5, 6-8 and 9-12, which follows the major divisions of the Scouting program except that a brand new Boy Scout who has not finished fifth grade would still go for the same award as a Webelos Scout.

See

http://www.praypub.org/main_frameset.htm

In other parts of that same web site we see that Roman Catholicism has 4 different awards, explicitly divded according to level in Scouting (1 for Tiger-Wolf, 1 for Bear-Webelos, 1 for Boy Scouts not yet in 9th grade and 1 for Boy Scouts and Venturers 9th grade and above.) (Plus 1 more for Eastern rite Boy Scouts.) Judaism also has four awards, with Bears in the youngest group. Interestingly, the PRAY site indicates that some religions have different awards, with different requirements and groupings, for Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and Campfire Boys/Girls.