NJCubScouter

It's not just the "interpretation" of Scripture, it's what material is included in the first place. It is my understanding that if you compare the Roman Catholic version of the Bible with the version used by most Protestants, some books (or portions of books) are added or subtracted from one to the other. (I am obviously not an expert on this, but that's what I have read.) Meanwhile, the "Jewish Bible" (for lack of a better term in English) was somewhat added to and subtracted from to produce what Christians call the "Old Testament", and even that is not identical from one part of Christianity to the next. And of course the "Jewish Bible" does not include the New Testament at all. And then there are some books that have been discovered that seem to have been intended to be included in either the "Old" or New Testament, but they were not included anywhere. I believe portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls provide examples, at least in connection with the "Jewish Bible." So it's not just what the words mean, it's what the words are to begin with. And those decisions were made by people.

I believe the forum was inaccessible to everyone for several hours. If it looks like people were posting during that time, that is probably because when the problem was resolved, the "clock" had reset itself so it is (or was) about 8 hours off. Therefore the times you see for messages posted today are probably not correct. That is now being worked on as well.

So this is a one day event? And I am going to guess that it really amounts to a few hours. I do not see how you can possibly do any of the badges mentioned in one day. (I mean actually doing all the requirements.) Do they give out lists of prerequisites and make sure the Scouts did them before signing off on the badge? Otherwise it is obvious that corners are being cut. I know that Disabilities Awareness requires at least one "field trip," and it can't be accomplished at a campground. (And the reason I know this is that my son's troop did Disabilities Awareness, over several troop meetings and a field trip. It is the ONLY badge my son ever did at troop meetings. It was kind of a special circumstance, because the counselor was a long-time active troop committee/BOR member who has a son with severe disabilities (who made Eagle) and in a way it was a chance for the troop to show some appreciation for her and get an MB at the same time. And I can assure you that in that case, EVERY requirement was satisfied or the Scout did not get the badge!) I should say that I did once see a one-day merit badge program in which nobody got the badge unless they did all the requirements. It was the Aviation MB and it was done at a local airport. They sent out the prerequisites in advance (to be done on worksheets) and were very strict about the prerequisites. The organizer assembled quite a good cast of guest speakers, and everybody learned some things, including me. No corners were cut. The program was a full day on a Saturday (but it seemed even longer than that because the seating arrangements for the "classroom" parts was the stone floor of an aircraft maintenance building.) But that was an event focusing on one MB. These "fairs" and "universities", which I have never attended, where they do multiple badges, don't sound like a good idea.

Barry, your perception of the world and mine are so mindbogglingly different, I don't see any point in continuing this. The irony is that I strongly suspect that the way you and I actually live our lives (other than religious activities) is remarkably similar. It is our perception of why we do what we do, and what behavior by other people disqualifies them from being part of our "club", on which we differ, and there does not seem to be much room for common ground.

Oh, I didn't see this before. Moosetracker describes my one aspect of my beliefs more-or-less accurately, but I do not consider it a "religion." I do not believe it because some organization convinced me to believe it, or because it's what my parents taught me. I looked around at the world and observed what I have observed, and read what I have read (including the beliefs of a number of the Founding Fathers of the USA), and this is what I currently believe. It is not what I have always believed - as I have said before, during part of my teenage years I thought I was an atheist, as a young adult I thought I was an agnostic, but this is what I believe now. Maybe someday I will have reason to believe something else. As for who or what is the source of morality for my children... well they are all adults now and they are going to have to figure this out on their own. My youngest child still lives in my home so he does have to live by some rules, but there is no problem in that area. Although it's really none of anybody's business, the religious/moral/ethical upbringing of my children was a somewhat complex story, in that my wife is Roman Catholic and I am Jewish but my beliefs are my own beliefs. Their religious upbringing was left to my wife. Currently, I would say that one of my children is a Christian (in a denomination that permits gay clergy) and the others are, well, "other", sort of like me. As for morals and ethics, I like to think that both my wife and I set good examples. I hope I set a good example for the Scouts. I think the Scout Law provides us with a pretty good list of ideas for morality and ethics, and many of them can be summed up with "have respect for yourself, other people and the world around you."

We've had this discussion before. The BSA requires that you believe in a higher power. It does not require that you believe in a higher power that prescribed (or prescribes) ethics and morality for mankind. As I have explained before, I believe in God as the creative force in the Universe, but not as the giver of laws. I believe that we humans came up with those (including the principles of ethics and morality) all on our own. I'm not the only one who does. So the BSA does not need to require a belief in God in order to have ethics and morals to teach to the Scouts.

Good to see you Loomans and Trevorum!

That would be my guess. And we all know how well that strategy has worked for the BSA in the past.

Unless you actually read the words printed right above your signature that say what your signature means.

TAHAWK, you and I do not agree on many things it seems, but one thing we do agree on is that the BSA does a poor job at communicating with "the field." This would be another example.

Stosh, I am seldom accused of optimism, but I guess that next to you, it might look that way sometimes. The sky does seem to be falling on a regular basis in your neck of the woods. In this case I would say my comments are more cynical than they are optimistic. It was evident from the statement itself that this was not a well-considered policy statement, it was just something posted on the Internet, where a lot of people seem to think being a little careless is ok. He didn't even mention advancement (Boy Scout method) or recognition (Venturing method), instead wrapping it all up (including "personal growth") into very vague corporate-speak, "goal setting and achievement." But nobody here thought he was thinking of getting rid of the advancement system in Boy Scouts. (In fact I understand that "Scout", which used to just be a "badge", is about to become a "rank", so they don't seem to be moving away from the advancement system.) My other cynical thought is that when the BSA makes a significant change, one they know is going to draw some opposition, they generally do it for one of two reasons: Either it will bring in more revenue, or it will advance some "internal political interest." Or both. An example of the first is STEM Scouts. As others have said, schools and organizations like FIRST (robotics, mostly) can probably do a better job at STEM, but the BSA sees a chance to collect $150 a head (part of which will cover costs, but not all of it, especially since they are looking for CO's, so the facilities will be free). An example of the second is the new requirement to discuss Duty to God in SM conferences. I have no doubt that some pretty powerful people within the BSA were pushing for that, otherwise it wouldn't happen. But it isn't going to put any money in anyone's pocket to do away with the patrol method, nor is there any political force within the BSA that wants to see that happen, so it isn't going to happen. I think my cynicism beats your pessimism.

In that case, I think "Wayne" was just being careless with his language, and with the facts. Uniforming is not a method of Venturing. Otherwise, as I said above, my conclusion would have been exactly what you were told by the person who works at National: That this was just an attempt to state the methods of the three programs in one list. But, as indicated by comments here and under the statement itself, the way he said it caused at least some concern that a change is coming, when it isn't.

So are you saying the BSA does not actually require Scouts and leaders to have a belief in God or some other higher power? I wish you would let the people at National know that, because they don't seem to have gotten the memo. Every statement, resolution, legal brief and anything else coming out of National either explicitly states that the Oath and Law require a belief in God (or a higher power), or is based on that assumption. Well, if the Oath and Law don't really require "belief," where's the policy in the first place? Your use of the word "meddle" is amusing. I am sure that if we were talking about a policy change that you believed in, you wouldn't be using the word "meddle." It's only "meddling" when someone else is advocating something.

I think that's the whole point. If you read the FAQ I think it is pretty clear that this is not just a "learning" or "educational" program but is also an effort to have a "Scouting" program (or at least many of the elements of a "Scouting" program, and using the name "Scouts") using STEM as the emphasis rather than outdoors. The FAQ includes this, for example: Notice leadership, service, citizenship, integrity, and the Scout Oath and Law. It's not just learning about STEM.

Well, he does still mention "leadership", though the actual phrase used, "providing peer leadership opportunities," is a little vague for my taste. As I said before, I wouldn't worry about this for now. It is just something that was posted on the Internet. It does not necessarily have the "force of law" or mean that the official publications will be changing.

I looked at the STEM Scouts web site and it seems like National itself isn't quite sure whether this is a "traditional" or LFL program. Take a look at the FAQ (https://stemscouts.org/frequently-asked-questions/) and I think you will see what I mean. They have the Scout Oath and Law; Chartered Organizations (I don't think LFL has those, but I could be mistaken), and it says it is "a pilot program of the Boy Scouts of America." Usually when LFL is involved, they are careful to say it. Plus, they are using the word "Scouts" which I don't believe they do for LFL programs. On the other hand, they are including girls starting at Grade 3, up through Grade 12. And at the same time they are including some outdoor activities. ("STEM Scouts is different from regular scouting in that outdoor activities are only a portion of the activities and not the main focus.") If this becomes a nationwide program and is successful, isn't it going to seem increasingly illogical that Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts is male-only? (Not that I advocate that, but at some point the inconsistency may be too much to justify.) So in a sense this may be neither a fully "traditional" program or an LFL program, but a "third way." If that is the case, I wish National would be more up front about it. The participants in this program may not care, but there are a lot of Scouters out here who do know the difference between a traditional BSA program and an LFL and will be wondering which one this is, if either.

Good to hear from you Eamonn!

I wouldn't worry about this too much. It was probably written by some paper-pusher who did not know what they were talking about, and will be "clarified" later

Hmm... He left out patrol method but added "service", which of course is not really a change in practice, Scouts have been doing "service" from the beginning, but is not a separate item on the "official" list. I also notice that "advancement" is not specifically mentioned, nor is "personal growth", maybe he is using "goal setting and achievement" to refer to both of those together. At first I thought this might be some hybrid list that is meant to include only the methods that Boy Scouting, Cub Scouting and Venturing all have in common, but if that is true, for one thing, Uniform should not be on the list since it is not a method of Venturing.

And the BSA wouldn't want to associate itself with a godless, heathen idea like doing good in society, right? Hey, wait...

I don't know what the BSA (which after all, is just a bunch of people, and an ever-changing cast of characters at the top since 1910) actually means, but I do know what meaning has been applied and enforced by National in the time I have been following the subject (roughly the past 15 years), and it is NOT limited to the "Judeo-Christian-Muslim definition." (I think you would even get some argument about whether there IS a "Judeo-Christian-Muslim definition", but let's leave that aside.) In my opinion, the word "God" is used because that was the word everybody was using in 1910-11 when the DRP was being written, and they don't want to change it because that would open up a can of worms. (I agree with Rick-in-CA that they SHOULD change it.) I think the BSA's current attitude is, if a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Zoroastrian or a Deist or a believer in the Great Spirit, or whoever else, is willing to pledge to do his best to do his duty to God, the BSA is not going to worry about what the person is really thinking when they say the word "God."

As for Shinto, the Source Of All Knowledge (most of it correct) describes Shinto as involving the worship of multiple "kami", which translates into English as "gods", "spirits" or "essences". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto Sounds to me like Shinto checks the box. On a broader note, we have had many discussions in this forum as to whether various religions (usually Buddhism) qualify as a "belief in God." Whatever the theological implications, as far as the BSA is concerned, belief in any of these religions (or philosophies or whatever one chooses to call them) seems to qualify as a belief in God. (And some of the BSA's pronouncements refer to "God or a higher power", or maybe it's "or a Supreme Being:, or maybe it's different at different times.)

And by the way, I have participated in probably more than 50 BOR's at the troop level (Tenderfoot through Life) and 15 or so EBOR's (at which there is always one board member from another unit or from the district) and I have never once heard any board member ask any Scout about how he does his Duty to God or shows reverence. (Well, and whatever the number is, I could add four to that, as I was the Scout at BOR's for 2nd Class through Life, and was never asked that question either.) It is a legitimate BOR question, but I have never heard it asked.

You are correct that they are different, although there are those Scouts who, after having thought about it, are not sure. (Leaving aside the philosophical question of whether any of us can be really "sure" - hey, there's that word again - in matters of faith.) And then (to go back to my example, though I realize that in this section you were not responding to me) there are those who, after thinking about it, "don't know." One might suspect that the BSA would have more of a problem with "don't know" than "not sure," although I have never seen a definitive statement from the BSA as to whether either one or both are "acceptable" or "not acceptable." Which is one of the reasons I think this new requirement could cause a problem. It is inevitably going to increase the frequency with which a Scoutmaster learns that one or more of his Scouts (after having thought about the subject) isn't sure whether there's a God, or doesn't know, or isn't particularly concerned one way or the other, or any of a number of other gradations of thought. After verifying that the Scout has thought about it, and still gives one of the answers I have mentioned, what is the Scoutmaster supposed to do about it? And I mean, not necessarily what do we here think he/she is supposed to do about it, but what does National think he/she is supposed to do about it? And are they going to tell the SM's what they are supposed to do, or leave it up to every SM in the country to take a guess?

Are you sure about that? Ask him and report back to us to how he advises duty to God. I am trying "nested quoting" here for the first time, let's see if it works. Barry, first of all, when you tell me that I am to do something, I'm sure you meant to say please, you being courteous and all, so I'm reading it as if the word "please" was in there. Second, I said I was "pretty sure," and you then asked me if I was "sure." I don't know what else to tell you. I am probably, oh let's say about 95 percent sure that our SM does not talk to Scouts about their duty to God or the degree to which they are "reverent", in any sense. I have heard him say that "religion is a matter for the family" or words to that effect. I have sat in with him on several SMC's when the conference had to be held in a separate room from everybody else due to practical reasons, and a third person was needed in the room. I have known the guy for more than 10 years. I feel safe in saying that he does not discuss this subject with the Scouts, nor is he interested in doing so. And I can't imagine that he is the only SM in the country for whom that is true.