NJCubScouter

Oh, there's the patch: http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/01/22/scout-sunday-2015/

Just so it's clear, I did not say the statue violated anything. I made sort of a casual, half-joking remark, but of course on the Internet, nobody can see that you're smiling, or even half-smiling. And I know all about nudity in sculpture - including the fact that it was never really "in style" in this country. You can look at the Wikipedia article on the 1840 statue of George Washington for some indication about that. That statue had GW naked from the waist up, and it did not play very well. I would also ask whether anyone thinks that the Boy Scout Memorial, if it was being made today rather than 50+ years ago, would depict nearly-nude adults with a Boy Scout? Anyone?

What advancement? Community service hours? Or the requirements that say "participate in x number of Scouting activities other than troop meetings"? It seems to me that whatever it is, Scouts attending religious services on Scout Sunday, in uniform, should "count." As you say, there needs to be a discussion about communications and teamwork for the "next time". But I think you want to do that without discouraging the kind of initiative that was taken here - it just needs to be channeled a little better, if possible. As for "Scout Sunday patches" - I have never heard of one, and we have Scouts attending Scout Sunday services at our CO every year. But if you give them out at the next COH, the boys who attended their "home church" should be recognized as well.

Hmmm, yes, the scene depicted in that statue would present a Youth Protection problem.

Yes, I have heard the "generation" between the "Greatest" and the "Baby Boomers" called the "Silent Generation," but as I have said, I don't think any of these labels have any real meaning. It is just something for people to write books and articles and masters' theses about. And with the different definitions, who knows who's who? The last time someone brought this up in this forum I looked up the definitions and found that my first two children could be either Gen X or Gen Y (millenials) depending on the definition. My Eagle Scout is definitely a Gen Y. I think that by the BSA's definition (as indicated in that powerpoint someone linked to yesterday), they are one X and 2 Y's. Scoutldr, we seem to be of a similar demographic, although my father disliked the term "Greatest Generation." He never saw combat, being just a little too young to be in the fighting in Europe. When France was invaded, he was just graduating from high school. When the Battle of Bulge was going on, he was still in basic training. And when the fighting was going on in Germany, he was in France - but then he got sent to "jungle combat training" in preparation for the invasion of guess where? You know how they always say a million men or more would have died in the invasion of Japan? I always got the impression from him that he had expected to be one of the first guys off the landing craft (I think he was a corporal then), or close to it, and he was probably right. I suppose it is fortunate for my eventual existence that that didn't happen.

I have never put much stock in the arbitrary divisions of people into "generations", the definitions of which seem to vary from one person to the next. "Generations" really exist within families, and the concept has been twisted around to try to fit society as a whole, and I don't think it really tells us much. And I agree with Skeptic, the idea that "this younger generation is only interested in themselves and don't get involved" did not start with the "Millenials." Another thing is that I don't usually ask other parents how old they are, so I don't know who is necessarily in which "generation." If we are talking about people in their early 30's and younger, I doubt I have seen many with Boy Scout-age children yet. It is probably more of an issue in Cub Scouts at this point.

New Jersey has one legal clothing-optional beach. It's on Sandy Hook, which is part of a national park... which is why it is legal, or at least tolerated, and is also why there is only one. The regulation of these things in New Jersey is by municipal ordinance, but all law enforcement on Sandy Hook is done by the National Park Service, and either the local ordinance does not apply there, or the NPS does not enforce it. (For the same reason, Sandy Hook is the only place in New Jersey where if you get a parking ticket and want to fight it, you don't go to the municipal court and appear before a municipal judge. You go to Fort Dix, and you appear before a United States Magistrate Judge and fight the ticket. I know someone who did that once - for a parking ticket he got while parking at the clothing-optional beach.) There are a lot of other places to go on Sandy Hook, and my troop has camped there about every other year, and has never been anywhere near the clothing-optional beach. On these camping trips, there are usually side trips to "the beach" in the afternoon, since the trips are usually in June - but not THAT beach. The "regular" beaches on Sandy Hook are about 95 percent of the beachfront. The clothing-optional beach is apparently tucked away in some secluded area, and there are big "warning" signs around it. I have never been there, but there is a Wikipedia article about it, and I do know one of the regular patrons, and I know all about his parking ticket. (Which he got dismissed, by the way.) There are plenty of nature trails on Sandy Hook, but none of them run through, past, or anywhere near Gunison Beach.

I think it was poor judgment not to tell the parents in advance. It was not a violation of the "letter" of YP guidelines, though I suppose there could be a debate about the "spirit" of the guidelines. (There is that part about how the "privacy" of both adult leaders and Scouts must be protected when showering, changing clothes, etc., but it does not say anything about exposing (sorry about that) Scouts to uninvolved people who are legally clothes-free in a public place.) That being the case, I agree with qwasze, this is a matter for the unit and the CO rather than the "higher levels" of the BSA.

I think scoutldr has it right. I have seen a lot of opinions in this forum over the years about how decisions should be made by a unit committee, but the BSA leaves it up to the unit. There is nothing I am aware of in official BSA literature that says the committee takes votes, but nothing that says it doesn't. So units are left to operate in their own way. The ultimate "decider" is the CO, which can remove the committee members, CC, SM's, etc. The district and council generally don't care unless it affects them. So the practical reality is that if a CC acts like an autocrat and the COR/IH will back them up, each individual committee member who is upset by a decision (or multiple decisions), and can't get it changed, has to decide whether to continue to participate. Recently our troop committee had several members "vote with their feet", and while they did not make a big deal about the reason, it was clearly not just a coincidence.

Isn't that training available online? I am pretty sure that when I took Troop Committee Challenge, it was on the BSA web site. I don't see why it would different for the Crew Committee training.

Scouter915, you say this occurred recently. How recently? More to the point, was it on (or after) January 20? (If you read Fehler's post, above, you will see why I ask.) On a possibly related note, have you asked the event leader about this yet?

I read some of the comments below the blog post and there was an official-looking comment (not sure how actually official it was) that said it is up to the unit to determine when and for how long the patch is to be worn. It seems to me that this is intended for units that have "honor guard" as more than just a momentary assignment. Our troop does not. I suppose the Scouts could velcro the patch on while they are participating in a flag ceremony, but it seems to me that the fact that they are carrying the flag or "guarding" the flag is probably a good enough clue that they are part of the honor guard, without needing a patch that says so.

I still see no confirmation of any illegal activity here, just a lot of supposition and guesswork. Call me crazy, but I am not ready to convict someone I don't know for something I didn't see, based on the assumptions of another person I don't know. And the original poster said he was going to ASK the leader, which is the right move. So maybe we should see what the answer is before we get out the handcuffs.

I'll just add, most school districts around here are already closed for tomorrow, so I like the Scouting blog's idea that the kids should spend at least part of their snow day reading a merit badge pamphlet. Most of them will probably spend their day playing video games instead.

Thanks LeCastor. We will see whether this turns out to be as bad as they say. It has already gone from a Historic Blizzard to a Potentially Historic Blizzard (which is not quite as poetic) and the snowfall predictions have gone from 2 to 3 feet to 1 to 2 feet.

I am always amused by legal arguments in this forum. I usually choose to abstain. For all of you who think the actions of the California Supreme Court are unconstitutional, it's all very interesting, but meaningless. If and when some state court judge in California chooses to bring a lawsuit saying his/her federal constitutional rights are being violated by being made to choose between between being a Scouter and being a judge, and a final decision is made on that lawsuit in the federal courts, then we'll know whether the California Supreme Court is permitted to do this.

Sounds reasonable to me.

My thoughts are that there is so much trouble in the world that we cannot avoid, to me it doesn't make sense to go looking for more. It is possible that the person running the event made special arrangements to show the film. Isn't that good enough? Of course, if you want to speak to him, it's your dime, as we used to say, but if you do, my suggestion would be that instead of "letting them know your feelings on the matter," you just ask, in a non-accusatory tone, what special arrangements they were able to make to show a current theatrical release. If you don't get a good answer, then you can let them know your feelings. Just my opinion.

I started to respond to some of the comments, and then realized that it kind of misses the point to discuss how some outside group or institution is reacting to a policy I don't support in the first place. The issue here is not the California Supreme Court, it's the BSA. Change the bad policy, then nobody will have to decide how to respond to it.

Does anyone know what BSA National's actual standards are for declaring someone ineligible? (Other than the blindingly obvious, I mean; I'm talking about the grey areas, the long-ago DWI/DUI, the breaking-and-entering with no theft at age 18 with 30 years of a clean record after that, etc.) And my other question is, if the background check finds something that does not disqualify the person but that the UNIT might want to know about, do they tell the unit? Even if National might excuse a "youthful transgression", a particular unit might not. Well, and that raises another question. If someone has something like that in their past, and it is first discovered in the BSA background check, it means the person did not list the event on their application - which in many cases would mean the person was not truthful on their application. So the person did something that, after the passage of time, might be excusable as far as adult membership, but they didn't disclose it when they were supposed to. What happens then?