NJCubScouter

When my son became a Tiger (more than 15 years ago now) and Pinewood Derby time was approaching, it was immediately clear to me that my son's pack had gone way in the wrong direction. We were definitely one of those packs where the PD was more about the adults. The adults took it way too seriously, and I mean the winning aspect, not the fun and sportmanship aspect. The trophies were huge, and expensive. A couple of years later, a new CM and ACM (me) were on the scene, and we we agreed that things were out of control. We managed to gradually move things in a more reasonable direction. The trophies got smaller and fewer, and some of the mania over winning was reduced, but there was a lot of resistence from the remaining "old timers." I am not sure how things went after I left, and it's been more than 10 years since then.

When others who I must deal with in a position are either preventing me from being effective, or are aggravating me so much that I can no longer deal with them, and I have tried and failed to improve the situation with him/her/them, and it becomes evident that THEY are not going to go away, that is "The Point" for me. Since there are a couple of different steps in there, as you can imagine, it takes awhile to reach "The Point." And actually, not counting Cub Scout positions that I left behind when my son moved on to a troop, I have never actually "quit" a registered position. I did, however, step down from being advancement chair/coordinator and am now just an "unassigned" committee member, having gone through the progression described above, about which I do not wish to be more specific.

Cambridgeskip, in my troop it is "generally understood" that if a parent has a legitimate problem in paying, they should approach the SM or CC and money will be found so that the Scout can participate. We do not put it in writing. And I did put "generally understood" in quotation marks, meaning that we probably could do a better job of communicating it. But parents have come to the leaders on occasion, and things get worked out. We are fortunate enough to have a couple of "friends of the troop" (outside of the leadership) who have made it known that they are willing to help when needed.

Sounds like The Force. (I know, it's really the other way around.)

fred johnson, I'm just getting back to your response to me of a couple of days ago. You are reading into my question things that are not there. In fact, I DO think the BSA has, and occasionally enforces, a "belief" requirement - but it is not quite the same as the official written BSA policy that click quoted earlier. It's just, "believe in a higher power." Maybe it's also, "And don't refuse to say the Scout Oath because it refers to God, and don't say you're an atheist." The exact boundaries, of course, are not crystal clear. There have been many discussions on here about Buddhism, a subject I know little about, but the attitude of the BSA seems to be that it is "spiritual enough." And what if the "higher power" someone believes in is the "worldwide brotherhood of humankind"? Or just "nature"? No prayers, no worship, no organizations, no buildings, no donations, no missions, no clergy, no religious awards, just a belief in one or the other of those things - is that enough?

click23, that may be the official written policy, but there are some things in there that are not enforced by the BSA. What the BSA actually DOES enforce in this area is a little murky and it seems to depend on what press release or newspaper article or legal brief you choose to believe. But it does not appear that the BSA will actually kick someone out unless they actually deny the existence of some higher power. It's also interesting that while the official policy says some things that seem to require a belief in a particular "type" of God, when the BSA tells prospective new leaders about the Declaration of Religious Principle, they choose to leave that part out. I am referring to the section of the Adult Leader Application entitled "Excerpt From Declaration of Religious Principle", which says: It's not quite the same, is it? The actual policy talks about God as the ruling and leading power in the Universe, who gives favors and blessings. But what is presented to leaders as a condition to getting "certificates of leadership" omits all that, and leaves God as a sort of passive recipient of an "obligation." And even the watered-down version on the application is not really enforced. Nobody (at least that I know of) is getting kicked out for not receiving "religious training" or not participating in "religious life," as long as they believe in (or at least, do not deny the existence of) a higher power. Is a policy that isn't enforced really a policy?

Well, I think that is what the controversy described in the article (linked by RS) is really about. The commercials I think you are talking about are by anti-smoking groups whose goal is to actually convince people - all people - to quit smoking or to never start. Some of these commercials are indeed gruesome and use scare tactics with the unambiguous message: Don't smoke, or you are going to end up either dead, or with horrific health problems that will ruin your life. Understandably, that is not the message the big tobacco companies are trying to promote. I looked at rightdecisionsrightnow.com and although I only looked at a few of the pages, it seems to have a much "softer" message, which is that the decision to smoke is not a decision that "young people" should make. I didn't see much of an emphasis on the reasons WHY young people shouldn't smoke. I didn't see anything about people dying and/or getting lung cancer or having their larynxes removed as a result of smoking. (That last one is the subject of a commercial I have heard recently on the radio, from the actual anti-smoking people, and I suspect there is a tv version as well, though I haven't seen it. The radio version is disturbing enough.) I assume that is what the senators who are quoted in the article mean when they that the RDRN program is "ineffective." It seems like the program isn't really trying to scare you into quitting smoking, or not starting. It's real purpose (in my opinion) is to give the tobacco companies a better public image and, possibly, to avoid further litigation. Whether it actually deters young people from smoking, I don't know. The whole issue seems to be whether the message should be "don't smoke yet, because we say so" or "don't smoke ever, because it will kill you or make you very sick." So, into this controversy steps the BSA, and it apparently participates in the "softer" message being promoted by the tobacco companies. Is this really a good idea?

My troop when I was a Scout did have a bugler. "My" current troop has had one, briefly, but he did not actually play the bugle, he played the saxophone. I think he played some bugle calls at one meeting and one camping trip. It was kind of a novelty at first, but I think the novelty (not to mention his parents' interest in having his expensive saxophone accompanying him on camping trips) wore off pretty quickly.

I have never heard of this program. The article is not very clear about what the actual roles of the BSA and R.J. Reynolds are in the program. If it is a matter of the BSA using educational materials produced by R.J. Reynolds, I would think the BSA could come up with its own materials about the dangers of smoking.

Maybe they were popular in some areas of the country but not others. My connection with Scouting starts in the mid-60s and I have never heard of organized sports leagues in Scouting.

Tahawk, which "aspect of traditional Scouting" do you regard as having been discussed in this thread, and as having "disappeared"?

Miss Vicki... wasn't that Tiny Tim's wife? (Tiny Tim the "singer" from the 1960's, not Tiny Tim the Dickens character. I think Tiny Tim and Miss Vicki got married on "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In", or something like that.)

The Varsity Scouting program has a sports emphasis, but that is only for boys 14 and older. It is my understanding that the Varsity program is used by the LDS Church in their Scouting program, but by very few non-LDS CO's. I don't think I have ever seen a Varsity Scout unit. Beyond that I am not aware of any units that participate in an organized sports league. I remember that when I was a Scout, at summer camp we would sometimes challenge another troop to some kind of sports game, but nothing more organized than that. I suspect that if I mentioned that to the Scouts in "the troop I serve", they would wonder how they were supposed to fit a softball game or soccer game in among the planned activities that seem to take up every minute of the day in the summer camp they attend.

CherokeeScouter, you mention that you are not the Committee Chair but "just a dad volunteer", which makes me wonder, are you registered as a Committee MEMBER? You should be; not only are you serving on BOR's, you are running them. And is there an Advancement Coordinator in there somewhere? (Meaning, a Committee Member other than the Chair who, among other things, schedules, serves on and often runs BOR's. I have held that position. Our Committee Chair rarely gets directly involved in the advancement process, other than to occasionally serve on BOR's as a fill-in when we need three people.)

15-20 minutes is about right for a BOR, other than Eagle. Traditionally our BOR's for Tenderfoot are much shorter, about 5-10 minutes. Boys going for their first one are generally nervous and we spend just enough time with them to show them there is nothing to worry about. We do BOR's during the weekly troop meetings, so the Scouts are pulled out of whatever other activity they would be doing for a short period. I think that over the course of a Scouting "career", missing 15-20 minutes of a meeting five times is not very much. (Well, if you add in the Scoutmaster Conferences which are also done during troop meetings, it is a little more than that. But advancement is part of the program at meetings, and SMC's and BOR's are part of advancement, so it's not like they are missing a meeting, they are just doing something different than the other Scouts for a short period. The same applies to meetings between Life Scouts and Eagle mentors during troop meetings.) We hold BOR's on an "as requested" basis, which in practical terms means one week (or at most two) after the Scout's SMC. Sometimes it will be the same night, if the SMC has been held near the beginning of the meeting and enough Committee members happen to be at the meeting.

Yes Pack, this is really of very little significance outside the context of the specific case. We can all call ourselves whatever we want. It is only when rights and privileges are being handed out based on the labels, that it makes a difference.

Seattle Pioneer, the "gay issue" has nothing to do with the "values of Scouting." There is no "value of Scouting" that requires the exclusion of gay leaders.

Well Stosh, here I was mostly agreeing with what you were saying, and then I came to this. Really? Do you really have to do that? Unlike the last time I made a comment along these lines, this time I'm not going to invoke any alleged "law" of the Internet here. But just as a matter of common sense, don't you see that a ridiculous analogy like that doesn't lend any support for what you are saying, but actually detracts from it? Unless I have somehow missed all the death camps in our country, and all the massacres of U.S. residents by the military, with the compliant news media covering it all up, why do you need to bring the Nazis into it? It's just ridiculous.

I don't think this is really anything new, though whether I am correct or not, I suspect Merlyn will be along shortly with the details one way or the other. As for the BSA, this changes nothing, for the reasons mentioned by PbW. The current rule is that a Scout must believe in a higher power. Labels such as "religion" do not necessarily satisfy that requirement.

Alex, is this your prediction, or is this a statement you have seen from the BSA, and if the latter, could you please provide your source? And what if the Scout isn't in middle school (where, I think studies would probably show, the incidence of OPENLY gay youth is probably very low) but is 17 years old? Is the BSA going to back up a CO that says it doesn't approve of 17 year olds dating? (When that would have to include both straight and gay.)