NJCubScouter

I think the simplest answer is that many people no longer regard homosexuality as immoral. I don't see any reason to believe that there is any cause-and-effect relationship between the widespread acceptance of people regardless of their sexual orientation, and any other "objectionable" behavior.

Based on one of the posts way above (I think it was by Fred), the issue may not be what the written policy on attendance is now, but what the policy was in the six months after the Scout's Life BOR. In other words, the Scout may have already passed the "active" requirement, in which case the agreement to go on three outings is irrelevant -- to the "active" requirement. As I said somewhere above, it could be relevant to "Scout Spirit", specifically trustworthiness, particularly when the Scout, even as we speak, still has the ability to satisfy his obligations under the agreement.

I'd say the DNC probably should re-word that statement on their web site, regardless of whether it can be explained by the context. Who needs that kind of distraction? The real issue for voters is what the parties and candidates stand for today. As for shortridge's comment about "more than 200 years," the Democratic Party considers itself to be the same party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the 1790s, even though that party was called the "Republican Party" at the time. The name was later changed to "Democratic Republican" and then to "Democratic" under Andrew Jackson. Or you can look at it that the Democratic Party was one of two parties that evolved out of the original Republican Party in the 1820's/30's, the other one being the "National Republicans" and later the Whigs.

I do kind of like that weekend of testing idea. Um, that wouldn't be on a football weekend would it? No Barry, we've got it scheduled for mid-August. Actually, for that idea to work, it would have to on the same schedule as peoples' birthdays, i.e. year-round. But I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Eagle732, was that last post an attempt at humor? I actually chuckled a little, with only my computer around to hear me.

First of all, Eagle92, you're right to shout a little about den leaders and den chiefs. My son was trained as a den chief (and got that extra cord, whatever it's called) but I saw no indication that the den leaders he was "chiefing" for had den leader training, much less training in how to use a den chief. Is that part of Den Leader Specific training? (If they even call it that any more; it has been a long, long time since I had that.) These den leaders really didn't know what to do with my son. As for the actual subject of the thread, it is difficult for the reasons 5yearscouter mentions. Boy Scout leaders who "go back" to the pack level are very rare around me. I think the fact that adult leadership in Cub Scouts is more "intensive" does not make too many people want to go back after their own sons are out of the program.

Eagle732, this might surprise a person or two who think they have me pigeonholed into some "camp" when it comes to advancement, but I think that's a good idea. Hopefully it would prompt units to include in their program opportunities for all Scouts to practice all their skills on a regular basis even after they "pass", so that the "months" of preparation immediately before the test would not be necessary. What I have found is that, with practice, the boys do not lose these skills regardless of whether they "passed" them a year ago or six years ago. We have a group of mostly Life Scouts that just came back from Philmont and I think almost all of them would be ready for your "Eagle test" right now, because they have had to retain or re-learn many outdoor skills for Philmont and other outdoor activities. I also would not oppose re-testing in all other BOR's as well. It could be done cumulatively so by the time you get to Eagle, you are being re-tested on skills you have been re-tested on several times before. I think this would be a better way of achieving what Eagledad is trying to achieve, and it does so without ripping one rank out of the advancement program. But neither of them are going to happen, at least not in my Scouting lifetime.

By the way, some people have speculated on why the Scout wants to do it this way. I inferred from one of GKlose's posts that the Scout probably needs (really "wants") to have his EBOR in September so he can put it on his college applications. That is, at least, a rational explanation, though not one in keeping with the spirit of the program. I don't think any of the other possible explanations, including that he wants to teach his parents a lesson, really makes any sense. I think (not knowing the Scout, of course) that he really DOES want to make Eagle, and he really does want to do it NOW. If that is the case, I think he is making a really difficult road for himself, because he is going to have to explain to the "Disputed BOR" why he didn't just go on the two outings, and he can't say "Because I wanted Eagle for my college applications." So he is going to have to make up another story, and chances are he is going to trip himself up. Or he will just have to insist on "Because I finished the requirements now, and they can't make me wait four or five months." In other words, he is going to have to say he didn't go on the two outings for the principle of the thing. If I were sitting on that BOR, I don't think I'd buy it. Of course, I would have to find a requirement he didn't pass. Under the new Guide to Advancement, he probably DID pass "active", and I think there is something under "Scout spirit" that warns against using that requirement as a substitute "active" requirement. I think the "Scout spirit" requirement is supposed to be tied to the Scout Oath and Law. How about "trustworthy"? He DID agree to go on three outings and didn't do it, so is that a lack of trustworthiness? On the other hand, he now claims that he only agreed to "try". So who does the BOR believe? But even if they believe he only agreed to try, who is going to believe that he was really trying if he couldn't attend three outings in almost a year? So now, with many more facts presented than when I first posted in this thread, I think this Scout is making a big mistake and is rolling the dice when he didn't have to. (And still doesn't have to. Maybe the DAC, after having a word with GKlose tonight, will then decide to have a word with the Scout.) How it will end, I will not predict, but it is definitely not the "slam dunk" (in his favor) that I (and several others) thought it was near the beginning of the thread.

I sent email to our District Advancement Chair with no other detail than there is a "disputed application" that will be on the way. He responded very quickly, asking me to call him tonight so that he can find out some details, and find out whether this can be resolved prior to the "disputed" circumstance. That is exactly what he is supposed to do. This is part of that section of the Guide to Advancement that I didn't copy earlier: If a unit leader or committee chair does not agree a Scout has met the requirements, then before a board of review is held, he or she should confer with the Scout and his parents and come to an understanding of all viewpoints. Guidance should also be sought from the district or council advancement chair to assure expectations are not more than are actually required. If the leader or chair remains unconvinced, then they may deny approval of the Eagle Scout rank application. Your SM has already done what it says in the first sentence. Your email to the DAC initiates your part of the second sentence. Now the DAC wants to do his part of the second sentence. In other words, IF he hears the situation and believes the requirements have been met, it is his job to tell you, and ask you to reconsider. (Or, he can conclude that the requirements have not been met and that you are doing the right thing.) However, even if the DAC disagrees with you, it remains the decision of the SM and CC as to whether to sign the application. If they do not, then the "dispute" procedures can go forward.

Barry, Maybe it would be a slightly better world if Beavah wrote a little more like he speaks, and I wrote a little less like I speak. In this forum, at least. When writing for "work" I write more formally than I do in this forum, and I suspect (and really hope) that Beavah does as well.

>>And I have news for you

Does Risk Zone training still exist? It included "how not to fall asleep while driving" and similar subjects. However, I have heard it was changed to some other kind of safety training, and I don't know what that is. Since I do not go camping anymore myself, I haven't had to keep up with it.

GKlose says: Everything was about advancement, and when Scouts no longer needed outings (say for Camping MB), they didn't attend. We literally were down to 6 to 8 Scouts on an outing, out of a troop of 28. Two years at regular summer camp, then one or two years at "Eagle Week" for Eagle-required MBs. At that point, Scouts considered themselves done with camp. That's awful. If your SM has done away with that kind of thinking among the boys, he has accomplished a great deal, regardless of what happens with this particular Scout.

The Eagle would become an award of honor, not a rank. I think that says it all. You are really talking about eliminating "Eagle" as it currently exists, and putting that name on something else. I guess I just don't see the need for it. If there are problems with the "Eagle system" as it currently exists -- and I agree there are some -- they can be fixed through less drastic means. And I have news for you, if Life was the "highest rank", I predict it would eventually become just that, with service projects, workbooks, letters of reference, appeal procedures and all the rest. And then to balance out the "ranks" we might eventually have "Third Class" stuck in above Tenderfoot. So I don't think this is going to accomplish what you are hoping for. Although, then I could say I earned Scouting's "highest rank" (not at the time, though.)

I'm not sure why I am jumping in here, when I am not going to change anybody's mind, but Peregrinator says to Merlyn: You're the one arguing for government force to prevent atheists from being offended, not I. If the Constitution and the XIVth Amendment taken together mean that prayer can be forbidden in schools, then government power is truly unlimited. But that is what atheists must believe of necessity anyway, since they cannot believe that human rights come from something greater than the State. Peregrinator, I think the distinction you are making between "school" and "government" is a false distinction, at least for purposes of this topic. (Assuming we are talking about public schools, of course.) I realize it may seem odd to think of your friendly local elementary school, with friendly old Mr. Smith (or youngish Ms. Smith) as principal, as a government institution headed by a government official, but that is what they are. They are under the control of your local (or not-so-local) school board, which exists under the laws of your state, either directly or indirectly. So the school is part of the government. Under the Supreme Court cases, the government (including a school) cannot organize a prayer or other religious observance. Personally, I am very happy that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government (regardless of the level) from practicing religion. (I don't know if that last phrase is used in any of the cases, I just think it is a useful way of looking at it.) And, unlike Merlyn, I am not an atheist.

After what I just wrote, I should probably make clear that I still think what I thought in my first post in this thread: This Scout should take advantage of the (now-almost) five months that he has left, and honor his agreement by going on two more outings, preferably with "flying colors" (meaning he stays overnight rather than just "visiting"). That is what I wish he would do. However, if he decides he wants a Board of Review NOW, there is a procedure in place to do so. I think it is reasonable to expect the BOR to take into account that he decided to forego the opportunity to live up to his agreement, when he had time to do so.

Eagledad says, to me: I think you are saying the advancement part of the Eagle process is more important than knowing the woods skills, leadership skills, and a reputation of service to others. When did I say that? I didn't say it, and I'm not saying it now. Quite frankly I am not sure what it means. I think all of this goes hand in hand, if the advancement process is administered properly. If our complaint is with the requirements themselves, and/or the way they are administered, then let's work on fixing those so that the Eagle rank truly represents knowledge of woods skills (and others), leadership and a reputation of service to others, assuming that it doesn't already. But then, once a Scout has fulfilled the requirements, they should get the rank. I think what I am really saying is, I don't think the sky is falling. I realize that that attitude puts me out of step with many in this forum. A scout always has control of his destiny, Im just suggesting that peers set the standard instead of the adults. I don't think so. The limitation of "one or two per year" takes the Scout's advancement out of his control. In fact, it takes it out of the Scout's peers' control as well. One or two per year, in some troops, will mean that some Scouts who deserve Eagle will not receive it, regardless of what the Scouts think. If you remove the numerical limitation, and allow the Scouts to decide up-or-down on each candidate for Eagle, it restores the "individualized" idea of advancement -- but it still partly removes the Scout's advancement from his own control and puts it in the hands of his troop-mates. Maybe the answer is an additional award. There already is a "Distinguished Eagle" award, but I think that is for adults. This could be an extra honor added on to Eagle, but decided on by the troop. I realize that's not accomplishing what you are trying to accomplish, which relates to the Eagle rank itself.

If that is the choice the boy has made, I think everybody involved in the process (the SM and CC, assuming you are both declining to sign the application, as well as the Scout) should read section 8.0.3.2 of the Guide to Advancement, entitled "Initiating Eagle Scout Board of Review Under Disputed Circumstances." I am pretty certain that this is not exactly the same process that the Scout mentioned by Eagle732 went through, because when that "case" was at the council level, the current Guide to Advancement had not come out yet. I won't go through the whole thing, but a major change is that (assuming I am reading that section correctly), the Scout most likely will receive a Board of Review. It must be requested by the Scout. Who the request is made to apparently depends on the procedures in your council, but it is definitely made to someone at the council or district, not the unit, since the SM and CC have already declined to sign the application. The book says this about the BOR itself: An Eagle Scout board of review under disputed circumstances is held at the district or council level. Volunteers from the candidates unit are not involved. And then it says some stuff about the procedure for getting to the point of the BOR, then it says this: Procedures for a board under disputed circumstances are the same as for any Eagle Scout board. The members should be well versed in related policies and organized in advance so they can research background and facts. Written statements or telephone interview summaries must be obtained from the unit leader, knowledgeable committee members, a representative of the service project beneficiary (if applicable), and others familiar with the case. Every effort should be made to have balanced representation. Only review-board members and administrators with a need to know may see the evidence. The review is like any other for Eagle, but with extra attention to the concerns at issue. Afterward, all statements, summaries, or notes are sent to the council and then destroyed once any appeal efforts are concluded. So, it is clear that the SM (and possibly committee members with knowledge of the situation) will be asked to make statements, either by interview or in writing before the BOR. I have not heard of one of these taking place in my district. Maybe there have not been any. But that is what the book says. I know that others in this forum might disagree with this, but if the Scout does make this request, regardless of whether he is awarded Eagle or not, I wouldn't take it personally. The SM has the right to do what he is doing, and the Scout has the right to do what he is doing, and ultimately the BOR (and possibly council and national if there is an appeal) will make the decision. It's not the end of life as we know it, or the end of the Eagle rank, or anything else. It's just one disputed situation that is going to be decided through the prescribed procedures.

I'm not sure whether you're serious about this or not, but let's assume for the moment that you are. One thing that I tell parents of new Boy Scouts is that, unlike Cub Scouts where all the boys in the same grade are working on the same badge (not counting things like belt loops and pins), the Boy Scout advancement program is completely individualized. While we provide a program that includes learning and practicing the skills needed to advance, and people are always available to sign off on advancement, how quickly or slowly, and how far, each boy goes is up to that boy. (We do encourage boys to try to make First Class before their second summer camp (which usually works out to about 15 months), but it is encouragement, not a forced march.) So, while a boy may want to try to "keep up" with other boys their age, or go further faster, they are not required to do so. The patrols and troop do activities as a group, but advancement is an individual process and choice. Under your suggestion, if you are really suggesting it, that would not be true any more. When or whether a boy makes Eagle would no longer completely depend on what that boy wants to do, or can do, or has done. It would depend on what other people in his troop are doing, or what they decide. I think a fundamental part of the "concept" behind the advancement program would be lost. When I read what I have written above, I can see that I may have already turned this into a discussion of what the "First Class First Year" program really means, because under some interpretations (what I call the "forced march" interpretation), the individuality of the advancement program has already been eroded. Now National is even saying that a boy should be making Star after being in the troop for two years. But so far I don't believe National has set any "time goals" for Life and Eagle (other than the outside time limit of course.) So the idea of individualized advancement still holds true for those ranks, at least. In my troop it holds true for all ranks... including Eagle. Maybe, especially Eagle. You're not really suggesting we do away with that, right?

More on the user-customized advertising on this forum: The ad I am looking at right now across the top of the page says "Do You Support Chick-fil-A?" With a picture of a cow on the left and a "Vote Now!" button on the right. I do not think I have ever gone to the Chick-fil-A web site nor to any other forum where the "Chick-fi-A issue" is being discussed. So I maintain my opinion that the ads are at least partially based on the subjects being discussed on the page, such as this one which has "ban on gays" in its header. As for BadenP, look, I am not really arguing with you. I made a prediction, which I hope is incorrect. I hope you are correct that the change will come sooner. But I have to wonder, if the change really is driven exclusively by money, will it be made before the BSA irreparably injures itself financially? And I also have to say (going back to one of your earlier comments), I do not see any signs of imminent financial collapse, but then again I do not really pay much attention to National as long as they keep publishing handbooks (and the like) and having YP and other training online, and keep sending back Eagle certificates etc. when after the kids have their Boards of Review. Other than that and maybe a few other things, for me, National does not even exist. (Oh, and Scouting magazine.) The identity of the latest occupant of the musical chair of CSE is only of passing interest to me, and I suspect the same of most of the people who read this forum, especially those of us at the unit level. The same goes with merging regions; I have never seen any tangible product or result of even having regions, so again it does not matter to me. (I did know one guy who walked around with gold tabs and a Regional Executive Board patch (or something like that) but when I knew him he was doing local Cub Scout recruitment and and teaching Cub Scout Basic Leader Training and things like that, so his regional affiliation was really inconsequential.) Even as for councils merging, the councils in New Jersey went through a big round of mergers ending in 1999, our district was broken up and merged with others a couple of years later, but the councils have remained the same. Of course there could be an announcement tomorrow that New Jersey will become one big council, but I'll worry about that when it happens and even then, what can I do about it? In the past few years, I have seen troops fold and other troops start up. I see no signs of imminent collapse around me. But as I said, that all could change tomorrow. I do hope the BSA decides to change before large pieces of it start disappearing.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

BadenP, I wish the national viewpoint on equality had changed as much as you seem to think it has. I just did a little looking around the Internet and it appears that more than half the states still permit discrimination against gay people in employment, public accommodations, etc. I'm not even talking about marriage here, just the more "traditional" forms of discrimination -- and very similar to what the BSA itself engages in. The fact is that this country is very divided about whether it is acceptable to discriminate against gay people. In some places (like where I live) the BSA is out of step, in some places it is not. In any event, I certainly wish the BSA would change the policy to allow local option, and I have been advocating for that in this forum for 10 years. But as for when it is going to happen, I see little point in extended arguments about predictions of the future, especially when nobody here (as far as I know) has any direct say in making the change happen. My prediction of 20 years is not based on when I think it should happen, but when I think it will happen. Do you know the difference?

BadenP, I think that depends on what you think the "real issue" is. There are at least two options: One is, whether and/or when the policy will change, and what causes it to change or not change. That is apparently the issue you are looking at. Two is, should the policy change? That is how I look at it. And I don't think I am being naive or overly idealistic about it. As I have said, I think the policy may very well not change for 20 years. I think that when it does change, it will be a combination of two factors: Money, and a generational change in the leadership. When people who "came of age" in the 80s and 90s are in charge, rather than the 60s and 70s, I think the policy will change. The "money" issue could make it change sooner, but I think that once the generational change really kicks in, the policy will change regardless of whether there is a financial crisis in the BSA at the time or not.

Basement, First Class req. 10: "Tell someone who is eligible to join Boy Scouts, or an inactive Boy Scout, about your troop's activities. Invite him to a troop outing, activity, service project or meeting. Tell him how to join, or encourage the inactive Boy Scout to become active." So it is tell, invite, and tell or encourage. The recruitment need not be successful, whereas the recruiter strip is generally awarded for a successful recruitment. (If at all; we have not been giving it out in our troop, and we should; there are several Scouts now who have successfully brought friends into the troop.) As for adults wearing the recruiter strip, to me recruiting is part of our "jobs" and not something we need to get a patch for. However, it wouldn't really bother me if another adult chose to wear one.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Here is part of what Wikipedia has to say about how long we have been around. (And yes I know anyone can edit Wikipedia, but this seems right and it is more-or-less consistent with what Trevorum said.) I have omitted the footnotes: Humans (Homo sapiens), the only living members of the genus Homo, are mammals of the primate order originally from Africa, where they reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago. The human lineage diverged from its last common ancestor with its closest living relative, the chimpanzee, some 5 million years ago in Africa, evolving into the Australopithecines and eventually the genus Homo. The first homo species to move out of Africa was Homo erectus, the African variety of which, together with Homo heidelbergensis, is considered to be the immediate ancestor of modern humans. Homo sapiens proceeded to colonize the continents, arriving in Eurasia 125,000-60,000 years ago, Australia around 40,000 years ago, the Americas around 15,000 years ago, and remote islands such as Hawaii, Easter Island, Madagascar, and New Zealand between the years 300 AD and 1280 AD. Around 10,000 years ago humans began to practice sedentary agriculture domesticating plants and animals which allowed for a drastic increase in population worldwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

"That is burning in its greed"? Really? I have never understood the words in that line, and I've only been listing to the song for, what? 40 years?