NJCubScouter

Jei, could you give the exact links for the quotes in #1 and #2 of your post? The BSA web site is a big place. I would not be surprised if a BSA spokesman said what you said in #1, although if he did, I don't think he meant exactly what you apparently think he meant. I would, however, be very surprised if any official BSA spokesperson or site said what you say in #2, especially the part about men and boys in the woods. That is not the official justification for the policy on gay leaders. But I'm willing to be proven wrong, if you can.

Crazy TP Lady, you ask whether the 18-year-old rule for Assistant Scoutmaster "has always been the case." I became an ASM at age 18 in the mid-70's, so it has been the case at least that long and possibly far longer. Of course, back then you had to be male to be an ASM, but that is no longer the case, and the age requirement should not vary by gender.

ASM, as you know (since you were the one who brought this all up in the first place), they do have the list broken down into age groups, "young guys", "middle guys" and "older guys", although they do not specify what the age ranges are for these groups. My son tells me that most of the books on the "older guys" list would be for boys under the age of 14 or so. To check this out a little further, I went to the web site from which the list in the magazine was taken. Interestingly, the Harry Potter books are on the web site's list (under "middle guys"), but were not selected for the shorter list appearing in "Scouting." Kind of an interesting omission considering that those books are so popular. Maybe the writer of the "Scouting" article decided that Harry Potter would be "too controversial" to include in "Scouting", but was not aware of the controversy over the "Golden Compass". If this is what really happened, it's kind of ironic, because (based on the discussion here) it seems that the Golden Compass does contain some anti-religion (or anti-a-particular religion) themes, while the Harry Potter books didn't contain anything that should have been controversial.

Og God Og! Love it! Hey does that mean cavemen believed in God? According to one of the "2000 Year Old Man" routines, they originally believed in a guy named Phil, and prayed to him, until one day Phil was struck by lightning, and they all said, "There's something bigger than Phil!"

"There are a few instances, such as patrol activities, when no adult leadership is required." If there are a few, and "patrol activities" is one of them, what are the others?

For whatever it's worth, the article being discussed in this thread appeared in Scouting magazine, not Boys Life as some have mentioned. I don't read Boys Life these days, so I do not know whether there was a corresponding article (with the same list) in that magazine. I wouldn't be surprised if an article like that appeared in Scouting only, on the theory that the BSA is providing this recommended list of books to parents and then letting the parents decide which books their kids should be reading. None of this applies in my house, as my son has already read most of the books on the "older guys" list, including some books that I never knew he had read until we went over the list. One thing my son and I noticed when going over the list: What is "Go Dog Go" doing on the list of "guys books"? It is a learn-to-read book that I read to all my kids (regardless of gender) when they were very young (probably as young as 2, and then they gradually learned to read it back to me.) I don't know what is particularly "guy"-ish about it... unless someone thinks dogs are for boys and cats are for girls? I don't get it... But at least that book has no religious (or irreligious) overtones that I ever discovered in years of reading and listening to it.

GW: You have an interesting idea of "fun".

I have a different question: Other than the situations that John-in-KC mentions (which seem non-ceremonial in nature, in other words virtually nobody is going to see the flag in its non-traditionally folded state), why would anyone want to fold it differently? Just to prove you can?

When I first saw GW's question (before there was any response), it seemed so obvious that it was a trick question and/or a "baiting" question that I decided no good could come of answering it. Turns out I was right. The "trick" is in the word "official", which has more than one meaning, especially in the context of a forum concerning one particular organization. As for the "baiting", I think the discussion speaks for itself.

GoldWinger: Signaling and tracking? Those have not been in the requirements for 35 years. I didn't realize you were thinking back that far. Your use of "Every time" led me to believe you were thinking of more recent changes. Obviously a lot of changes were made in the early 70's (which was during my time as a Scout; I remember learning semaphore to finish First Class and passing younger kids on skill awards at the same time, during the transition between the advancement systems.) I don't know that much about the changes between the mid-70's and the early 2000's. It does seem to me that some of the Eagle-required badges are more difficult, not less, than they were in "my day." I don't know about the specifics regarding the other badges you mention, although I do know that Leatherworking now seems to be a "standard" summer camp badge that all the boys seem to get in their first or second summer, which I don't think was the case "back then." I also know that Wilderness Survival is regarded (at least in my son's troop and at the camp they usually go to) as a difficult badge that few Scouts go for, but I don't know how the requirements have changed over time. I'd also say that for the lower ranks, if you compare the era of Skill Awards to today, the requirements are more difficult and (more importantly) more balanced and comprehensive. So it kind of depends on how you look at this, but I think "Every time" is, at best, an exaggeration.

GoldWinger says: In case you haven't noticed, every time a merit badge is changed, it gets easier. Every time a requirement gets changed, it is to make it easier. I haven't noticed that. Do you have examples? If anything, I have noticed the opposite, especially if you also include rank requirements in there. I realize this is off the subject of the Insect Study MB. On that one, I agree with Packsaddle, the change seems like a good one.

I would answer one of CalicoPenn's questions, Yes, it would be a good idea to reduce the number of Eagle-required merit badges. I said the same thing when the subject of adding Cooking to the required list came up a couple of months ago. (By the way, if they were going to change the required list effective Jan. 1, 2009, they would have announced it by now, right?) The balance has swung too far over toward the required badges, and I think the "career and hobby exploration" aspect of the merit badge program no longer gets enough emphasis. (The required merit badges are basically a combination of "life skills" and "Scouting skills" rather than career and hobby exploration badges, although I suppose one might make an argument that Environmental Science falls into the latter category as well.) As for how many required merit badges there should be, cutting it down to five would be unrealistic. I think 10 would strike a better balance than there is now (with 12 out of the total of 21 for Eagle being required.) As discussed on that older thread, however, it is tough to see what they would remove from the list, especially if they add Cooking. But I agree with whoever above identified the proliferation of required "homework" badges as being part of what may "turn off" some boys to advancement. For example, Citizenship obviously is important, but I don't know that it's crucial to require all three of the "cits" for Eagle.

TnTScoutMomma, I think your troop's practice of having BOR's only every two months is contributing to the problem here. If you had them on an as-needed basis (or at most, every two weeks) there would not be so much pressure. If a Scout forgot the book, he could just be told "Ok, we'll do it next week when you have the book." Nobody's going to get too upset over that (I hope.) Our troop does not require the book to be present for a BOR -- the Advancement Chair gets a printout of the boy's computerized advancement record before the BOR starts -- but I don't have a big problem with requiring it. It is when you combine the requirement of bringing the book with an excessively high consequence of not bringing it (that is, a two-month wait for another BOR) that there is a problem.njcub

When our SM identifies a boy as "not advancing", and an informal chat or two between the SM and the boy has not produced the desired result, the Advancement Chair will sometimes pull the boy aside at a troop meeting for a conversation (either right outside the meeting room or with another leader present, to avoid one-on-one.) It is not called a "Board of Review", and it is not formal or high-pressure, just to give the boy a pep talk, see if there are any problems, etc. I have never known this to take place for a boy who is at a rank below First Class; it is really only necessary for the ranks where a boy needs to show some initiative, i.e. Star and up.

How can you kick yourself out of something that you were never in? I think Merlyn was being facetious there.

They're trying hard not to enforce the BSA's religious requirements by not looking too hard. Well, who is "they"? On one hand we have a columnist on an unofficial web site ("Andy") who basically says to leave the Scout alone without knowing whether he actually believes in a higher power or not. On the other hand we have a local professional Scouter (referred to in the Scoutmaster's posts) who wants to kick the kid out -- also without knowing whether he actually believes in a higher power or not. And by the way, says the DE, don't let in members of a group that definitely does believe in a higher power, because he doesn't like the way they practice their religion. And then we have a Scoutmaster who discusses the Scout's situation with the entire world before sitting down and having a conference with the Scout. All in all, I would not say that this is one of the finer moments for the U.S. Scouting Service Project (which is a great site overall.) I think most of it is beside the point anyway. As I understand it, the BSA interprets the Scout Oath and Law to require that a Scout believe in a higher power. Throwing around labels like "atheist" and "agnostic", that have more than one definition and whose definitions are often misunderstood (including, quite often, by teenagers who apply such labels to themselves), only confuses the issue.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Trevorum: I'm not sure, I have never been quite clear on the legal basis of the relationship between the U.S. government and Native American nations. I just looked at a Wikipedia article to try to figure it out, but it seems pretty complicated. TheScout: The last part of my sentence from before was not based on the Supremacy Clause. It was based on the Civil War and the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps you are in error. Maybe the states possess full sovereignty and through the Constitution delegate some of their sovereignty to the US through their insturment which is the federal government. The idea of "divided sovereignty" is not something I came up with, it is the generally accepted view. If you don't accept it, you don't accept it. There isn't really much of a practical difference anyway, since having "delegated" some of their sovereignty, through a Constitution that has a Supremacy Clause, the states can't get that power back without the federal government's consent. Before the Civil War and the 14th Amendment there was a thought that maybe they could, but now it is pretty clear they cannot.

When she found out how much it was really going to cost, she decided it was too expensive, that it wasn't a good deal for the taxpayers. She pulled the plug on the project. Yes, she did keep the money for the state and used it for other needed infrastructure projects, and for other alternatives to the bridge. Well, that is one of the interpretations, anyway. Another is that when she saw that the project had become a national joke, and that there was a danger of Alaska losing the project and the money, she decided to drop the project and keep the money for other things. I don't really have a problem with that, and would hope that my own state officials would do so well at recovering from such a debacle. The thing is, some are presenting this as Palin being against pork barrel projects and trying to save the federal taxpayers some money, when the truth is nothing of the sort.

And yet, TheScout, what you say cannot exist, does exist in several countries around the world, including the one you live in: A functioning "federal" system, with divided sovereignty.

TheScout says: The sovereign nation of many sovereign states part makes no sense. Sovereignty is usually defined as the supreme political authority. How can there be two supremes? Our "federal" system is based on "divided" sovereignty with the federal government being "supreme" in the areas prescribed in the Constitution and the states being supreme in the other areas. Of course, the dividing line is subject to interpretation, and differing interpretations over time. But the basic concept is one of divided sovereignty, so "sovereign nation of many sovereign states" is basically accurate as far as it goes.

Packsaddle: Don't mention it, I owe it all to Jaqueline Suzanne and Harold Robbins. Ah, the giants. (Have we had this conversation before?) Acco: That's the quote -- except it's "gribenes"; I believe "mohel" is the preferred English spelling but "moyel" is how it's usually pronounced; and I'm saying in advance that I refuse to explain the joke if anyone asks. I believe Robin Williams says it in "Mrs. Doubtfire" when he is in costume/makeup as an elderly Jewish woman. Merlyn: I disagree with how you are using the word "religion", but I'm not discussing it anymore. I know you think you are using it the way the religion(s) in question use it.

I just read this article (I had skimmed it the first time) and it is clear that the writer simply copied a list of recommended books from the web site of her main interviewee (the author whose face appears on the cover of the magazine and there is also a photo of him carrying books on p. 27.) I have never read the book nor seen the film in question, and more to the point, there is no evidence that the writer of the article, and certainly not any of Scouting's national policy-makers, ever have either. I don't think you can read any policy implications into this, and that is even assuming that the critics of the book are interpreting it correctly.

Packsaddle says: Merlyn, I'm thinking it is at the top of page 2 in the other thread on atheism. That was where I disagreed with Merlyn's statement about the Jewish religion, which I quoted. What I perceive as a "backtracking" statement is this later one by Merlyn: About all I've said is that a Jew can also be an atheist, which is true. Jewish atheists are accepted as Jews by other Jews. The key here is the omission of the word "religion", which had been the centerpiece of the previous quotes. That changes the whole issue, for the reasons described in my various posts over the last couple days. I'm curious as to how one starts a new thread by accident. Kind of like tripping on the sidewalk and accidentally starting a new thread? Packsaddle, you have said that I make you laugh sometimes, thank you for returning the favor. Anyway, my main point here is that there is no real point here. The subject, so far as it has anything to do with Scouting, has been fully explored.

Is this setting off the "prank alarm" in anyone besides me? liperazs, if this really is true, I'd suggest you not "tell us more" about your legal situation, since your post seems to imply that your charge has not yet been disposed of. We do not know your real name, but the police do, and presumably they also know where your computer is located. If you really have been charged with a crime, your attorney should have told you not to discuss the situation with anyone without his/her approval, and "anyone" includes the entire Internet. As for your Eagle progress, that is what makes me suspicious. This is what you're worried about?(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)