NJCubScouter

Bob, what is your source for stating that the SPL appoints the JASM? This training presentation from the BSA site (http://olc.scouting.org/resources/TLT.ppt Slide 30) says that the JASM is appointed by the Scoutmaster (which makes sense.) On the other hand, while I have seen the statement that the SPL appoints other youth leaders with the consent of the SM, the same presentation (Slide 18) says that the SPL makes the appointment with the ''advice and counsel'' of the SM, which is not the same thing.

I was a Scout at the time Cooking (and Camping) MB were taken off the required list (1972-3.) I have both with the silver border, although I ended up not making Eagle. Moving ahead 35 years, my son has earned Cooking MB as a non-required badge. One thing that I think has changed is that the cooking requirements that my son had to pass for Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class seem much more intensive than they were when I was a Scout. If a Scout has passed the cooking requirements for those ranks, there is not much additional that they need to do for the merit badge. (I seem to recall that my son had to do one thing he hadn't done before, but I don't remember what it was.) The point is that by the time a Scout is First Class, the BSA seems to expect that they have "know" cooking and have done it, more than once. In my son's troop, that is a natural outgrowth of the program anyway. If the boys are going on camping trips, they are getting experience in cooking, and these activities are signed off for the corresponding requirements of the "lower" ranks and the Cooking MB. I think most of the boys get the Cooking MB as a matter of course, as a non-required badge for Star or Life. So, unless they make the requirements for Cooking MB considerably more difficult, putting it back on the required list probably would not make much difference, at least in our troop.

I don't get the logic of the SM not telling the boy that his parents have been called to bring him home, and why. It is the SM making the decision, not the parents, so it should be the SM who announces and explains the decision. The parent wasn't there and may not fully understand what happened. I also think that in some cases, a parent who has just been required to make an unanticipated two-hour drive (or whatever, plus the return trip) may tend to think that the SM is exaggerating and what little Johnny did couldn't have been so bad, and why did I have to drive all this way, etc., and is not necessarily the best person to be explaining things to their son at that point. Some version of this did occur in the first incident I recounted above.

From what I understand, our troop has had two such incidents in about the past 10 years. One involved a Scout who was chasing another Scout(s) with an axe, on a weekend camping trip, and his parents were called to take him home. The second involved a Scout who stabbed another Scout with an eating utensil at Saturday breakfast at summer camp. Technically he was not "sent home early" since this was the last meal of the week and all the parents were on their way to the camp to pick up their sons anyway. However, it was made clear to the parents that their son was subject to some disciplinary action (probably unspecified at that point) and he was never seen in the troop again. We did have a "borderline" incident where two older boys decided to "snowboard" off the roof of a boathouse at a weekend camping trip. The campmaster was not a happy camper (so to speak) regarding this incident. I think their "punishment" was having to listen to him, and then the Scoutmaster, express their displeasure at their conduct. Of course, we have had lesser incidents of misbehavior, but this was probably the closest anyone came to getting sent home who wasn't sent home.

Sctlader says: sounds like he was not in agreement with the past BSA administration's strategy. But, strategy about what, is the question. It sounds to me like his disagreement is with the public relations strategy of the past, but not any other aspect of strategy (or policy) that I can see. The sentences, "We were thrust into a situation that we weren't equipped to deal with. The decisions at the time were probably correct for the time.", could refer to a number of things, especially if taken out of context (as I just did.) In context, he was discussing publicity, although if you read what he says right after that, you have to wonder how the decisions could have been "probably correct for the time." He says the BSA abandoned all dialogue about Scouting, and that doesn't make sense... but it was "probably correct for the time"? I don't get the logic. Then in answer to the next question, he makes a somewhat curious statement, "We have become a pawn in political issues, because we've allowed ourselves to be co-opted." Co-opted by whom? I wonder if that's really the word he meant to use there. I do have to give the guy credit for showing at least some candor, though.

We have at least one troop in our township that is chartered to "Friends of Troop __, Inc." I know some of their leaders, parents and Scouts because the boys attend the same high school as my son and are in school activities together. The troop seems to be doing fine and has been chartered in this way for a number of years. They have arrangements with one of the schools for troop meetings and with another organization (I believe it is a church) to store their equipment and park their trailer. Is this less "stable" than having a CO that actually owns a place for the troop to meet? Probably yes. Is there a greater potential for problems such as instability in leadership, letting the corporate charter lapse, etc.? Sure, there is greater potential for problems. I am sure it takes work to maintain the arrangements -- but it also takes work to maintain a relationship with a "real" CO. And as I said, the troop seems to be doing fine with this arrangement. In practical terms, this kind of arrangement is not really that much different from being chartered to a PTA or PTO, as my son's former Cub pack is. (The national PTA discourages local PTO's from chartering Scout units, but there is no national PTO, which is what we have here.) The PTO doesn't own a building either, and the PTO leadership is less stable because the students are moving on to another school after the fourth grade. The "relationship" between the PTO and the pack is mainly a function of the almost 100 percent overlap between the PTO membership and the families in the pack, and the resulting fact that at any given time, several members of the PTO board have sons in the pack. The pack leadership is essentially self-selected; the PTO president (who may also be a Scouter or parent of a Cub Scout) simply signs off. This is probably not an optimal CO-unit arrangement either, but it "works" because it gives the pack a place to meet.

What specifically did you find launch-provoking? It looks like he danced around most of the controversial issues, and to the extent he discussed anything controversial at all, he supported the existing BSA policies. I didn't see anything surprising.

vol_scouter said: >However, because of a law designed to make >sure that the poor can sue the government, >they will be paid irregardless of winning or >losing if they represent the 'right' people. >Thus, they have no risk in suing the BSA. That is incorrect. The statute in question (Title 42, section 1988, United States Code) provides for an award of attorneys fees only to a "prevailing" (i.e. winning) party. If an ACLU attorney (or any other attorney) sues the government (or other government-related defendant) and loses (after all appeals), there is no right to attorney's fees from the defendant. Collecting attorney's fees under this statute from the BSA would be difficult anyway, because the BSA is not the government, but that's a different subject. You don't collect from anybody if you lose.

On Wikipedia, where I have been (on and off) spending some of the time I used to spend here, there is a rule against one administrator (comparable to moderators on here, and there are well over 1,000 of them) undoing the actions of another, with some exceptions. On there it is called "wheel warring", on the analogy of one admin steering the boat in one direction, another admin grabbing the "wheel" and steering off in a different direction, the first one grabbing it back, and so on. "Warring" over the "wheel", in other words. Of course, the scale and complexity of Wikipedia make it much more of a problem than it is here, but from what I have seen of these discussions (while in "lurk mode" for the past few weeks) I think I agree with Packsaddle. A few of the things that have happened here do seem unnecessarily disruptive and/or confusing (to the "mere" participants), and could be remedied by better communication and cooperation among the moderators.

Scoutldr says: That's a flaw in our justice system, IMHO. Once someone sues, the court case should run its course, and the loser should pay all costs. Are you saying there should be no settlements allowed in civil lawsuits? Are you prepared to pay the additional federal, state, county etc. taxes necessarily to multiply by perhaps 10 (or more) the number of judges, courtrooms, other court personnel and other court infrastructure that are currently devoted to civil cases, so that all those cases can actually be tried? If this was done without such a massive increase in facilities and personnel, the whole system would come grinding to a complete halt. It can take a couple of years to get to trial now; would you like to have to wait 15 years for your case to be tried?

The comment about the rock in Japan is very similar to a comment made some months (or years?) back by (I believe) the ubiquitous Greg Shields, official BSA national spokesman. It was in an article (which I read in this forum, so it or a link to it is probably hanging in the lower reaches of the forum, or in the archives) about a case in which the BSA terminated the membership of an atheist Scout, and/or denied him Eagle, I forget which. The name of the Scout was bandied all over this forum at the time and I think there were multiple threads about him, but I forget the name. Anyway, Mr. Shields (or whoever) stated that this young man was being given a chance to remain a Scout, all he had to do was acknowledge a belief in some higher power, any higher power, doesn't have to be a recognized deity, and there was a quote very close to "it could be a rock in his backyard." So, despite the belief of some in this forum that the Declaration of Religious Principles requires a belief in a "personal God" or a God that takes an active role in the affairs of mankind (and woe to me peronally if the BSA required that), in practice the BSA national leadership, and now specifically the new BSA president, have made it clear that the BSA does not require that. Only the fulfillment of a duty to an uncapitalized "supreme being of some sort" is required -- and of course the nature of that "supreme being of some sort" will determine what the nature of the duty is -- whether that be prayer, acceptance of a particular religion, simply treating that being's handiwork (i.e. "Creation") with respect, or whatever. It's the most inclusive policy that the BSA could possibly have, without including those who disbelieve in the existence of any higher power. (And by the way that can also include at least some "agnostics", regardless of what the BSA-Legal site says.

The comment about the rock in Japan is very similar to a comment made some months (or years?) back by (I believe) the ubiquitous Greg Shields, official BSA national spokesman. It was in an article (which I read in this forum, so it or a link to it is probably hanging in the lower reaches of the forum, or in the archives) about a case in which the BSA terminated the membership of an atheist Scout, and/or denied him Eagle, I forget which. The name of the Scout was bandied all over this forum at the time and I think there were multiple threads about him, but I forget the name. Anyway, Mr. Shields (or whoever) stated that this young man was being given a chance to remain a Scout, all he had to do was acknowledge a belief in some higher power, any higher power, doesn't have to be a recognized deity, and there was a quote very close to "it could be a rock in his backyard." So, despite the belief of some in this forum that the Declaration of Religious Principles requires a belief in a "personal God" or a God that takes an active role in the affairs of mankind (and woe to me peronally if the BSA required that), in practice the BSA national leadership, and now specifically the new BSA president, have made it clear that the BSA does not require that. Only the fulfillment of a duty to an uncapitalized "supreme being of some sort" is required -- and of course the nature of that "supreme being of some sort" will determine what the nature of the duty is -- whether that be prayer, acceptance of a particular religion, simply treating that being's handiwork (i.e. "Creation") with respect, or whatever. It's the most inclusive policy that the BSA could possibly have, without including those who disbelieve in the existence of any higher power. (And by the way that can also include at least some "agnostics", regardless of what the BSA-Legal site says.

I haven't seen any "gay ads." I am not even sure what a "gay ad" is. Unless you mean that one on this page about the leathercraft supplies. (It's a joke, it's a joke.)

SaintCad, that sounds logical, but here is what the G2SS says about lightning: Beware of Lightning The summits of mountains, crests of ridges, slopes above timberline, and large meadows are extremely hazardous places to be during lightning storms. If you are caught in such an exposed place, quickly descend to a lower elevation, away from the direction of the approaching storm, and squat down, keeping your head low. A dense forest located in a depression provides the best protection. Avoid taking shelter under isolated trees or trees much taller than adjacent trees. Stay away from water, metal objects, and other substances that will conduct electricity long distances. By squatting with your feet close together, you have minimal contact with the ground, thus reducing danger from ground currents. If the threat of lightning strikes is great, your group should not huddle together but spread out at least 15 feet apart. If one member of your group is jolted, the rest of you can tend to him. Whenever lightning is nearby, take off backpacks with either external or internal metal frames. In tents, stay at least a few inches from metal tent poles. Lightning Safety Rules * Stay away from open doors and windows, fireplaces, radiators, stoves, metal pipes, sinks, and plug-in electrical appliances. * Don't use hair dryers, electric toothbrushes, or electric razors. * Don't use the telephone; lightning may strike telephone wires outside. * Don't take laundry off the clothesline. * Don't work on fences, telephone lines, power lines, pipelines, or structural steel fabrications. * Don't handle flammable materials in open containers. * Don't use metal objects, such as fishing rods and golf clubs. Golfers wearing cleated shoes are particularly good lightning rods. * Stop tractor work, especially when the tractor is pulling metal equipment, and dismount. Tractors and other implements in metallic contact with the ground are often struck by lightning. * Get out of the water and off small boats. * Stay in the car if you are traveling. Automobiles offer excellent lightning protection. * When no shelter is available, avoid the highest object in the area. If only isolated trees are nearby, the best protection is to crouch in the open, keeping twice as far away from isolated trees as the trees are high. * Avoid hilltops, open spaces, wire fences, metal clotheslines, exposed sheds, and any electrically conducted elevated objects. In light of what you are saying, is the G2SS really adequate in this area?

Just to complete that thought, and again this does not make this any less of a tragedy, it may well be that this was nobody's fault. The boy could have been crouching in a depression in a field away from any trees, as the G2SS advises, the lightning struck the ground near him, he gets knocked into another boy, and the whole shock (not in the electrical sense) just adds up to enough to stop his heart and by the time anyone figures it out, it's too late. It does happen, fortunately not very often.

Thanks OGE. I am not an expert on lightning nor on the human heart, but this seems odd to me. I do not want to seem like I am minimizing the accidental death of a 16 year old boy which is a tragedy regardless of why it occurs. I guess I am also violating my own rule about speculating about stories posted on the forums and adding facts and then commenting on them. It is just that I have to wonder if this boy perhaps had some undiagnosed heart condition which, when combined with the lightning striking near him, caused his heart to malfunction. I just don't know, maybe I'm wrong.

I wrote: I just read the G2SS on this subject and it does not say anything about sitting under a tarp or in a tent held up by metal poles. I meant: I just read the G2SS on this subject and it does not say you should not sit under a tarp or in a tent held up by metal poles. The version I wrote earlier (in italics above), if taken literally, would be contradicted by my next sentence, which discusses the provision in the G2SS about what to do if you are sitting in a tent (Stay away from metal poles.)

Does anyone have a link to an article that describes this incident in a little more detail? This article says the boy was sitting at a picnic table under a tarp held up by a metal pole. Was he leaning against one of the poles? Was the picnic table metal, and in contact with the metal pole? If not, exactly how did he get electrocuted? I just read the G2SS on this subject and it does not say anything about sitting under a tarp or in a tent held up by metal poles. To the contrary, it says "In tents, stay at least a few inches from metal tent poles." Which implies that if a tent is the best you can do while a lightning storm is around, ok, just stay a FEW INCHES from the poles. (This assumes that the tent is away from trees that could fall on the tent, which is a different issue dealt with in the G2SS.) If this statement in the G2SS is good advice, then it would seem there was probably more going on than was in this story. I say all this as someone who was a leader on a camping trip this weekend during which there was lightning in the distance, but it was raining where we were and I have no doubt that we were at risk for lightning. During most of that time we were all under a carport held up by metal poles, many of us sitting in chairs with metal frames, and others sitting at a wooden picnic table.

First of all, welcome to the forums! As to your question, my experience in this forum suggests that you will receive a variety of responses giving different opinions as to who owns what, who has the right to what, what usual troop policies are, what troop policies should be, maybe some people arguing that there shouldn't be troop policies or by-laws, all you need is the Scout Oath and Law etc etc etc. My advice for you (or more specifically, for the parents who believe that money is being held by the old troop that should be used on behalf of their sons) is to run, don't walk to the phone and call your District Executive, explain the problem and ask for assistance. My primary concern would not be what the applicable BSA policy is, if there is one. If your DE tells you he/she can't help you because of a BSA policy, ask to see the policy in writing. My hope would be that unless the rule is crystal clear against you, a DE's primary concern would be making sure there is a fair distribution of the funds so he/she does not have a bunch of disgruntled parents on his/her hands, and possibly a failed new troop over a financial dispute.

Wait, I thought the BSA was doing just great despite the gay policy and the Dale decision. Isn't that what I keep reading in this forum? What's this guy talking about? Most of the article is nonsense. I am not sure what he means by churches being penalized for "opposing" gay marriage. Does that mean refusing to perform gay marriages? Churches are obviously free to decide who to "marry" and who not to. I don't think my Catholic wife and my Jewish self would have gotten a warm reception if we had wanted to be married in most Protestant churches, and we wouldn't have expected to. You don't even need a church (or any other religious institution) to get married. So I don't know what the author is talking about. I will say, I don't believe for a minute that Arlen Specter thinks that the Constitution should be amended to prohibit gay marriage. This is all a political thing. I don't know why anybody cares who else is getting married to who anyway. It doesn't affect my marriage.

Regardless of what it says on the "BSA Legal" web site, I think it is safe to say that there is no definitive answer as to whether the BSA actually bans agnostics. While the current BSA policy seems to be to "require" a belief in a "higher power," the exact parameters of the required "belief" are a bit fuzzy. It is fairly clear that if a Scout dutifully recites the Scout Oath and Law when expected to do so, an issue will rarely arise. (Most, but not all, of the actual cases of youth members being terminated from membership (or denied advancement) for failure to believe in God have resulted from the youth's refusal (initiated either by themselves or their parents) to recite the required Oath, Promise, Law, etc., followed by questioning as to the youth's beliefs.) Other than that, if a Scout is asked "Do you believe in God?" (which I suppose could happen in some units, though not mine), it is anybody's guess as to what the reaction might be to the various possible answers that fall within at least some definitions of agnosticism, such as: "I don't know." (I suspect that if this came up at an Eagle BOR, this answer might present a problem in some councils, and the Scout would probably, shall we say, be "given an opportunity to expand on his answer.) "Yes but sometimes I wonder." (Probably ok.) "I think so, but I'm not sure." (I'm, um, not sure.)

Just to add something to what I wrote above: This person is quoted as saying our "freedoms" are "under seige" and that we are at "war," but the ONLY examples he gives involve, in one way or another, government-sponsored religious exercises. Now, I personally do not care whether the Pledge of Allegiance includes "under God" or not. Yes, it is at least formally a religious statement, but it has been so drained of religious meaning that I don't think it really hurts anybody. (Or helps anybody. Ironically, that is the only basis on which the Supreme Court would allow it to remain, if the reference to "God" has become so routine and meaningless that it has lost all religious significance.) As far as removing prayer from the Armed Forces, I don't know anything about that. Any of our military people here, is there really an effort being made to stop military people from praying? I tend to doubt that's the case. I know some people got upset in the past because the military accommodated a very WIDE range of religious observance, including Wicca, but that's hardly the same things are "removing prayer." (Actually it's the opposite.) So what are these freedoms that are under siege? If you want to talk about freedoms being threatened, we can have a discussion about domestic spying, "data mining" in telephone records, and things like that, but I don't think that's what this general is referring to.

So this former AF general thinks there is a war going on "at home." It is not the first time I have heard that, back in 1992 Patrick Buchanan talked about the "culture war." But I think we all need to think about this. If there is a war going on, which side are we on, and what are we fighting over? And what do we mean by "war," and what tactics are permitted in this "war"? To illustrate what I mean, this person uses as one of his examples, the issue of school prayer. I happen to believe that the Constitution forbids organized prayer in public schools, and that even if it didn't, public schools are no place for organized prayer. There are others, including in this forum, who disagree. That's ok, I don't want to get into yet another debate over it, we can all agree to disagree as long as we all follow the law. But this retired general says we are at "war" over this issue. Are other members of this forum really at "war" with me? Can't we just discuss and debate issues without being at "war"?

Bobanon says: Like I said the BSA needs to catch up with the times and die out. I hope you meant "or," not "and."

OGE says: use of the term "religious reich" is inflammatory and should not be used again unless the poster has conclusive proof the people being chacterized as such have concentration camps and are systematically murdering millions of people. As someone whose grandparents all lost family members -- and in some cases almost their entire family -- in the Holocaust, I agree with OGE. The analogy is thrown around way too much. Some of the situations we discuss on here are bad enough without adding references to something for which there is no comparison. It just distracts from what is being discussed.