NJCubScouter

lesliec says: But, there's not anything that I can pull from the Internet to have in black/white for tonight? You still haven't really said on what subject you are seeking information. The Youth Protection Guidelines are a document that might be of use to you but I do not know if it is anywhere online as a standalone document. It really is intended to be handed out at Youth Protection Training as a reinforcement for the video and discussions during the training course. You might, however, start at this page: http://www.scouting.org/media/ypt/ypt-online.jsp It is part of the BSA National web site. In turn it points you to the web sites of councils that offer Youth Protection training online. The actual guidelines may (or may not) be at those sites. Perhaps your council is on the list. Be aware however, that in at least some councils that do offer YP training online (including mine) a leader is NOT considered YP trained until he/she has taken the course in person, and then the online course can be taken every 3 years to "renew" your trained status. By the way lesliec, you say you are "new," have YOU had YP training. And by the way, since this doesn't happen every day, let me say that I agree with BobWhite's statement, "I think trying to make a Boy Scout into an adult leader overnight is a bad idea." I have been quietly advocating that thought in my son's troop but it doesn't seem to go over very well. The minute a boy turns 18 the SM and CC are shoving leader applications and ASM patches at him and telling the boys (including the ones he shared a tent with last week) that they have to call him "Mr." Whatever. I think the reason is that nobody wants to "lose" the boy and the feeling is that if he "graduates" from the troop and cannot participate until he is "ready," he will never come back. I know some people think that an 18-year-old can remain a "youth member" (but not for advancement purposes) until recharter, but that idea does not prevail in my troop, or from what I understand in my council either. And even if that were the case, it wouldn't solve the problem of the boy who turns 18 three days before the recharter date, which was the case with the last such young man in my troop. (I can call it "my troop" because I am just a committee member, nobody is going to think that I think I own it. It owns me.)

lesliec, maybe I am missing something, but I am not sure what you are talking about. I take it this person, who just earned his Eagle, also is turning 18 or has just turned 18 (which he'd have to be to become as ASM.) What is he doing that is causing you concern? When you say, "He obviously doesn't understand the ramifications of him being classified as an adult now instead of 'just another scout', I could guess at what the problem might be, but of course I could guess wrong. But in general I can tell you that when a boy turns 18 and signs the application to be an ASM, my son's troop has started the practice of taking the young man aside, one-on-one (but still in plain view, to cover all the bases) and very briefly explaining the basic facts of Youth Protection to carry him through until he actually goes for training. We don't look at it as "clipping his wings," though I am guessing that there has been some behavior problem with this young man that you think requires that his wings be clipped. Oops, there I go guessing, I said I wouldn't do that. So, what's the story?

I have never heard of a State Badge. I am guessing that there is not one for New Jersey, even if my son's pack and troop were not aware of it, one would figure I would have seen one at a Cub camping trip, roundtable, Klondike, camporee, training or SOMEWHERE, but I never have.

Fuzzy Bear, I am not "offended"; after some of the things I have seen in this forum, it would take a lot more than this to offend me. However, I do not think you are being particularly "fair" with the other members of the forum. You have made a statement that seems highly doubtful to many people, including me, but you ignore requests to provide the piece of information that would allow other people to "test" the validity of the statement. Your statement, in effect, is that there is a "faith" (you do not say "religion," a fact that may or may not be significant) in which a state of "temporary atheism" in its members is not only accepted but apparently expected, and you further state (in effect) that this acceptance allows a youth to be a member of, and advance in, the BSA despite the BSA's requirement of a belief in a higher power. I hope I have paraphrased your statements correctly. Unlike BobWhite, I do not know for certain whether your statement (the part involving the BSA) is correct or not. And without the name of the religion, there is no way that I or anyone else can find out.

We found that the young man was perfectly within his religious rights to deny God because it was accepted as a way to grow within his faith. It was a way to express questions and seek answers about God. He was considered to forever be one his fellowship no matter where his thoughts led him. His faith is an old faith, one that takes God quite seriously but also knows the character of youth and gives leeway to their desires to find truth, ask the big questions, expose hypocrisy, and eventually return home.... Rather than play guessing games, I'll just ask directly: What faith is it, FuzzyBear?

I never responded to Hunt's original question, so I am doing so now, sort of. I find it an interesting question in light of the fact that my father, who has been a Scouter since the 1940's, was also a subscriber to Playboy. Whether he still is, I do not know. I do know that he was a subscriber while he was a Cubmaster, Scoutmaster, Troop CC, District Activities Chair, etc. I would also say that my father was (and is) as "morally straight" as anyone I have ever known, both while other people were watching and when they weren't. So I guess my answer would have to be, the magazine doesn't necessarily mean anything. This also raises another question in my mind: If Hunt's question had been asked 20 years ago, would the percentage of people who think the subscription is a problem be less than, equal to or greater than it would be today. I think it would be substantially less.

OK, I found a web page that has almost everything you might ever want to know about Skill Awards; well, except for the answer to Torveaux's actual question, which is why they were eliminated. http://www.sageventure.com/history/changes/#skill But at least it says WHEN they were eliminated, 1989. I assume there was a new edition of the Scout Handbook that year, although I was not in Scouting at the time.

In the "new" Scouting program introduced in 1972/73, the requirements for Second Class and First Class were reorganized into "Skill Awards." You needed to earn a certain number of skill awards, and (I think) certain specific skill awards for each rank (now including Tenderfoot because the Scout rank, oops, badge was introduced at the same time to signify that you met the joining requirements.) (I never earned a Skill Award; when they were introduced I was already First Class.) The result of the skill awards was that, for example, instead of Tenderfoot-level First Aid requirements, Second Class-level First Aid requirements, etc., you did all of the First Aid requirements for the First Aid skill awards and used that toward earning a particular rank. When you finished the requirements for the Skill Award, you got a belt loop. I think the idea behind them was to give a Scout some instant recognition and to simplify the requirements, very similar to Webelos activity badges. And that is basically how I feel about them: They were much more suitable for the Webelos program than the Boy Scout program. The idea of progressively more difficult requirements in each of the first three ranks makes a lot more sense to me. Evidently the BSA agreed because they went back to the old style of advancement requirements.

Eamonn writes: At present to be a Scouter in the BSA you have to believe in God and not be an avowed homosexual. If you don't meet these requirements you can't be a Scouter and really have no business here. and But if you don't meet the requirements to join or remain in the BSA, please do me a big favor and leave. Eamonn, I am wondering who it is you think you are asking to leave the forums. I can only think of one current poster who says he does not believe in any higher power, and that is Merlyn. Tjhammer has told us that he is a Scouter who is gay, but that he is not "avowedly" gay in "real life" (where his name is not, presumably, T.J. Hammer or anything close to it.) There has been some disagreement about whether Tj meets the membership requirements, but I think most people have been willing to accept his statement that he does. So that still leaves just Merlyn. Is this whole thread about Merlyn? If so, by my rough guesstimate it would be about the 50th time Merlyn has been asked by someone to stop posting, something he seems to show no interest in doing. In fact he would probably be more likely to eventually stop posting if people stopped asking him to. Plus, if you were just talking about Merlyn, you could have saved a lot of typing. Or is this about something more?

Fuzzy Bear says: Those that have no religion or God would find this type of policy empty and contrary to their own belief because the policy is founded on a faith in a God and the use of an organization/Church to express that faith. The BSA policy is based on one bringing ones personal God to the BSA but watering it down so as to be able to be with others that may have a totally different concept of God but then the policy wants each one to return home to practice their own faith. A person that does not have a God might have any organization to express their personal beliefs and would find all of the watered down talk about God as disrespectful. It would be disrespectful and that is the reason why an agnostic or atheist would not be a good fit for the BSA policy. I personally don't understand what this means but if it is intended to mean that a person must be part of a "religious organization" to be a member of the BSA, that is not the case. A person can be part of no religion at all, and believe in a deity all on his own, and still be "reverent" and do his "duty to God."

Bob says: It is estimated the Sun will become a Red Giant and consume the Earth in about...well...about the time the BSA changes it's values as described by Semper. Semper didn't ask how likely it was, he asked what the reader would do if it happened. Evidently Bob chooses not to participate in this hypothetical exercise. I have opined in the past on what I thought Bob would do if the BSA changed to local option on gays (not atheists), and he got all upset at me, so I won't do it again. I wouldn't want to get Bob upset. Of course, all this is leaving aside the fact that the BSA policy on gays has nothing to do with the BSA's "values", but I think I have discussed that a few times (a few dozen times?) before.

I don't think the issue of abuse is relevant to Semper's question. The question really is about people who are "avowed" whatevers because that is what the BSA's policy is about. As we know from many of the articles that are posted in this forum, a person who uses his position as a Scout leader to abuse children is usually not "avowed" as anything but a good husband, good father, quiet neighbor, wonderful Scout leader and pillar of the community -- and is known to be such things by everybody around, until he is carted away in handcuffs.

I know this probably will not be a huge shock to anyone, but I would continue in Scouting. Semper, can we assume that a CO would still be permitted to exercise control over who its leaders are, as they do now? In other words, just as a CO can decide now not to have leaders who are female, non-members of their own particular religion, or any one of a number of other factors, they could still decide not to have leaders who are gay or atheists, right? I would not want the BSA to tell CO's that are Catholic or LDS churches, or other kinds of churches or organizations, that they HAD to permit openly gay or atheist leaders -- just as I do not like the BSA's current policy of telling CO's that are Unitarian, Reform Jewish, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, etc. that they CANNOT have gay leaders.

Ed, I can only conclude that the language I am typing in is not the language you are reading in, and since I don't know how to fix that, there really is no point in responding.

Ed says: So to be a member of any organization that receives public funding you are saying that if the membership requirements are different than those for being an American, they are wrong? No, I am not saying that. I'm saying what I said. Ed, go back and look at the portion of Fuzzy Bear's post that I quoted, and why I disagreed with it, and I think you will agree with me. Hunt says: On the other hand, I'd be interested in reading Proud Eagle and NJCubScouter hash out whether the Jamboree benefits the government enough to avoid Establishment Clause problems. Well, thanks, and I might be interested in reading it too, but it isn't going to happen, at least not from my end. Based on the never-ending circular discussions in all threads dealing with the Establishment Clause in this forum (incluing this thread and the "ACLU Cashing In" thread), I have decided that until further notice, I am not going to discuss the Establishment Clause or cases relating to it, including BSA-related cases, for awhile. It is just the same thing over and over, and some people will not accept the basic facts and I get tired of stating them. It's like beating my head against a wall, and maybe it will feel better if I stop. For some reason I do not feel this way about the "gay issue," maybe because it seems to fade away on its own from time to time in this forum, but the religion issue never does. (Hunt, this decision was not directed at you. I finalized it while I was reading the other thread but hadn't decided where to post it yet. The last straw, or at least next-to-last straw, was probably Ed's statement, in this thread, that the BSA doesn't discriminate against atheists.)

OGE says: I heard the Jewish and Muslim worlds were praying for him, why not honor him with a real peace? Since you said you were upset, I will choose not to be offended by your comment. I will just point out that the nation of Israel is one part of the "Jewish world" and its policies do not speak for the "Jewish world." Having said that, I happen to be one of those people who think that Israel has done everything it reasonably can to bring about peace while protecting its own security. I therefore think that Israel does not bear responsibility for the violence that is occurring. And, as a result, I do not believe it is within Israel's power to bring about a "real peace." I suspect there are people who disagree with me, perhaps including yourself, which is fine. But I do not think it has to do anything with the Pope. I can think that this Pope was a great man (which I do) without it having to do anything with Israel's defense policies.

Ed, actually it was "1b" that said "God," not "2." I used "God" in connection with both the USA and BSA because Fuzzy Bear did, and it was his statement I was responding to. I suspect I could go back and find dozens of posts in which you use the word "God" in connection with the BSA. But if you want to change "God" to higher power, supreme being, god or gods, whatever you want, it doesn't matter. The point is still the same. You do not have to believe in any God, god, higher power, supreme being or anything in order to be a U.S. citizen and enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Last time I checked that was not true of membership in the BSA.

Fuzzy Bear says: Since the government and the BSA agree about their policies regarding God, look in your wallet, listen to Congress open their sessions; When you get done looking at your money and listening to Congress, you might try answering the following questions: 1a. Can you be a citizen of the United States and not believe in God? 1b. Can you be a member of the BSA and not believe in God? 2a. In order to hold public office in the United States, are you required to pass any religious requirements or agree to any religious principles? 2b. In order to hold a leadership position in the BSA, are you required to agree to any religious principles? 2c. Are there any advancement requirements for youth in the BSA that are religious in nature? If anyone answers anything other than 1. yes and no, 2. no and yes/yes, to these questions, then they have some reading to do. And if these are the answers, then it seems to me that the government and the BSA have very different policies regarding religion.

Oh no, not again. Haven't I dealt with this before in this forum? The important fact that is missing from the article Eamonn quoted (since I think Eamonn's heart is always in the right place, I will pretend that he did mention that this was an article written by someone else), is that a plaintiff in a "civil rights" case is entitled to legal fees only if he/she wins the case. The real issue that the writer of this article has is that he does not like the judicial decisions that are being made on the cases themselves. (ProudEagle at least acknowledges that the issue is with the judiciary, though I of course believe that many (not all) of the judicial decisions in question are correct, but that would be another thread.) But I guess it must get tiresome to attack the judiciary all the time, so let's pick on the ACLU, right? Yes, the ACLU is a large organization, but as I have pointed out before, there are "legal advocacy" organizations on all sides of the political and ideological spectrum. Some taxpayers do, indirectly, help fund it. These would be taxpayers of government entities (including the U.S.) who, in particular cases, are found to have violated someone's constitutional rights (called, in the statute, "civil rights," which I am sure confuses some people, it confused me at first.) So in other words, if you do not want your government to have to pay legal fees to successful plaintiffs in civil/constitutional rights cases, then you need to prevail upon your government not to violate peoples' rights. (Or, appoint only judges who will allow peoples' constitutional rights to be violated, which seems to be the political trend these days, but I prefer my way.)

Eisely, I think that "trying to enforce the bill of rights" is exactly what the ACLU is trying to do, and all they are trying to do. What I think "has been revealed" is the fact that a lot of people want the BSA to be exempted from the legal consequences of its own policies. Having said that, I have no opinion at this point as to whether the military's participation in the Jamboree is constitutional or not. Personally I do not think that the amount of participation by Scouts or former Scouts in the military answers the question. I have trouble with the whole argument (made in this forum about the San Diego case and also in this thread) that if the government gets enough "back" from the Boy Scouts, that changes the constitutional consequences of governmental involvment with an organization that discriminates on the basis of religious belief. On the other hand, the degree of government involvement with the BSA as an organization seems to be "less" in the case of the Jamboree than in the cases of the government being a CO or giving a preferential lease of government land to a council. In the end, that is what I think will determine the issue: Whether the government's actions can be seen as an endorsement of the BSA's policies. This is far from certain because the Supreme Court has never clearly, by a majority vote, stated exactly what the "test" is. (Merlyn, would you disagree with that?)

(The former treasures is not available for assistance . . .) How many years did he get? Just kidding (hopefully.)

Scoutndad says: The horse aint gettin any deader by beatin it... Heh heh, keep hanging around this forum and you will learn that no horse is ever too dead. As the full thread of comments and opinion shows, it is absolutely a lenient process where the interview is not an interrogation. I think you have shown in many of your comments in this thread that you are going into this with a good sense of fairness, and that your intention is to see whether the young man meets the requirements, no more and no less. I know you will give him the benefit of the doubt... though perhaps "doubt" is a poor choice of words here. Maybe there could be a discussion in "Issues and Politics" about whether someone can do their "Duty to God" as defined by the BSA while still having doubts, uncertainties, questions etc. about the existence of a higher power. Which gets us back to the subject of "agnostics," but as I say, I think that discussion probably does not belong in the "Cub Scout" topic because there is room for some fairly sharp disagreement. It is a subject I am not sure we have ever had a thread about in the three years I have been in this forum, which makes it a rare subject indeed. Your basic premise in this thread has been that you can't sign off on the requirement unless the boy talks to you about it, and that is obviously correct. Apparently now the boy's parents have recognized this, which is good news. There are strict definitions of agnostic and atheism that the BSA upholds. Where? Let's say that is true of atheism, I don't think it is true of agnosticism. Where is the strict definition of agnosticism? I had that question even before I saw Vicki's post, which pretty much demonstrates that the issue is anything but clear. Plus I am not sure that there is even an official BSA rule or policy (aside from what appears to be a "throwaway line" on bsalegal.org) that deals with a boy who is an "agnostic," much less providing a clear or strict definition. On several occasions people have posted several paragraphs from an official BSA publication (I believe it was an advancement publication) that basically says how to deal with issues of religion (or the absence thereof) in terms of advancement. I do not believe it mentions agnosticism or even atheism specifically. I believe it is stated more in terms of what the Scout DOES believe than what he does NOT believe. I don't know exactly where to find it right now. After a discussion with mom and dad last night, my interview with the boy is this Sunday. Good luck.

See, those stories dont get told. Well, SOMETIMES the good stories do get told. "...and the young man vanished into the foggy London night, without telling Mr. Boyce his name..."

Kids are funny...takes a lot to get them to look at the big picture! Ang, I think you just summarized my entire experience as a parent of 3 teenagers (current ages 22, 18 and 13) in one sentence!

Ang, The more facts I see in this boy's case, the more I think that he may qualify for the Arrow of Light after all. He turned 10 in late December or early January, and I take it he was active in the Webelos 1 den at that time. He remained active "through June" which I will take to mean until the end of June or thereabout. That adds up to 6 months or very, very close to it. Reading the requirement literally, there are 2 options, and he meets (or can in a few weeks) one of them. Whether the person who wrote the requirements intended for them to be applied this way is somewhat doubtful in my mind, but that is what they say. If he meets the requirements "just barely" while the other boys (including your son) far surpassed them, he still met the requirement. Those with perfect attendance and 20 activity badges no doubt got a lot more out of the Webelos program and in all likelihood are better prepared to be Boy Scouts, but that does not change who earned the Arrow of Light.