packsaddle

This is a fundamental 'truth' with respect to weak leadership and it applies to administrative systems throughout the private and public sectors. They don't value volunteers (or respect them) because they don't PAY volunteers. They measure their own success and importance in terms of their salaries so they apply that approach to other people as well and...because you don't cost anything (in fact you pay them to some extent), you have little value on their 'value' scale and they take you for granted. In short, it's because we allow them to.

Yep, in fact there's an academic discussion that continues forever with regard to the idea that college students 'know' what they want to do with their lives. I am reminded (and MattR will appreciate this) of the old Woody Allen joke, "Wanna make God laugh? Tell him about your plans."

What NJ said.

Tech2, welcome to the forums and thanks for the update. I agree with RS about the 'no excuses'. They were stolen by amateurs, for goodness sake. Even back in the 1960s when I was a boy, the rifles were stored in a real safe and the bolts were all removed and locked in a separate safe in another location. I'm sorry for that ranger but guns are a really sensitive item. The person returning them without securing them should be responsible for their replacement.

Where was the so-called 'tolerance' when my Jewish friends were ostracized by the community because they objected to their children being forced to pray to Jesus every day at school? Oops, my bad. My Jewish friends were supposed to tolerate that. Sorry, I didn't understand.

Rick, In the first clause, the first six words are, "The Boy Scouts of America maintains..." It is an opinion. Not a mandate. Not a 'law'. There is a well-known 'law' already and the Scout Law doesn't have the word 'maintain' in it. One of the points has to do with reverence. It does not state reverence to what. The further internal inconsistency of the DRP further weakens its status of authority. The fact that each of us can read that thing and come to different honest conclusions is a testimonial to its weakness and lack of clarity. There are only two ways to go with this scout, eit

Well that's sure one option. I wish the SM the best of success if he takes that option. I'm fairly certain that those boys would not be the first felons with the rank of Eagle. They'll eventually get what's coming if they continue on that path.

Take their word. They will live with their honesty or their lies for the rest of their lives. You're not in the enforcement business. If they have evidence of having completed the requirements, tell you they've learned their lesson, and pass the BOR, that will be that. You really don't have many options, maybe none.

LOL, anyone who grew up on a farm will not wonder. They'll understand completely.

Or as my grandmother used to say, "The more you stir a turd, the more it stinks." She was one HELL of a lady!

First I'd like to welcome Pointingtheway to the forums, though under sad and regrettable circumstances. Hopefully you'll stick around to experience something more positive. I think that I agree with KenDavis's question about what they learned from the experience. If some of them (adults and boys) are indeed flippant about it they may not have learned much and for those individuals, there is nothing shameful about leaving scouts with the rank of Life (especially compared to the shame of the crimes they're guilty of). For the boy and parents who may have taken this to heart, in our area the

And thus did BSA wimp out on the religious requirement by ducking and dodging all manner of various faiths. All one needs to do is say they believe in 'something' and by the powers vested in BSA you have laid your hands on the TV and been HEALED! This kind of nonsense clearly 'outs' the religious requirement for the farce that it has turned out to be...and here's the irony: at the hands of BSA itself. Wow.

Fred, that's why I referred to pushing the limit. This is an example of reductio ad absurdum. Does the concept hold up when pushed to an extreme (FSM)? If not (as you seem to think) then what consistent standard does everyone use to identify the 'line' that can't be crossed? During the Q&A regarding the religious requirement, the BSA representative did not reject the worship of a rock, implying that rocks can be considered gods as far as the DRP is concerned. So somewhere between a rock and a piece of pasta must be a limit that we must identify.

I have no idea who originated the 'higher power' words but they seem to be used synonymously with the concept of gods or a supernatural god of some sort...and they apparently have been embraced widely enough to placate the absolutists - or at least to keep them relatively quiet. When I first heard 'higher power' used it seemed to be used as a way to softly deflect what seemed to be an absolute and inflexible requirement for the Abrahamic supernatural 'God' that is clearly specified in the law and DRP....or at least is viewed that way by absolutists. The better question, if you want to push t

"Bootlegger's wife"???? What a delightful euphemism! H'mmmm....are you from North Wilkesboro? Seriously, I would argue that the entire BSA movement is mostly carried by volunteers. It's a beautifully-crafted business model. Edit: I also want to thank you so much for getting that Flavoraid thing right. Bravo!

This kind of problem is one that is an almost inevitable consequence of one person attempting to judge another's thoughts. I agree with SP's response that he would avoid that line of questioning. If the scout has signed the form and at the EBOR, if he has the required signatures on the application, that should be sufficient. Years ago there was a forum member (Buddhist) who openly stated that he was an atheist. As I remember, some of the forum members questioned how he reconciled his non-belief with the DRP and he answered that he maintained reverence for the higher power of reason. I th

Lack of detail on paperwork is not THE problem. It is a problem but not the one discussed here. Perhaps the MB program you describe exists somewhere. I haven't seen it outside the programs in which the boys are DOING something...like canoeing, swimming, etc. If those teenaged peers (just sit here long enough and I'll sign the forms, wink, wink) on camp staff actually did a 'good' job at MB counseling, I would be 'good' with it. ''Good' would be a 'great' improvement over what I've seen. But having looked closely at the way those MBs are 'passed' over the years, and considering the sloth I ob

My solution: Eliminate the 'classroom' MB programs from summer camp. This includes anything where boys sit slouched in chairs and listen to the MBC. Let ALL of those MBs be covered by MBCs in the correct way, outside of summer camp and outside of troop meetings....with the boys pursuing them on their own. Retain the MB program which requires the boys to move, learn, and think on their feet: Waterfront stuff, pioneering stuff, first aid can be done this way. And if the summer camp can't figure out how to keep the boys active with MBs, then do it with other activities. Summer camp is not a pla

The answer to the fundamental question lies in the quick attempt those persons made to conceal their activity. They were wrong. And they knew it. If there had been some kind of incident that eventually led to a legal inquiry...what would have been the answer if a prosecutor or a policeman asked if alcohol had been present? This seems clearcut to me. I would have changed course and asked directly if they in the possession of alcoholic beverages. If the answer was 'yes' I would have advised them of the policy and that the policy demands that they remove it from the event. If they did have al

Thinking about the comment by Duct Tape, if some kind of worship service is planned and several scouts declare that they will sit it out back at camp. What then? (this really happens) The risk is that if this is allowed, a bunch of others may decide to take that option as well.

Qwazse, seems like someone just about HAS to compromise, if not everyone. Do you have a way to get around this problem? How do you avoid favoring one over another? Edit: SSScout, please contact Scouter Terry directly with your request for a new forum. A moderator can't create one (or a subforum for that matter as far as I can tell) and unless Terry just happens to read your response, he'll miss it. The better way is to make a direct request.

I think that for the most part, it has always been a relatively small number of people who keep things lively here. But since the unfortunate rollout of the new forum platform there might be even fewer of them and I do note the absence of a number of regulars since that rollout. And I miss them.

The vast majority of any 'credit' for being scoutlike goes to the membership themselves. I have often thought about how well these forums keep themselves under control. 'Moderation' is actually a pretty uneventful task...the members of these forums make it easy.

Just noticed this article: http://www.gazettextra.com/20141218/first_amendment_sure_you_can_say_that8212but_please_don8217t And I thought that at the end of 2014 and near the beginning of the new year, it would be a nice thing to note that in spite of what was said in the article about so much negativity as discussed in the article, THESE FORUMS stand as an outstanding exception. I think Scouter.com also stands as an outstanding example of a group of people even from international sources who, with the foundation maintained by Scouter Terry, basically run things ourselves, mostly with g

Yah think that a better time to make that announcement might have been some day other than Christmas? I wish you the best for the season and the New Year.