ParkMan

33 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

An atheist couldn't.  But he'd have the chance to see duty to God in action, to think about it, maybe even give it a try.  A dedicated atheist who knows we aren't changing anything in our program probably won't walk through that door we open.  But a less dedicated atheist might.  If he does, we don't know what will happen; but we know that one possibility, however remote, is that he'll give God a chance.  Right now we're denying him that opportunity.

When someone walks into our church on Sunday morning we don't ask if he's a believer, we say "we're glad you're here."

When a youth joins our youth group we don't ask if he's a believer, we say "thanks for joining us."

I get that we're worried about Scouts and oaths things, but isn't it really about helping youth build character?  If we can keep our existing program and open the door so that more Scouts experience our program that's got to be a good thing.

48 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Sadly, many folks miss the point of learning by doing. Difference isn't always good, and experience isn't always growth. Scouting in an environment of practicing human values for a lifetime. I'm tired of defending a 100 year old program that takes a boy in his most influential years and turns him into the best kind of man who lives the oath and law to all people, for all people. So, I'm only going to say you are flat out wrong. Just because I don't accept your way of life doesn't mean I have less respect for the Oath and Law. The scouting program diluting into an after school outdoor program will only carry the respect of such. And that is fine, the YMCA switched from a character development program into a family fitness program and it survives. But it can't be said the boys whose lives were changed forever by a program designed to develop the most caring men of the world today's family soccer players.

Barry

Gotcha.

What I think hangs up many, and to be honest myself included, is why we presume the program needs to stop being a character development program and turn into an after school outdoor program if we provide a path for youth who don't believe in God?

From replies in this topic, it seems that for many units, faith and religion is already limited to grace before meals and a handful of requirements along the way.  So, say we allow some Scouts into the program who don't believe in god.  Does that really have to mean we stop being a character development program?  

Maybe put a little different.  For some scouts we go from "develop good character because it's was God wants" to "develop good character because it's the right thing to do."  Does that really mean our program is now radically different?

I really like @HashTagScouts idea of a real, solid, challenging camping weekend leveraging Scout camping skills.  Be a real example of Scout camping at it's best.  Personally I think it would be great to do it somewhere that's not car camping.

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Yes, but I wouldn't call it a faith based organization as much as a religious values organization. Probably splitting hairs. 

Yes, we agree. In fact, I believe the same of youth who struggle with homosexuality, transgenderism, and other struggles. The issue is adults. Pragmatically, an organization should be allowed to one without the other. Realistically , that is impossible in this culture. 

 

There is extremism everywhere. We had a troop that only recruited home schooled scouts. They didn't last very long, but it's an example of adults blinded by their passion  

Barry

i think we're generally on the same page then.  I'd have no problem if a troop said we'd like our leaders to be people of faith.  

Me I'd probably go with a local option approach - allow the CO to decide if faith is required.

1 hour ago, desertrat77 said:

@ParkMan, I think what pushed a clumsy, unsure Tenderfoot Scout Desertrat to become a better leader were certain BSA-unique goals that were akin to a championship.

Being recognized as the great PL, SPL, JASM that knew how to lead scouts in the outdoors...that was the ultimate goal for me.  As a young scout, I looked up to the self-motivated, confident, skilled senior scouts and that gave me the motivation I needed to improve my outdoor and leadership skills.

As for formal leadership training, JLT and Brownsea II were offered, but not many went.  For example, our troop sent one scout per year to Brownsea.  Pretty slim cut.  I attended a 1-day "All Out For Scouting" event in '76 and the National OA Leadership course (2 days) in '78.

OA, Eagle, and camp staff selection were natural off-shoots for squared away senior scouts.  Becoming a member of these groups certainly encouraged better leadership in the outdoors.  Without that, there was no selection.

Good point.  

As a Scout, I was motivated to advance quickly also to be a leader.  I recall hitting a point about 18 months in where I was Star and needed only merit badges to advance.  Find a MBC was a royal pain and I lost interest there.  I wanted to be a leader, but got stuck with stuff like Chaplain's Aide and Quartermaster.  I had no Idea how to make that into anything fun.  Between the two of those, I got very dis-enchanted.  Leaders tried to get me to come around but I lost hope.  I ended up being a den chief for the next 18 months and pretty much never going to troop meetings.  I never advanced again.  By about 15 I was done.

I don't doubt that there's lot to motivate a Scout through First class.  But, it feels like after that it's a lot less clear what the goal is.  Yeah some kids do really well at that point - perhaps the natural leaders who love Scouting stuff.  But, for many, it's not really clear what the objective is.  I think that's why we start to see lots of hanging around at troop meetings, Scouts who don't want to lead anything, and Scouts who are not interested in the OA. 

This is the question I keep coming back to when we talk program for older Scouts.  This is where I think the OA could be an answer, but not if it's simply a service & camporee prep club with a monthly meeting.  This is where I think "let's get these guys doing something really challenging."

32 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Isn't that like saying the Christian thing to do is hire an alcoholic cigarette smoking drug dealer for a baby sitter hoping the goodness of your children will rub off on him?

I see the distinction.  You're thinking adults, I'm thinking youth.  If you view the BSA as a faith based organization, I can see why you wouldn't want an adult who does not believe in god to be a leader.  Makes sense.

I see youth members as being different.  I don't see a harm in having non-religious kids see people say grace or have a discussion on faith from time to time.  

35 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Actually, it would be like an atheist saying to a Catholic and Lutheran boy he doesn't believe there is a god.

I've run into enough devout people over the years who would look at someone of a different faith and say the same.  If you don't share "my faith" that you are not a believer.

I think in our area if the BSA were a strongly faith based group, there are lots of parents who would not send their children because they didn't want them to be proselytized to be someone of a different faith or even at all.  That it's only like 1% religious may actually be a good thing.  We say grace before meals - but that's about it.  

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

What I'm saying is "Religion is the bases for the foundation of Scout Law and Oath", not the foundation of the Oath and Law. The Oath and Law are character values that have to come from somewhere. If that source is the SM, then the Oath and Law change depending on the character of the Scoutmaster from day to day. But the sources is god, so it doesn't change from SM to SM or from unit to unit. God is a single source that never changes. Now you may disagree because there are several different religions with several different interpretations, but for each family, the holy god is personal and above all.

And what example does a godless SM set for the scouts? The values of scouting are supported by god, so how does that make sense?

Barry

I think at some levels it comes down to questions of "good and evil" or "right and wrong".  There's probably also a societal influence about what makes someone a good member of society.  Those of us with faith would probably say that questions like this, and even the evolution of society is guided by a higher power - God to be specific.   Those of us without faith would attribute notions of "good and evil" or "right and wrong" to something else.  I'm a fairly religious person and I try to be a good person because it's the right thing to do - not because it's somehow rooted in a religious direction from God.  Without having the 10 commandments, I'd like to imagine that I'd still make the same choices I do today.

A Scoutmaster without God would be fine as long as he respected the fact that some do believe and encouraged them to do so.  It's not all the different from the way we distinguish different faiths today.  I grew up Catholic.  It would be like a Lutheran Scout looking at me and saying "he doesn't see God as I do, so how can I listen to any guidance from him?"

9 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Shesh, not only are you going anyway, you opened it up to several discussions over the years. 

Let's start with this and see where it leads; God teaches Christians to love all, starting first with God. Just like the Scout Oath guides the scout to do his best and his duty to all, starting first with god. Maybe what is missing today with a lot of Christians is they aren't starting first with God. 

Barry

I'm thinking the Christian thing to do would be to encourage everyone to join (regardless of whether they believe in God or not), keep the religious requirements, and have a way for those who do not believe to complete the requirements without having to profess faith.  That way you at least expose everyone to the ideas of a life with faith and allow them to decide if they want to develop their own faith further or not. 

@desertrat77 Perhaps some of this is due to weak leadership skills.  But I think behind this is a lack of vision and purpose and perhaps challenge.

I think of other activities that youth are involved in such as sports or the arts.  In those areas, the purpose and challenge is more clear.  Win the game, win the season, win the championship.  To do that push yourself, work hard, develop more skills.  It's the promise of winning and improving that drives many youth to keep going in sports. 

It's harder to see what that purpose is in Scouting.  What drives a Scout to develop as a leader?

18 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I think you would find the programs those of us who emphasize religion more in these discussion are about the same as those who emphasize it less. But the discussion is about the premise of the scouting program. Religion is the bases for the foundation of Scout Law and Oath, which are the values for preparing young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetime. As long as the values reflect back to god, then the scout leader can refer and balance his judgement to the family. And the scout can balance Scoutmaster's judgment with his god. God is single point quality assurance.

Barry 

I 100% support keeping a faith component of the program.  As someone who volunteers in a less faith based Scouting area, let me share what I see. 

I cannot ever remember a Cubmaster or Scoutmaster tying the oath & law or a discussion on values back to god.  What I see around here is that the Oath & Law are emphasized as a set of guidelines or rules by which people of good character live their lives.

So, that clause in the Oath (Do my duty to God) is something you do because you are a person of good character and people of good character do their duty to god.  However, the clause (Do my duty to God)  does not then become the foundation upon which we guide Scouts on everything else in the oath in law.  For example - a Scout is Trustworthy because a person of good character is trustworthy - not because God tells us to be trustworthy.

I would add - this is why I think may in my area would be fine to allow those without a belief in God to join.  Of course we'd want to see prayers at meals continues.  Of course we'd want to see discussion of how faith in the ranks continue.  Of course we'd want to see Sunday services continue to be available.  But, if a Scout wants to develop as a person of strong character and can internally reconcile the fact that Duty to God doesn't apply to him or her - then why not?

13 hours ago, desertrat77 said:

Parkman, good question.  Camping was the very thing that made the OA special.  It used to be called the "National Brotherhood of Honor Campers."  Only the best scouts who excelled in the outdoors were elected.   Ordeals were tough.  Big emphasis on Native American history, heritage and respect.  Staffing camporees.  Performing the most difficult manual labor in the council. 

I can't recall when, but it was the late 80s/early 90s when it was changed to the "national honor society" of the BSA.  Among other things, the outdoor element was very much de-emphasized.  It's been a grim downward slide ever since.

Thanks @desertrat77 & @Eagle94-A1 - this helps me to understand better.

Our troop currently has some more active OA members.  I think we've got some Scouts who like Scouting, but are looking for something a little bigger than the troop experience.  They seem to like the ability to help organize the District Camporee.  Another thing I hear is that it gives them another group of older Scouts to spend time with.

Since I'm not an OA member I can't really comment on the state of the OA.  From what I see here locally some boys like being involved at that next level of Scouting - so perhaps there's a good opportunity here.  Get the OA chapters to focus around bringing together great campers and focus there.  More advanced OA trips full of older scouts.  I've got to imagine that no-one is going to stop an OA chapter from doing that.  Yeah, perhaps the books and events are all focused differently - but I've got to think you can add new elements.

Sorry if this doesn't make any sense.  I just hear the concerns and think about all the possibilities we have to do really fun things with these Scouts.  I get that if we think about it from the perspective of what we used to do, but no longer can, it's discouraging.  But, when I think about it from the perspective of all the possibilities I'm encouraged. If we really do have a society of of our strongest Scouts looking for a new purpose - what a great opportunity.

I'm not OA - so please forgive the question.

When I was a Scout, I always heard that the OA was the group of elite scouts.  Reading the comments over the past year, I hear more about ceremonies and regalia.  

I'm gathering there's more to the OA than ceremonies and council camp maintenance.  Could perhaps this be the next chapter for the OA?  Perhaps a focus around advanced camping?

I think the level of religion in Scouting across the US varies a lot.  I've lived in various different locations on the US East Coast.  In all the Scouting units I've ever participated in, religion and faith has always had a very minor component.  All of these units have been attached to a religious institution.

In my current troop we are chartered to a very strong local church in a pretty religious part of the country.  We have a very active Chartered Organization Representative who is very active in the church.  In our troop, religion is really only manifested by the occasional prayer before meals and the offering of the religious emblems program by some interested adults.  The troop has members from all kinds of faiths around town.  We don't focus on the faith component, but do let prospective members know the BSA rules on faith.  The four packs that feed our troop all appear to operate much the same way. 

We've never consciously tried to tone down faith - it's just the way it's been.  I think it reflects more about our community than our troop.  Despite being in the US southeast where religion is an important part of life, people don't really seem to bring it to Scouting.

I wonder how much of our annual fee goes to pay insurance premiums.  Is that info available anywhere?

4 hours ago, SSScout said:

Twenty three pages of angst.   What does that say about the topic and the commentators? 

I think it's an important, controversial topic affecting an organization that is beloved by people here.  That's going to bring out lots of heartfelt comments and discussion.

That's awesome your taking this one.  Being a den leader is one of the best volunteer jobs ever.

I'd go further than ask the pack committee for materials.  Your pack ought to have a membership co-ordinator.  This person should be driving a program of recruiting new members every year.  No worries if you pack doesn't have one - most don't.  However, if they don't, you ought to lean on the pack committee to help in recruiting for your den.

Things I'd do:

- publicize to the pack and any attached troops & crews that you're looking for members to grow the den.  Ask for their help in referring folks

- get fliers out to the school classes that feed your pack

- get the Cubmaster to get a recruiter program started amongst the boys.  Make a big deal when a scout recruits a friend

- ask for help from pack families to send emails to neighborhood email lists

- put up flyers in libraries, shopping centers, etc.

- work with the pack committee to get a visit the pack day schedulded.  Put the word out that you want visitors.

- reach out to your district membership chair.  See if they have any ideas on how more to recruit in your area.

Best of luck!!!!

On 12/12/2018 at 2:27 PM, rubixcube said:

Thank you everyone for the replies.  Good advice in all of the posts for me to consider.

Answers to some questions that people asked:

• The boat appears to be worth around $20,000 based on my limited online research on what similar used boats are being sold for.
• The boat’s engine simply broke down.  The mechanic who looked at it recommended replacing the entire engine (the $4,000 cost) as he said that the engine was far past its life expectancy.  It was just a coincidence that it happened to stop working on the scout trip.
• I don’t think there is any interest in selling the boat since the boat is mostly used for personal use, and they don’t want to give that up.
• The committee members know that the parents are not happy, but I honestly believe that they just don’t care.  And yes, I fully admit that having a group of highly experienced troop committee members with strong connections to council was a big reason why we chose this troop in the first place.  But they just have this smugness where they believe that they know what is best for the troop, since they have been involved in scouting for so long and continue to be involved despite their boys being long aged out of the program.

 

Hi @rubixcube,

As a former Troop Committee Chair - I'll add my .02 here.

It sounds like you've got a troop that has been run by a certain group of Scouters for a very long time.  I'm guessing that yours, and many other families, have relied on them for many years to make many hundreds of decisions.  I'm guessing that as a whole the families have been happy to have their time and leadership in support of the Scouts.  Now you've got a situation where you look at a significant decision and say "hmm.  I don't like that one."

You could go down the path of calling Council and trying to get this decision changed.  But I don't think that really helps you all.  Even if you got it changed, you might, as the say "win the battle to lose the war."  Do you lose their involvement?  Do you create some significant hurt within the group?

I'd encourage you and some others to become registered Troop Committee members.  Find some jobs to help out with.  Next time something like this comes up, you'll all be in a much better position to say "No, let's not do that."  Along the way you'll also help strengthen the troop too - a side bonus.

There's a Scouting Magazine from a few years ago on the BSA Congressional Charter: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2016/06/15/june-15-1916-woodrow-wilson-made-bsa-official/.  In there are some quotes from President Woodrow Wilson:

Quote

The Boy Scout movement should not only be preserved, but strengthened,” he said. “It deserves the support of all public-spirited citizens.

Quote

Anything that is done to increase the effectiveness of the Boy Scouts of America will be a genuine contribution to the welfare of the nation,

I have the utmost sympathy for those who suffered abuse at the hands of volunteers in Scouting.  But, suing the BSA and driving it to the point of bankruptcy ends up harming the kids in our country.  We can all sit around and bash national all we want, but fundamentally having Scouting from the Boy Scouts of America is a good thing for the youth of our country.  Loosing the organization and facilities to support Scouting in our country would be a real shame.

I do fully, wholeheartedly, and without any reservation agree that victims of abuse should be compensated.  Further, any adult who abused a child or was involved in it's cover-up should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  I expect that all of the people who were involved in cover-ups of abuse are long since gone so you're not punishing them.  So the people who did this are not being punished.  It's also not like the BSA is a for profit company that needs to be taught a lesson.  It's essentially a public service agency organized as a special kind of corporation.

With 2,000,000 kids in a Scouting program with a Congressional charter, doesn't this kind of become the nation's problem?  Would we shut down a school system and sell it's facilities because teachers in the past had abused children?  Just as a school system has an obligation to provide education to it's community, doesn't a group with a Congressional charter have the obligation to provide Scouting to the youth of our nation?

I'm not suggesting that BSA gets a bailout nor am I suggesting that these lawsuits get stopped.  But, since there is a group with a Congressional charter, perhaps Congress could establish a fund from which to pay these lawsuits?

Just now, WisconsinMomma said:

Not all DEs are men, nor will they be going forward.  

My deepest apologies for even suggesting that - it was an unintentional omission.  I've been blessed and most fortunate to work with many female Scouters - both as volunteers and professionals.  Our pack and troop leadership teams were probably 50% female and I was happy for that.

1 hour ago, dkurtenbach said:

ParkMan, thanks.  The BSA organizational model is for a top-heavy district with committees for Finance (including Friends of Scouting and Popcorn), Membership, Program (including Activities, Camping, Training, and Advancement), plus Roundtable Commissioners, plus enough Unit Commissioners that they have an average of no more than three units each.  And that doesn't include the adult support for the Order of the Arrow chapter.  The model is another example of an unnecessary bureaucracy.  And it is counter-intuitive.  Most Scouters get involved in Scouting to work with youth in units.  Many great Scouters move on to other interests outside of Scouting when their youth age out.  Those who stick around usually prefer to continue working in their units.  And very few have the time and inclination to be both active in their units and active at the district level. 

Instead of a large top-down district-level bureaucracy that constantly requires recruiting, almost all of what is considered district-level work could and should be located where the necessary Scouter labor force has already been recruited:  in the units, as collateral duties of the Chartered Organization Representative and two or three adult leaders and/or parents in the unit.  If you have 50 units in a district, that's 150 unit Scouters and parents available to work on district committees with rotating unit representation. 

That would include committees that review unit quality, performed much as camp assessments are now:  a small group of Scouters from different units visit every unit a couple of times a year, armed with a list of best practices (much like unit Journey to Excellence scoresheets).  In addition to ensuring that every unit's program is assessed regularly, this has the benefits of (a) letting Scouters see what other units are up to, and (b) making every unit acutely aware of expectations for program quality.

And that is one less separate Scouting bureaucracy that has to be staffed. 

Precisely.  You pretty well just described how a district team should be staffed.

It's unfortunate that somewhere along the way the idea developed that Scouters need to pick one or the other - they don't.  As you point out, a district team shouldn't be a top down bureaucracy.  The top of the Scouting hierarchy is the unit - the inverted pyramid.  The district concept should really about getting those unit scouters to work together to improve Scouting across the community for unit level Scouts. 

For example.  One thing a district does is organize a district camporee.  Wouldn't the best people to lead the planning of camporee be unit Scouters from around the district who know what the youth want?  So, the district camporee committee ought to be just that - one person from each of the troops who can get together a few times over the course of the year and figure out camporee.  In the process, these folks learn from each other.  The Scouts across the district benefit in two ways: 1) the Scouts get a well thought out camporee with ideas from across the district, and 2) the Scouts get new ideas in their own troops as the natural byproduct of adults working together.  In addition, it's not that much work.  Planning a camporee by yourself is a lot of work.  A team of experienced Scouters from across the district - not as much.

Commissioners should be the same thing.  They should be those very experienced unit Scouters who can serve as a resource and mentor to other units.  You're an experienced ASM who knows how it works?  Could you spare an hour or two a month to be a coach to a unit leader in another unit? 

This is where our National level volunteers have failed.  They've ignored this part of Scouting enough that the concept of a district bureaucracy has evolved.  They've let the idea that it's unit vs. district take hold.  

I'm not quite in agreement though about doing unit assessments and closing down units.  If we go with the idea that a district team is that collection of unit Scouters who work together to help each other succeed.  Assessments should only exist in the most vague way where a commissioner says "hey folks, these troop I'm working with is struggling."  The fix for that is that folks pitch in to then help the unit become successful.  Maybe they're currently lacking someone who knows where to camp or how to recruit new scouts - so someone helps them get going again.

7 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

I agree that districts are the front line in improving unit quality.  But you can't always invest in stronger district teams.  At any particular time, you have the District Executive and the volunteers that you have, and you can't wait to address a problem for the years it will take to develop a stronger corps of unit commissioners and committee members.

Investments are for the long term.  The BSA will be here in 5 years, so we ought to get on with it now.

There's a trend in many circles (not just Scouting) to look towards that central organization to fix things.  Sometimes it works - but I just don't see it here.  In fact, I think that's part of the reason for the decline in membership of institutions like this. 

Look at the DE position for example.  We've got 1 DE for something like 50 units.  Say all he did was focus on unit quality.  He's at best going to be able to spend 4 hours per unit per month.  What on earth could a fellow do to greatly improve a unit with 4 hours a month.  But, if we really focused on building up district staffs, then you've got 20-30 people who could start making a real impact.  In my district I've started using the phrase "It's not about being a district volunteer, but about building Scouting in our community."  To me that's a pretty noble goal.

Similarly - think about the experience level of your volunteers.  Our DE is a wonderful guy with a lot of Scouting background.  Yet, even with that, if you look around at our leaders in the district and some of our larger units, you've got: lawyers, doctors, teachers, university professors, engineers, scientists - a remarkable range of fantastically skilled professionals.  That's a tremendous amount of potential available to build Scouting.

So, I think if you want to "fix" Scouting - you start here.  Membership is a direct reflection of unit program quality.  Strong units attract more Scouts & do better with retention.  You want better program, you need to focus on it.  The best way to focus on it is more front line support for units.  There isn't enough money in Scouting to pay a huge staff to do that.  So, you do it with strong district teams.  That's where you put your focus,

48 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

While this is bound to rustle some jimmies, that starts with the DE. But national doesn't put much stock into us anymore because of the insane turnover rate. 

That's what happens today- but it's the wrong model.  The district volunteers should be taking ownership for growing and nurturing their district.  If a given district isn't doing that it's the fault of the district committee and it's chair.  

If all the districts in a council are not doing it, it's the fault of the council committee and president.

If districts around the country are not, it's the fault of the national board and chair.

We as volunteers rely too much on the professionals and it's wrong.  We need to assume more ownership for this.

7 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

Concur that program delivery varies widely among units.  In my view, consistently anemic units with poor programs that go on year after year are the single greatest long-term threat to Scouting.  Why?  Because adults who had a poor Scouting experience as youth won't put their kids in the program, and neither will their friends and family members.  Yet because shutting down an ineffective unit will look bad on this year's district and council membership statistics, district and council officials won't even consider it; they will even nurse the unit along each year at recharter time even though there is no improvement.  Corporate Scouting.

I agree 100% on the first part.  The single biggest threat to Scouting's membership numbers are the multitude of really anemic programs.  

But, I see it differently on the second.  It's not the role of the BSA to shut down those programs.  They can and should provide more than support, training, and reaources than they do to today.  I've said before that one of the biggest failures of the BSA has been the way they have wasted the district concept.  The districts are the front line of the BSA in improving unit quality.  You want better quality units, you invest in stronger district teams.

1 minute ago, dedkad said:

"Please know that these matters continue to have the full attention of the highest levels of our organization, and we will communicate transparently as there are developments or updates to share."

From the vague letter they emailed me this afternoon, if this is their idea of transparency, we are in trouble.

They are weighing their options.  What would you have them say differently?