Peregrinator

Maybe some of our non-US brethren can fill us in with some insight on how this guilty until proven innocent thingy works.  I'm not quite sure it applies here in the US.

Certainly it can apply when we're talking about volunteer employment or membership in a private organization.

I don't know much about Bp. Kagan but if I had to call Abp. Carlson something, I would call him a moderate.

It's clear to us, but it doesn't seem to be such common knowledge across the BSA.

Nope, some at least seem to have it almost exactly backwards - that the program exists so that boys can advance.

I wouldn't say we discourage merit badge colleges (although I do personally) but it's more about encouraging the patrol method, high adventure and the outings over advancement as a whole. You know, the fun aspects of scouts. The advancement comes naturally if they participate in the program.

I think it is clear that Baden-Powell viewed advancement and awards as the way to keep boys invested in the program rather than the other way around.

After all they can't be trusted with something as important as SM being able to effectively handle/control 16 boys.

 

Nope, Sorry, I've seen it work otherwise.  28 boys, 4 patrols, 1 SM, 1 ASM and we had a fairly smooth running operation.  I have to admit that running that light on the adult end of the supervisory stick meant that more of the leadership had to pass to the boys which in my book is what it's all about anyway.  Worked fine for us.  Your mileage may vary.

With respect, I think you are either missing the point or deliberately choosing not to address it. The chief concern is not handling/controlling or having a smooth-running operation. I'm sure an SM can handle/control scores of boys and have a smooth-running operation with a hundred boys or more. But consider whether in doing so the SM is bringing out the individual character or the boys or suppressing it.

As a former pastor of 3 congregations with about 450 members of those churches, I new everyone by name and a whole lot more than what they wanted their neighbors to know.  It is possible to get to know every scout in very large troops.I knew which kid was in what family.  I knew what grade in school they were, I knew the connection they had between the grandparents and grandkids.

Getting to know boys by name isn't key, the key is bringing out the individual character in each. It's not hard to learn the names of people. It's not hard to learn details of their private lives, especially when one is in a position of authority (e.g. a pastor). What is hard is helping form boys into men without taking away what makes each one a unique individual.

 

B-P was a humble man and I'm sure he was more than capable of bringing out the individual character in 32 boys or even 40-50 boys at a time. But I don't think there are many men, if any, who can do the same for 70, 80, or 100 boys.

I get really concerned when I hear of troops having waiting lists for joining because they limit their numbers.  There are some troops where the size of the facilities offered by the CO are not sufficient and that will limit the numbers.  But that is an issue of the BSA/CO agreement to correct and is a UC/DE issue, not a troop issue.

If a troop gets so large that more than 4-5 patrols are necessary then it's probably time to form a new troop.

so 4-5 patrols kinda makes some sense

Four patrols makes perfect sense; that way the PLs and APLs could form a patrol of their own as there would be 8 of them.

I would read that as: "Be a {(boy who is 11 years old), or [(one who has completed the fifth grade or earned the Arrow of Light Award) and is at least 10 years old]}"

 

Although I do admit that's not taking the precedence of logical operators into account. AND takes precedence over OR. If BSA wanted to be completely clear, they would restate it as:

 

"Be a boy who is 11 years old, or one who is 10 years old and has either (a) completed the fifth grade or (b) earned the Arrow of Light Award."

The Asst Scoutmaster over the patrol wants to split the patrol into 4 mini patrols with 4 kids each so they can complete this requirement.

I assume you mean 4 patrols of 3 each or 3 patrols of 4 each since 4 patrols of 4 each would be 16 boys.

 

Nothing wrong with 2 patrols of 6 each, or even one of 5 and one of 7. The "ideal" number is 7 or 8.

There's a whole generation out there (label it anything you want) that has no skills in conflict management, diplomacy, or even tact.

That's hardly limited to millenials though. Look at our current crop of presidential candidates!

To me, the British firearm laws did not make sense and seemed crazy since someone could not defend oneself and family. Then I realized you did not have a revolution that permanently overthrew your king. And unfortunately I do not know enough British history to know how the Lord Protector handled firearms to retain his dictatorship.

British gun control laws are fairly recent in the grand scheme of things. Our right in the USA to keep and bear arms is a direct descendant of the right developed in English common law, which in turn was a descendant of the Anglo-Saxon militia system.

Or we can admit that compating ISIL, which has such modern weapons as guns, tanks and missiles is just a wee bit silly.   If the Inquisitor's had acces to guns, tanls and other weapons of mocern wrefere, they would have used them.

No they wouldn't have. The Inquisition was a court not a branch of the military.

Kamen's account is disputed. Barber, Smith and Maden have different numbers vastly higher.

I don't know anything about Barber but Madden gives a figure of 4,000 and Smith's booklet is polemical, not scholarly, and doesn't have the benefit of modern scholarship on the subject (it was written in 1931).

 

Even MotherJones who quoted the 6000 ISIS number says it's impossible to say how many people ISIS has killed. So how can we trust one source using second and third hand material going back 700+ years?

Even if Kamen did rely primarily on 2nd- and 3rd-hand material, the alternative is to just make numbers up.

Source?

You can start with The Spanish Inquisition: A historical revision by Henry Kamen. I think the generally accepted figure now is that between 3,000 and 5,000 people were sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition and executed by the State. But people still buy into the "black legend" of the Inquisition popularized in Elizabethan England.

 

ISIS killed approximately 6,000 in 2014 alone.

The Inquisitions killed a fair number of people, but yes, I was being sarcastic.

ISIS has already killed far more people than the Spanish Inquisition did in the 350 years of its existence, and likely more than all of the mediaeval Inquisitions put together.

How are these situations NOT similar? Both have uncertain futures. Both impact the long-term future of units.

Of course one can find similarities if one looks for them. But there are differences as well:

 

LCMS - No longer supports BSA institutionally, leaves it to individual congregations to decide whether to continue to sponsor.

KofC - Supports BSA through local parishes, but will not allow individual councils to decide whether to continue to sponsor BSA.

 

or:

 

LCMS - BSA is icky, but we won't tell you what to do.

KofC - We're cool with BSA, but stop supporting them.

It is not like the KoC and the Catholic church pulled support entirely from their units the like LCMS; so in that comparison it is a simple reorg.

I'm not sure that comparison is accurate. The LCMS dissolved their MOU but they left the question of sponsorship up to each congregation. The KofC didn't do that.

What if a near-Earth objects hits us tomorrow? What if no one re-charters?

What if we stuck to hypotheticals that weren't statistically impossible?

 

Let's see how this plays out. The KoC is simply working with the parish and diocese to consolidate all youth groups under one umbrella. They didn't do it screw scouting. So, yes, it was a simple reorg.

I'm sure they didn't do it to screw the BSA troops they're sponsoring. I'm just pointing out that it is not simple.

 

However, no one has ever said that there is not SOME consolidation during ANY reorg. Some units may not find a parish, but I suspect you might see a unit merger OR they will find another CO.

And some troops might fold rather than charter with a non-Catholic CO.

If the BSA did allow cub scout dens and boy scout troops to admit girls, it probably would not be too long before it became mandatory - assuming the UK and Canadian examples are any indication!

 

There would probably be exceptions made for "bona fide religious organizations" who don't believe in co-education for youth.

I can't see the church turning down any units.

Spose the local parish has a Trail Life troop. Or suppose (this is probably more likely) that the local parish doesn't have the space for a BSA troop to meet. That might be, after all, why the troop was sponsored by the KofC in the first place - perhaps they used the hall as a meeting space because the local parish or parishes didn't have the room.

 

I just don't see this as a simple reorganization.

Not really. KoC is refocusing giving financial and volunteer support to units. They are leaving the sponsorship to the parishes. It's a simple reorganization.

I don't think it's that simple. The parishes will have to pick up the charters. In any given case the pastor could refuse. Or the local parish might already have a troop.

I'm not a knight, but I thought they were already "under" a parish.... more or less chartered by the one they meet at and where all their members attend mass.  That's the way it seems around here....

but then, what do I know...

KofC councils are not under parishes. They are sometimes (? frequently?) associated with parishes though. Even then I don't think there is anything preventing members joining a council from other parishes.

Note a big deal per se. Simply a reorganization still under the Catholic umbrella.

Assuming that parish sponsors can be found for over 1000 troops.

This is a weird statement, to say the least:

 

In response to a message of Pope Francis during the World Meeting of Families in which he called for a new alliance between the Church and the family, the organization has decided to phase out these programs while re-focusing its efforts on providing financial and volunteer support to Scout units and other youth activities that are sponsored by parishes.