Prairie_Scouter

Ed, Unless you're a Biblical literalist, don't you think it's possible to reconcile the theory of evolution with many religious beliefs?

Well, as someone above said, I think we might have wrung this one out, at least as far as the original question is concerned. While you're, of course, welcome to continue on, I want to thank everyone for their participation in this thread. I don't know that we reached any sort of conclusions, really, but the conversation has been for the most part civil, and certainly interesting. And with that, I'm gonna hit the sack. 'Night all.

I think I'd agree with NJ on this one. I admit that I skirt around the edges of a policy I don't agree with so that my sons can take advantage of what is otherwise an excellent program. "Don't ask, don't tell" works for me right now for that reason. If BSA was to make a more stark statement such as NJ suggests, I'd be in a more difficult position, and I suppose, would have to become just "Prairie". As NJ said also, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Thanks, Hunt. A great post, and I think you're on to something there in regards to the local opinions differing. There's an old saying that "all politics are local". So, it's quite possible, people in deeply conservative states may think that the BSA's "don't ask, don't tell" policy may be just awful, the middling states might think it's just fine, and the decidedly liberal states may think that it doesn't go nearly far enough. That's a very interesting thought and one that might lead people to have differing views on what might be considered sectarian or not. As I said earlier, one of the challenges, possibly, of being the "Boy Scouts of AMERICA".

OGE, Way OT, but am I as a typical user allowed to edit my posts? I can't find anything in the FAQ about editing. Can you point me the right way? Help!?

OGE, You're absolutely right, neither major party is without fault these days. I thought of my comment and typed it, thinking it was kind of funny. The second line, after the smiley, was sort of a "but, you know...." ironical kind of statement. But, you're right, I've been trying to manage the discussion as best I could to keep it on track, and then went and threw something in there myself. As my daughter would say, "my bad". I should edit that out. Never tried that before; think I'll give it a try

Yeah, I think I'd agree with those who write that you should kind of tread lightly here. As the new CC, you could approach the DL and say that your trying to visit all of the dens to see how they do things, just as general background. That gets you in the door without any worry about whether you might be stepping on toes; and, it's really not a bad idea to visit your dens occasionally to see how they're doing. If you think that they're not actually meeting the requirements, your CM should be the one to help you there. If they're actually doing the requirements, and just doing them really fast, then you have to judge whether they're just in a race or actually having fun along the way. Either way, if the requirements are being met, there's probably not a lot you can do. In the longer run, you could use your annual planning meeting to emphasize the "fun" aspect and, one of my favorites, that "the journey is every bit as important as the destination".

Trevorum, I can't speak to the liability issue directly; haven't been confronted by this exact situation. Your council can give the correct answer and you really should check with them. Regards credit for requirements before they sign up, I'd love say "yes" because it seems like good intent is there, but I think I'd have to say "no" if it was in my troop. There will be other campouts he can get credit for, and he'll have a good time anyway. If you stretch the rules too much in this area, you might open a can of worms for yourself, including the "I was ALMOST done with my Eagle project before I was 18".

Well, first, I want to thank everyone for their comments to this point. I don't know that there are any conclusions to be made, but here are a couple of observations..... There seem to be opinions on a variety of reasons why BSA excludes homosexuals. A few feel it is a YP issue, and support this for differing reasons. YP, I believe, deals mostly with objective physical danger (or the psychological dangers in child abuse) to the Scout; I don't know that homosexuals have been shown to be any more a physical danger to Scouts than anyone else. That remains to be seen, I guess. There is, I suppose, a more subjective view that having gays in BSA represents a bad influence or possibly a psychological danger to our Scouts. I guess we could say the same thing about Libertarians or Democrats or liberals in general. I meant that in a humorous way, but on the other hand, leaders of the Republican party have accused Democrats of being anti-religion, so I suppose that the more extreme conservative elements could see some real danger in having their Scouts associate with "avowed liberals". There were many opinions that this is mainly a religious issue, and within the BSA environment, these folks seem fine with creating policy based on religious beliefs. I believe one poster said that this represents the majority opinion of the religions represented in Scouting, and therefore their views should be reflected in policy. That is, I think, problematic if you present yourself as being a nonsectarian organization. As you might expect, it's been very difficult for posters to separate the question of nonsectarian policy from whether homosexuality is immoral, or dangerous, or what have you. That's to be expected, I suppose. So, just a couple of observations, not an attempt to categorize the responses, since they are fairly diverse. My own 2 cents, for what's worth, in regard to my original question.... I think BSA isn't as nonsectarian as they say they are or would like to be. In a very small number of policy areas, this has led to policies being formulated which seem to represent the views of particular religious elements within the organization. You know, I think that being the Boy Scouts of AMERICA is a pretty tough thing to be, anyway. How can you hope to represent the diversity that makes this country, for all its foibles, the shining example of how a diverse people can live together? The debate on homosexuality currently raging across the country is a good example of how our country works. Yes, in rare cases, there are extremists who have gone to violence as their contribution to the debate, but in most cases, the rule of law prevails, and the rules we've set up for ourselves to manage this debate do work. In the end, the will of the people will prevail, although it usually takes a long time to determine what the will of the people really is. It's unfortunate, I think, that by declaring itself a "private club", BSA has effectively removed itself from the debate, and has chosen to go its own way, regardless of what America decides.

Rooster, Thanks for you heartfelt comments, but this thread isn't a "debate about the merits of same sex love". This thread was started to discuss whether or not BSA is a non-sectarian organization, and if so, should its policies be based on non-sectarian views, rather than religious views. fgoodwin, Sorry I misinterpreted your comment. I agree that pederasts are a subset of homosexuals. They are a subset of heterosexuals as well.

Remember, my original question wasn't whether or not gays should be in Scouting. My question posed that if BSA is a non-sectarian organization, should its policies be base on non-sectarian views, and if that's the case, is it possible to make a non-sectarian case against participation of gays. Snake Eater... The comment in the op-ed piece about the Bible being interpreted to fit particular view wasn't make specifically about gays. It was a general view that probably has some validity to it. Slavery was justified, in part, by qouting the Bible. The question also wasn't whether BSA should change its policies based on minority religious views. The question was whether BSA is non-sectarian, and if so, should non-sectarian views be used to establish policy, rather than religious views? Whether any particular religions have a majority of BSA membership is really not part of the discussion. If I'm reading your comment correctly, you take the view that BSA is a religious organization that is decidedly sectarian in its views, and those views are based on the majority of the membership, correct? Lastly, I "said" nothing like that at all. I'm asking a question. I'm not saying that BSA should divorce itself from religion. My original post says nothing like that. I'm asking the question of whether or not BSA is a non-sectarian organization, and if it's policies should be based on non-sectarian views. Lastly (again), I wasn't aware that homosexuals wanted access to other people's children. Not germaine to my question, really, but that's the first I've heard of that. I'm sure that there are some, but like heterosexuals who would desire the same thing, they fall under the category of "child abusers". kenk, "Homosexuality is immoral" is really an opinion. It's true that some homosexuals participate in immoral acts (or all, depending on your point of view); so do some heterosexuals. Whether homosexuals are, by their nature, immoral, is outside the realm of this particular thread, and gets us away from the original question, which is....is BSA non-sectarian, and if so, should its policies be based on non-sectarian views? Trevorum and Fuzzy Bear, et al.. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Hi vrooman, Although I haven't seen much of this, I've seen this problem more in Cub Scouts than in Boy Scouts, but I suppose it does exist. There are troops that don't allow a parent ASM to sign off their own Scout's requirements. In our troop, we ask the parent ASMs to encourage their Scouts to work with senior scouts and ASMs, but we don't prohibit them from signing off. I'd get a little worried if they're signing off EVERYTHING, tho. Personally, I think that if a parent is signing off their son's work and they don't really meet the requirement (and the parent knows this), they are doing a disservice to the Scout, the troop, and themselves. You're right; the BOR isn't really there to quiz the Scout on whether they completed the requirements. They shouldn't be in the BOR if they haven't got the requirements signed off, and the assumption is that if they've got it signed off, they've done it. For your situation, I think that this is really a job for the SM. According to the Troop structure chart in the SM handbook, the ASMs "report" to the SM. One approach might be for the SM to suggest to the ASM that they try to get the Scout to work with the other ASMs and the senior Scouts on these requirements so that they get exposed to other members of the troop better. If it's really obvious that the Scout doesn't know the requirements, it's within the "power" of the SM to discuss this with the ASM from the perspective of how the requirements are being done, because it seems that the Scout doesn't really know the requirements. Now, this can be a tricky situation. Some of these are safety issues. I'd hate think what would happen if the Scout got signed off for his Fireman Chit and had no clue how to use the tools, for example. If it's clear that there's a lack of knowledge, the SM really should be addressing it. If he doesn't want to, then it should go to the Committee, I think.

OGE, Thanks for you comments. I agree, I didn't initiate this thread to start a flamewar. Just starting a discussion, and not a discussion of whether gays in Scouting is right or wrong. Simply a question of...if BSA is nonsectarian, should their policies be based on non-religious precepts, and if so, how do you form a policy on gays without invoking religious beliefs that are sectarian? That's all. I'll try to keep things on topic, but as long as people are polite, all comments are welcome. CA, Thanks. I imagine you might have been responding to something that Bob wrote, but I've turned off his comments, so I no longer see them. And I tend to agree with your assessment. I think that many WILL see this as a religious issue, but I think that the YP implications is equally important. As far as religion, people are going to believe what they believe. In the case of YP, it's at least possible to determine if there really is an objective danger. evmori, Thanks. So, if I'm reading you correctly, it sounds like from the perspective of a religious person such as you appear to be, the issue of gays doesn't need to have a nonsectarian view of policy, a religious view is fine. Do you see BSA as a religious organization rather than as a nonsectarian organization, then? fgoodwin, Thanks for your comments as well. I'm not sure that I'd agree that homosexuals = pederasts. Homosexuality involving consenting adults is one thing; Pederasts engage in child abuse, and, I would suppose, statutory rape, depending on how the laws are written, ie, do they include same-sex situations. I think that they are different. I agree that BSA is legally able to create their own policies on membership, but if you leave out the religious "arguments", is it possible to somehow measure the objective danger of having gays in Scouting and then formulate a policy based on that?

Well, we should remember that the original question wasn't "should BSA allow girls?", it was,"What would happen if BSA did allow girls?" I guess I have more faith in our young adults than some posters here. There seems to be some feeling that if you mix girls and boys together then sexual situations are inevitable, as if as soon as you mix sexes, they'll be jumping on the picnic tables and "doing it" with abandon. Ain't gonna happen here any more than it does in real life. BSA already has co-ed activities in the Venture program. I haven't heard of any problems there. I think that if girls were allowed to fully participate, you would see the life values of Scouting used to teach both sexes mutual respect and how to deal with each other in real life situations, under the guidance of properly trained leaders. Would there be the occasional "problem"? Sure, but I'd bet the incidence would be much less than out in the rest of the world. I think BSA would see this as an opportunity, not a problem. This could be done by letting the units decide whether they should be co-ed or not. That would allow good opportunities in areas where the populations are such that creating a functioning Boy Scout or Girl Scout unit would be difficult, for example. I think the reason you won't see it happen is because we have the Girl Scouts in the U.S.. I would think that there would be something of a "gentleman's agreement" to not raid each others membership.

First, I guess we're making the assumption that the original post was from a Scout. If the backroom being described is such that they were out of view of others, than it is a YP violation. If, however, the backroom is such that they were in view of the other members of the troop meeting, than it's not a YP problem any more than a Scoutmaster conference would be. Second, the description of the discussion would seem to be contrary to the philosophy of a boy-led unit. The Scouts should never be afraid to come forward with what they think is useful information, and even if the SM disagrees with the information being presented, they should never give a Scout a "stern talking to" for providing such information. How can you instill trust in the SM if the Scouts fear getting into trouble?

This question was prompted by an op-ed piece that appeared in the Chicago Tribune this past weekend. The opinion of the author was that the Bible has been used by many special interest groups to further their unique agendas by interpreting the Bible in ways that are favorable to their views. This got me to thinking about Scouting. Scouting is supposed to be nonsectarian in its views. At least, I think that that's true. But, that will be our first question. Various definitions I've seen refer to nonsectarian as meaning "not pertaining to a single religious view' or "all-compassing" (this came from a thesaurus). So, first, then, is the idea with Scouting really that they are non-sectarian in their views, or that the view of BSA is that Scouts can practice the religion of their choice, ie, the BSA is non-sectarian as to their view of what religion the Scouts may practice, but that BSA is free to be sectarian in its views in regards to policy? My understanding is that BSA is a non-sectarian organization, ie, the former view. True? If that's true, the let me posit that the policy on gays in BSA should then be viewed in relation to the non-sectarian nature of the organization, ie, the policy on gays should be made without regard to any particular religious view on the matter. If that's true, then what would that policy be based on? And, on a side note, if BSA believes that gays are really so bad for the organization, why would they adopt the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that I'm told is the current wisdom?

I think the reality of "who works for who" is just a bit grey. The text of the leader guide says that the Scoutmaster and Committee Chair/Committee work as a team, but the structure chart of the Troop as published in the leader guide shows the Scoutmaster below the CC/Committee. On an everyday basis, tho, I think that the SM and CC do work as a team.

Hi Again, Crazymomo, Having a few minutes before bedtime, I pulled out my old leader guide to check a couple of things..... The CM and CC, according to the leader book, actually share leadership of the pack, although if you look at the Pack Structure chart in the book, it clearly shows the Pack Committee being above the Cubmaster, so it's a little unclear. What I've seen many times is that the CM runs the Scout related activities, and the CC runs the business activities. Everyone attends the committee meetings, of course, but I was always told that the CM was not actually a voting member of the committee, and that's how the Pack Structure chart shows it. Reality is usually that everyone just kind of decides things together. I didn't see guidelines for tour of duty in the leader handbook; I'm thinking that that was probably something we talked about at a PowWow I attended several years ago, using the annual rechartering process as part of a strategy to bring new blood into the leadership ranks and as an opportunity to "weed out" leaders who might be better in other roles. As I said, it might work for you guys considering the situation you're in, and there's certainly nothing to stop you from using some sort of tenure guidelines that you construct yourselves. The kind of problem you're dealing with is one where you're probably not going to find a good answer in the Scout books. I'd suggest trying to find other Scouters, maybe at a Roundtable, who might have some experience with this. There might be something in one of the books, but you're dealing with a person here who means well, and has done a lot of work; I think you want to figure out a way to tread lightly while still doing what you need to do to protect your Pack.

I've known several packs, and I don't know of any that use individual accounts like your unit does. That happens in Boy Scouts to some extent depending on how the Troop is set up, but I don't think that that's normal for Cubs. I don't think there's any rule against doing it that way, tho. Usually, the fundraisers in Cubs are done to finance the Pack's activities, not the individual dens or Scouts. Normally, you'll see something like the popcorn sale be used to finance Pack general expenses, like advancement awards, flags, outings, etc. The dens would charge their own dues for their activity expenses. For example, we used to charge 2 bucks per den meeting to pay for materials and the occasional snack. Like I said, just my observations. I could give you more detail on exactly how we did things if you'd like (I was the CC for a 2 year term, which is how we defined the job; we offset the CM and CC terms by 1 year so we'd always have some continuity). The folks who are kind of threatening to reign in their fundraising if it doesn't go directly to their kids are kind of missing the point. How do you guys pay for things like badges, pins, segments, Pack supplies, etc, if the fundraising is all allocated to the Scouts? The Pack my sons went through has lasted for 35 years with one account. What you might consider is collapsing back to one general account for the future and asking the parents if they'd like their current balance to go to the Pack fund or be reimbursed. Then just set up future fundraisers to be Pack events to fund the pack. Any time you make any kind of change, there's always a certain amount of pain up front. Remember that you guys are volunteer leaders and you have a certain amount of flexibility in how you do things. If others don't agree, they are welcome to volunteer and help out, right?

Crazymomo, Well, regards the CM not recognizing the relative position of the CC, they really don't have any choice. That's the way BSA has laid out the positions. CC runs the Pack with the Pack Committee, which the CM is not a part of. (I'm pretty sure that's true, but check the leader guide). A polite way to deal with this might be look around in the Scout literature. There might be some mention of suggested tenures. I'm pretty sure I've seen renewals every year mentioned somewhere. Beyond that, fill your committee with good people. Let the committee as a group discuss the situation and what you should do. Sometimes a heart to heart is in order. Never easy, tho. Best of luck.

t487, Just in regards to your question about parents participating, there is a section in the Guide to Safe Scouting, I think the area about "secret organizations" that says that all Scout activities are open to observation by the parents. Regards the length of camps for younger Scouts, I don't remember the specific rules and don't have them right in front of me, but Scouts normally start camping with their units as Webelos Scouts, and those outings are usually 1 or 2 nights. I think there is also a Resident Camp that Webelos Scouts can go to that runs longer, but I'm not entirely sure about that. Regards QU, on the boy scout side, there is a requirement to have a certain number of outdoor activities, but it doesn't say anything about how many have to participate. They do have to attend a summer camp as well.

Thanks for the information. Sounds like it could be a very interesting discussion.

Maybe they won't say because, as we know from their ads, "What happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas."

Bob, Rather than try to respond, I'm just going to say that since I can't seem to have a pleasant discussion with you, I'm going to take the "ignore this user" forum option. I'm sure that others have interesting discussions with you, but I seem to be unable to. This seems to me to be the best way to retain my own enjoyment of the forums.

Tort, 80 degrees? Our version of "balmy" in the Windy City today is 43, windy, and raining. I think moving some hills down to Houston would be a great Eagle project, don't you? I don't think the ACLU would have too much trouble with that....... (he said in a faint attempt to give the illusion of being on topic)