Proud Eagle

Camp Roy C. Manchester, located on Kentucky Lake. I didn't used to be a big fan, but this past summer converted me. Special things at RCM: RCM has direct access to Kentucky Lake. This provides a massive area for motor boating, fishing, swimming, water skiing, small boat sailing, etc. Your troop can even bring its own boat and go out on the lake in your free time if you want. There is a high adventure sailing program on several approx. 21 foot sailboats. We have a good COPE coarse. We will be offering horsemanship and electricity. We will be having a new and improved program for 2005, including block scheduling, and an entire day dedicated to camp wide games, field trips, special activities, and patrol competitions. Essentially all the standard camp merit badges will be offered. Facilities are pretty standard. Dining hall meals (or cook your own if you want to go that route), some cabins and adirondikes available, most sites require you to provide your own tents, there is lots of shade in most camps, and on good weeks there is a nice breeze blowing off the lake. We handle between 100-400 Scouts per week for six weeks each summer. Staff arrives one week early to begin training. Staff consists mostly of Scout age individuals with prior staff experience, but there are also some older staff members, and some CITS each summer. Taking our staff from being a OK/average to being top notch is a priority if the camp committee for the coming year. So expect a good staff. Also, expect to see me around camp, at least for 2005. Oh, did I mention RCM is where BSA got the idea for an Eagle Bound/first year camper program from? Other camps I would recommend: Camp Daniel Boone in North Carolina. I haven't been there since 1996, but at the time it was very good, and had a long reputation as a good camp. Skymont in Tennessee. I was there with my troop in 2002. It was certainly a top notch place with good program. Camps I have heard things about, or seen parts of: I also have heard volumes of good things about Camp McKee in Kentucky near Lexington. Also Camp Crooked Creek near Louisville Kentucky always gets decent reviews. I have been to both camps, but not for summer camp. McKee has a great new dining hall. Both camps have reasonably good facilities. camps I would personally avoid: Old Ben Scout Reservation, near Evansville Indiana. I was there in 1995, it sucked. It has probably improved since then. I certainly hope so. Walwood Scout Camp, in the Florida panhandle region. I was there in 2003. It was terrible. The only good thing I can think of was they had a really great salad bar full of fresh fruits and vegetables from some local college ag department. Oh, and the plumbing seemed to work well. Also, they had some decent camp games and patrol competitions.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I don't think you are going to find what you are looking for. I think about all that is really made available is which camps pass inspection.

Certainly there were those opposed, but there were also those in favor. I must say I would actually commend those priests for standing up for their convictions. However, the place to disagree with their Bishop isn't at the pulpit, or in the parish news letter. The place would be with other members of the clergy and religious community. Most particularly they should take the matter up with the Bishop. If any member of the clergy were to speak out in such a way after their Bishop had decided the issue, it would be walking dangerously close to the edge on the vow of obedience, and could bring about censure by that Bishop. It should be noted that the Pope did not endorse any candidate or any party, nor even a political philosophy. Rather, the Pope simply stressed what has been the policy of the Church all along. You can not divorce your political life from your religious life. It was simply made clear that a persons political choices have moral and religious consequences. That has been the case for centuries, if not forever. If the Catholic Church decides to discipline someone because their activities on a grave moral issue are in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church, that is its right in this, and all other countries, for that right is inherent, not given by any government. Let me give another example. If Proud Eagle's church opens up based on some certain theology and has teachings on some issue which a politician is faced with, shouldn't those politicians who are members of the Proud Eagle's church be expected to follow those teachings? What would it say to the other members of the church if we let that politician, who publicly, openly, and deliberately went against the teachings of the church continue on as a member in good standing of the church as if nothing had happened? What would it say to the community at large if a high profile political leader who claims membership in that church were to take a position contrary to church teachings without any consequence at all? I'll tell you the answers I thought of. The politicians should be expected to follow the teachings just the same as everyone else. If anything, their position as widely recognized leaders should make it more important that they follow the teachings. If the church does nothing when a member publicly violates its teachings, and in fact makes it known they intend to continue violating its teachings, then the other members will soon start to think they don't have to follow the church's teaching on that or any other issue. Also, pretty soon the community at large would get the wrong idea about the beliefs held by the church. Now based on that I think it is certainly necessary that the Bishops take a stand on moral issues, particularly when prominent Catholic leaders are publicly opposing the teachings of the Church. To sit back quietly would be essentially the same as consenting to their actions. Finally, it should be noted that while the Church has in the recent past focused very heavily on the issue of the culture of life, particularly as it pertains to the right to life for the most innocent and helpless members of our society, this is by no means the only issue the Church speaks on. The Church has also spoken on other life issues such as assisted suicide, continuation of life by artificial means, capital punishment, and a variety of non-life issues such as farm subsidies, fair trade, social programs, and all manner of other things. The key difference is however, that while the Church can say that abortion is a grave evil, and supporting it in any form is therefore also evil, the Church has a harder time on social and economic issues. For example, the Church can say that we need to care for the poor. However, the question of how to care for the poor, and what is actually in the best interests of the poor, is something the Church does not speak on with the same sort of authority as life issues. It is the difference between moral imperatives and matters on which each person must exercise prudential judgment.

I would want to know why the Scout hasn't gone to the Ordeal. After I knew the answer to that, I would be able to decide if I should allow him to be elected again. It could be he doesn't want to be in OA. In that case, he may even want to be left off the ballot. On the other hand, he may want to do it, but have had other commitments the last couple of times. Perhaps he thought he had something more fun he could do those weekend. I decided to go to my Ordeal instead of attending the freshman dance at my junior high. Since it was a junior high, the freshman were the oldest in the school, and it was sort of a big thing. I made a choice, and I am happy with the results, even 5 years later. We all make choices. Sometimes we choose Scouting, sometimes we choose something else. Sometimes we make commitments before we know of other opportunities, and in those cases, I think it is the trustworthy thing to honor those commitments.

Mr. Zeiger certainly has some weaknesses. For starters, he does seem to look at the world wide movement through the lens of the BSA. Though, that would be natural since he was (or is) a member of the BSA, and probably hasn't had a terrible lot of exposure to Scouting in other places. Also, the Oath and Law are not the same in each country, so what an American Scout thinks are core, bedrock parts of the ideals of Scouting, a Scout from another country could think of as completely alien ideas. Further, he is certainly a politically and socially conservative person, or so his writing indicate. Therefore he would place the Oath and Law, and a strict, traditional reading of them, as very high priorities. It would also cause a predisposition against "political correctness" which many on the right in this country think of as a sort of rot in the system. So, now on to his analysis. There is no refuting the fact that such a downward trend (if true) is quite distressing. Often downward trends in membership cause organizations to institute radical changes. Sometimes these changes are good, sometimes they are bad, but they quite often change forever the identity of a group. It would appear that Scouts Canada did react by instituting some radical changes. Going co-ed is a very big thing. Going co-ed to the extent that units had no option is an even bigger thing. Making the uniform optional is also a significant change. Creating sweeping non-discrimination code could also turn out to be a major change as well, depending on how it is interpreted, how it is applied, and what sort of decisions wind up having to be made because of it. It could also turn out to be a non-issue. Ultimately, how you see these changes doesn't really matter. If you think they are good, then great. If you think they are bad, well, it is too late now. What matters is if these changes cause the organization to survive, thrive, or wither away. Equally important is what sort of organization Scouts Canada becomes. It would seem that the reaction to these policies has not been completely positive. As to weather or not it will help the membership numbers in the long run, that is difficult to tell. It would seem it certainly didn't fix the problem over night. As to weather or not the character of the organization is now better, worse, or equal is even more difficult to determine. There is no objective means of determining this. Now, let me boil it all done to this. Mr. Zeiger seems to think there is a great risk that Scouts Canada has, through these changes, put in jeopardy its very identity. He seems to think that with the uniforms becoming optional and the forced co-ed move that tradition is being thrown out for no justifiable reason. Further, the non-discrimination policy could, particularly from the perspective of a traditional coservative sort of person with experience in the BSA, place the very values that Scouting is built on in danger of being pushed aside. Its sort of like the old joke about being opened minded, but you shouldn't be so opened minded that your brains fall out. I should also point out, that there is nothing which even suggest the members of the organization are useless or bad. Rather, he is suggesting the organization itself has gone in the wrong direction. I also don't see wear he suggests that we should be unhelpful or unkind to any particular group of people. I think what he is saying is that there are people that do not believe in the values of Scouting, at least not as traditionally interpreted, and so it wouldn't be such a good idea to let just anyone into the Scouts. As to the allegations you make in your first sentence, I certainly can not find any evidence of racial hatred or chauvinism in this article. As to being intolerant, that is open to debate, but remember their is a difference between tolerating someone and accepting their beliefs. The bigoted charge, I think is again open to considerable debate, though I see no direct evidence of it in this article. Finally, I should note that your characterization of the South would be seen by some as intolerant and prejudiced. (Notice I am separating your characterization of the South from you as a person?) In any case, many of the Scouting organizations around the world have gone in a direction similar to Scouts Canada, but for the time being at least, the BSA does not seem to be joining them, nor do most of its members have any desire to join them. There is pressure from certain outside groups to change, but most of these groups would be at least nominally opposed to BSA even if it made the changes they are pressing for. I hope all is well and good with Scouting in Canada, but there does seem to be at least a bit of evidence suggesting it is not.

First, do we really want our religious leaders to start following public opinion poles in matters of public teaching on theology and morality? I certainly don't want them to. I would rather the religious leaders continue to follow the teachings of their religion and the guidance of the conscience in making such choices. I have to wonder about their 72% of Catholics number. Is that 72% of people who, when asked about their religion say they are Catholic? If so, a good number of those are probably people who don't really practice their faith. (There are people who were raised Catholic and haven't been back to church sense leaving home who still identify themselves as Catholic. There are also people who converted to share a faith with their spouse, and haven't been back since the wedding who identify themselves as Catholic.) You could call them "inactive". So, perhaps a survey of practicing Catholics would be a bit more informative. Also, it would be far more telling to see the numbers for those diocese where a bishop actually made a statement of that sort. Finally, the author is making the assumption that a majority public opinion carries with it theological authority, which it most certainly does not. While I agree telling people that "God demands you to vote for candidate X" is stepping over the line, you won't find many cases of that happening, because churches know what they risk if they do that. On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate for churches to advise their members as to how their religion may apply to certain political issues, if that churches leadership choose to do so. It is also appropriate for the leaders of a church to discipline their members if that is what they feel called to do. Now what would be inappropriate, would be for the political leadership to start creating penalties for not taking the correct religious positions.

Camp Roy C. Manchester WILL BE OPEN FOR 2005. The 2005 camp season is going to include some major changes to the camp program. I personally think those changes will bring about a great improvement in the experience for the campers. Among the changes being worked on are block scheduling of merit badge classes. Instead of going to each class every day, you will go to half the classes on Monday and Tuesday, and the other half on Thursday and Friday. Wednesday will be a very different program from that of the past. It will be dedicated to camp wide games, patrol competitions, special field trips, a variety of fun activities, chapel services, and will be capped off with the parents night campfire. The new leaders guide should be available very soon. I will see if I can find it posted some place. I personally I am going to suggest that my troop go to Roy C this year. I know I will be back for a second year of staff this coming summer, though we still haven't sorted out in what position. As far as the financial situation, the council is starting to get back on its feet. The current plan is to hire a new Scout Executive after the first of the year, and to apply for the council's new charter about that same time. Part of the improvement has come from a selective cut logging on one of the other camps. Also, some preliminary work has been made to doing a cut at a third property, but there was some sort of contract snafu that has delayed that a bit. Looks like it may be spring before that logging is done. However, there will be no logging at RCM. There may be some surplus equipment sold in the near future, but honestly they need to do that to get rid of some of the junk that seems to accumulate at every Scout camp. (This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

Which version of the M16 will we be using? If it is the M16A2 or M16A4 we won't have full auto, only a three round burst. That would probably make the hitting the target a bit easier. Though really, you should hit the target on a BSA range even with a full auto weapon... at least on the first shot... Personally though, I am holding out for the "Field Artillery MB". Heck, that would be fun even with an old bronze, smooth-bore 12 lb. Napoleon.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but... I believe councils have the option of organizing with a committee for each program. So there would be a Venturing Committee, a Boy Scout Committee, and a Cub Scout Committee. Most councils seem to have gone with a different organizational system, but I think some are organized in that fashion. Certainly OA publications seem to support this by saying the Lodge Adviser is a member of either the Council's Camping or Boy Scout Committee, depending on organizational system.

I think the article has one problem. The writer assumes Scouting won't work until after the problems are all solved. Scouting can't wait that long. For one, the wait would be years, perhaps decades, and those kids in Iraq need things like Scouting now. Another thing is, if some things like Scouting don't get under way with the process of uniting the Iraqi people at the ground level, and building the basic components of civil society, the problems faced by Iraq will never be solved. So it is imperative that Scouting, and other things like it, get moving as soon as possible. Finally, the author seems to spend a lot of time on this Beck guy. Ultimately, I don't really see how his political activities back here have much bearing on his ability to aid the Scout movement in Iraq. The author seems to say that things will only happen once the Iraqis get over Beck's problems, but there is no evidence presented at all that the Iraqis have a problem with Beck. In any case, it is good news that Scouting is on the move in Iraq, even if it is moving slowly.

You know, if I was running a public school and wanted to sponsor Scouts, I would simply issue an open invitation, publicly, for any students, or group for students, that wanted to form for atheists, homosexuals, etc, that if they wanted to be sponsored by the school, we were willing to sponsor them as long as they could find someone to be members. I think the way to get around the issues like the clan is by separating the issues of membership policies from issues like the activities of a group. For example, if a group's primary purpose is to engage in racism, then that is much different from a group that has racist membership policies. In the case of the BSA, the purpose of the group is not to go out and actively seek to discriminate, alienate a part of the populace, or promote one group over another within the community at large. Rather the membership policies discriminate. Also, if I were a public school wanting to sponsor a unit, I would make certain that all the staff understand that if they volunteer to help with a discriminatory group, that the school will not pay them to work with the group, nor will the school provide funds to the group. That way, if 70 different groups all came up looking for sponsorship, the school wouldn't be out any money. Really, this is mostly a case of the fact that BSA is unique in its charter partner operating system. If BSA were a stand alone group, there would be no issue, because that would reduce the entire thing to an access issue, which I think BSA would win. Perhaps we need an intermediary organization to serve as the middle man when dealing with schools and government organizations. That way, they can sponsor (but not own or operate) the XYZ group, which in turn charters a Scout unit. That would at least provide an extra layer of separation. Sort of like that plausible deniability thing for covert operations. In any case, I think it is rather telling that rather than advocating in favor of athiests being given more services so they can be on equal footing, the objective is to deny everyone those services. That is certainly a negative, destructive approach that does not in any way benefit any one. It will not make life better for athiests. Instead, it will make life worse for thiests. What a really crappy attitude. You know, good old honest Abe had a quote about that sort of thing. He said something along the lines of, "A man can not build up his own house by pulling down the house of his neighbor."

I would imagine DOD says it never sponsored a unit... because it probably never did. While I am not an expert on military law, or military rules and regulations, I have a hunch about this one. In the BSA, the members of the BSA are not able to enter into agreements, or legal relationships, or contracts, on the BSA's behalf. Just because I am a member doesn't mean I can act for the BSA. The same is almost certainly true of the members of the military. Only certain authorized personnel can enter into contracts, and then only for certain authorized purposed. I would imagine that none of the people entering into these charter agreements ever had the authority to enter into them. That would lead to the conclusion those charters were not technically valid, and that would be the DOD's fault for not policing their own operation.

I like Eamon's last post. The point is to show leadership. Now, does a project that someone else planned allow the Scout to show that leadership? I don't think it would in many cases, but there is perhaps some example where it would. Also, I think demonstrating leadership is an absolute requirement. We should have the same MINIMUM expectations for a 13 year old Eagle candidate as we have for a 17 year old. We must hold everyone to the same standard, or else we are not being just and fair. Now, we should expect more from a 17 year old with many other leadership experiences, but in the end, there must be some absolute minimum of what we each consider demonstrating leadership to be. If we hold each Scout to a different standard, that would mean we are changing the requirement for each Scout. I don't know what the policy on disabled or handicapped Scouts is. There may be a policy to allow them some flexibility, but that seems reasonable if they have serious limitations on their ability.

To fight for Nazis to march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors is an evil thing. The ACLU may in fact have been correct on the law. It certainly appears that way. However, human decency should have demanded that they not take that particular case. You can not justify doing an evil thing just because it is legal, or advances the rights within the constitution.

I knew a Unitarian who earned one of the protestant religous awards. It was part of the series of somewhat generic protestant awards, though I can't remember the name. I thought that was a bit of an odd thing to do, but I guess if they can satisfy the requirements, there is no reason they could not earn the award. So, if he wants on award that fits with the BSA program, he could try for one of those. I would, however, advise him that the Unitarian Universalist Association has its own award, but that BSA does not authorise its wear on the uniform. I wouldn't go into all the details about why, unless it is necessary. I certainly wouldn't use the wording that Unitarianism isn't an approved religion.

You have to be careful with this. If they have a completely planned project, with all materials ready to go, and all documentation prepared, then it wouldn't really make an Eagle project. It would make a fine community service project. On the other hand, you don't want you Eagles to be totally on their own when it comes to identifying, selecting, and planning projects. So, make certain you are diplomatic about this and clearly communicate that while ready made service projects are a great way for Scouts to help the community, Eagle candidates need a project that requires a bit more planning, preparation, and leadership. I think they will be able to understand.

I think that Computer example just shows why you need someone who has some knowledge of the field to help teach and guide the Scout through the MB. It is also a good argument for BSA continuing to update their MB books.

You should probably talk to the people at council about this, but I would think some sort of memorandum of understanding, or some such thing, signed by the old CO, the new CO, and the council, and spelling out all the important parts of this plan would cover everything. I wouldn't be surprised if the council has standard forms for this sort of thing. They will certainly have some experience dealing with moving units.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I wanted to skip the argument over how any particular group of Christians should be known as a church, sect, synod, denomination, etc. If we got into that argument, we would never get out of it. I have no problem with discussing various groups as they relate to this particular topic. Oh, the Unitarians do have some problems with BSA, though do to the many varied positions taken by unitarians on almost any issue, some will have problems, while others won't, but in this case the national association does. Essentially the unitarians are attempting to create a universal church/association/fellowship by allowing anyone to be a member, no matter what they believe. So, it is actually possible for a person to be an atheist and be a Unitarian. Also, the Unitarians see no problem with homosexual leaders. They essentially said to BSA that if they were going to charter units, they would allow any Unitarian to be a member. This caused some problems, and in the end the Unitarian Universalist Association decided not to charter any more BSA units since doing so would violate some of their beliefs, and BSA decided not to issue charters to Unitarians since UUA policies made it impossible for the Unitarians to enforce the leadership standards. Also, I would imagine there are a great number of other groups that have their own youth groups or youth programs that while they may allow Scouting, probably don't actively promote it, and instead encourage their members to join their group specific program. I know for example the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic fraternal group) has its own youth program called the Squires of Columbus. Oh, here is an odd one. The Catholic church I am a member of charters a Boy Scout Troop and a Cub Scout Pack. The pastor is a member of the council executive board (but only rarely goes to meetings), so he should know a little something about Scouting. Yet, any time a "complete" list of the ministries or activities within the parish is published, the Scouts are left out. I should also note the parish's school charters a learning for life school group, which I find ironically amusing.

Just out of curiosity, when did he give the talk? Did he do it while working on the MB? The reason I ask is, there are some people that will only sign off on things done since starting the MB. Is this right? I don't really know, but if that is what they decide to do, there isn't any way to make them sign something they don't want to.

If I am a merit badge counselor for X MB, and requirement 2 A is something I am an expert in, while requirement 2 B is something I don't know the first thing about, I would feel obligated to tell the Scout that I am only able to sign off on 2 A, and if he wants to do 2 B instead, he will need to find a some other person to work with on MB X. That isn't adding to the requirement, or taking away from it, that is just letting the Scout know what the situation is, and letting him make a choice. If he chooses 2B, he needs to find a different counselor.

I think we should leave the argument over sects, synods, churches, congregations, and denominations well enough alone. Otherwise we will find ourselves in an intractible argument. Though by all means, continue the discussion on organizations that don't charter units.

I am not suggesting it would be a good idea to invite every youth to the district committee or executive board meetings. That would likely be a disaster. I can't see any benefit to either the Cub Scout or the meeting in having them attend either. I am sure there is some special case once in a blue moon that this would be a good idea, but generally I would say not. However, what I am talking about, is having perhaps one youth from the Venturing program and one youth from the Boy Scout program be invited to attend. The logical choice would be the Order of the Arrow chief (chapter chief for District Committee, lodge chief for council board), and the President of the Venturing officer association. These are individuals that are obviously making time to be involved in Scouting beyond the unit level, and have an interest in the activities beyond the unit level. Obviously if such an individual were invited to be a member of the committee or board, or at least invited to attend meetings, they would not be expected to comment on every subject, but like the chairmen of the individual committees, they would be expected to offer their thoughts (and the collective consensus of the organizations they represent) when some matter directly relating to them is discussed. The lodge chief would probably like to hear about the new plan to promote camping in the council, since that is one of the goals of the lodge he represents. On the other hand, the Venturing officer association president probably won't be very interested in a the new Tiger Cub recruitment program and the special fund drive planned to pay for it. Considering that there are national officers in the OA, and a national Venturing cabinet, that would indicate that at least some youth are very interested in, and capable of dealing with, issues that relate to Scouting beyond the unit level. I think that a limited involvement on the council executive board for the OA lodge chief and the council Venturing officer association president would be entirely appropriate. Similarly, limited involvement by the chapter chief and district Venturing president would be appropriate at the district committee level. Are these things necessary? No, obviously not. If it were necessary, BSA would make these people automatic members of the committee or board. Would it be nice to extend the invitations to attend these meetings, even if it is purely symbolic? I think that yes, it would be. Let me provide a real world example supporting my thinking. The lodge vice chief when I was lodge chief went on to be elected lodge chief. Then he was elected Section Chief. Then he was selected as one of the conference vice chiefs for NOAC 2004. His job as a CVC required such things as working with representatives of various major manufacturers such as Coleman, working with the conference committee, coordinating with host staff, and any number of other things. In fact, there were even some jokes about representatives of various companies that called him at home thinking his parents were his office staff. All this was being done by someone that was at the time still in high school. Now, I would certainly think that someone like that has the maturity to sit on the council executive board, or district committee. I would also think that the board or committee could probably gain at least a little something by having someone like that as one of its members.

You know, this gives me an idea. I think perhaps adding the Outdoor Code or Wilderness Pledge to hikes and campout would be a good idea. I think the troop opening has enough stuff as is, but adding it to outdoor activities sounds like a good idea.

The BSA, through the region offices, keeps track of which professionals are eligible for which promotions. So, if there is an opening in a council for a new Scout Executive, the Executive Board (or perhaps the council president) will request a list of candidates who are eligible to take a Scout Executive position. The region office will produce such a list and send it to the council. The council will then choose which one of those people to hire. So, it is a blend of the professional service telling you who you can hire, and the council making the final decision to actually hire one of those people. My council is currently preparing to hire a new SE, and this is how it is working here.