qwazse

I'm not so sure, NJ. There seem to be parts of the country more comfortable with atheists as scouts, and others wanting to use the BSA as a means to discourage atheism. There seem to be folks who think that scouts should move to a co-ed model at every level, and folks who want it to link sex segregation to our "traditional values." In all these cases, it seems the majority of scouters are stuck somewhere in the middle. So, they go looking for a National policy ... just to have something beyond themselves to settle the matter. Maybe "culture war" is too strong a term. How about "great divorce?"

As the unofficial "Guy with the Keg" (of 1912 root beer) at an area camporee, I'm in no position to object. Keeping those taps from clogging is definitely tech!

There is an abrupt switching from parents being criticized for "dump and run" behavior in a pack to being criticized for hovering too closely in a troop.

@@blw2 I'll let Stosh speak for his situation. But you landed on something pretty significant. In a very effective troop, the ASMs and the CC herd the adults in a particular direction so they can observe their boys without interfering. (Kind of like those special 360 enclosures at animal parks!) For example, when two scouts and their dad helped me visit a large Webelos den, I was introduced, did an opening hello to everyone, gave the scouts some ideas of questions they might want to ask the scouts, then the dad and I directed the parents to a different room and left my scouts to talk to the Webs.

The main thing: Are the scouts friendly, courteous, and kind? Those are the things you notice in a visit. Chances are, if those are working the other points are as well. Does the SPL come and greet you (the parent) personally? Are these the kind of boys you'd like your son to become? The other stuff, you can work with. Understanding the PM, that's for you to understand what most scouters are (or should be) working toward. It's for you to help a troop that's on track keep chugging along, and a troop that's off the rails to get back on track.

Ditto, @@Stosh. The problem: our Troop committee keeps looking for stuff to do (fundraisers, etc...). So stuff gets on the calendar, then cleared with the boys! I basically outlawed the Crew committee from thinking for the youth. What a youth does not initiate, adults don't compensate. Last week one of my youth declared, "I bet you're the only Advisor who leaves it up to us, and in other crews, the adults bail them out!" Before I could reply "So?" Son #2 backed me up, replying "No, I've talked to other venturers. They have to suck it up too." The consequence: boys who've been coasting in 'bailed-out' patrols hit the wall when they join a crew, have an idea, and get handed a phone number and told "Make it so!" Unless I have a steady influx of Girl Scouts, planning is rough.

@@Stosh Not disagreeing with you. Just sayin' that the troop was not completly invisible. As @@TAHAWK says: The patrol's primary interaction was with other patrols in the troop. Our troop was blessed with an committee who allocated us the basement of an old church manse, so patrols had rooms ... not just corners ... which we renovated. One patrol had a 4' x 8' home-made air hockey table. Another a pool table. One was newly opened for the young Wolves assigned for me to PL ... which I kept bare because none of the Pee Wee comics or Scouts in Action that I saw had backdrops of scouts indoors! Like @@desertrat77, I came to look on other troops with pity. They had nicer quarters, but seemed to be clueless about how to raid Mom's pantry and get exactly what was needed for 8 boys and two nights. Plus in the dead of winter, they were crammed in these cabins while we were pitching tents under open sky.

Keep the baby when you change the bathwater! I don't disagree that the average contemporary troop foists so much on the boys that the significance of patrols is obscured. But, let's not revise history to the point where folks think once-upon-a-time every patrol existed in a vacuum. There was always that one meeting every couple of weeks -- sometimes every month -- where a patrol would report back to the SM/SPL their accomplishments. Patrols were accountable in one way or another for making sure meetings and ceremonies ran smoothly. Eight boys who plan and implement excellent adventures and drift into troop meetings with no contribution to unit ... not even a report on their goings-on ... are a crew, not a patrol. We can see this happen with older boys in contemporary troops when adults often step in, often uninvited, to instruct or demonstrate. The skilled boys loose their sense of purpose and cease to "take up the mantle" of mentoring the youngns. But, this doesn't have to be an adult-driven problem. There are lots of reasons that a group of boys may get it into their heads that they are neither needed or wanted. To any SMs reading, if this is your situation, your troop is in dire straights ... fix it soon. That is why "on behalf of your unit" is in my definition of to patrol. It keeps the sense of representing something greater than one's self in the method.

By the way, the definition I gave is my own, departing from the dictionary based on what I've read on this and other forums, and from my conversations with various special forces ... Even, so, I'm concerned about it being too verbose. Suggestions on reduction are welcome. Although many of the points and quotes listed in other replies are valid in most cases, they are superfluous in many. Adults could back away, and a patrol would still not hike and camp. Boys could hike and camp and adult generals would be sent to mind their every move. A patrol leader may abandon the persuit of first class. Boys may be all about their patrol to the abandonment of the unit. For all of these and other scenarios, a scouter needs to provide a consise vision of what a patrol is to whoever needs correction. On BSA's end, the pinnacle scouting experience needs to be hiking and camping independently with your mates. Jambo, high adventure, rare awards, those are all secondary.

Probably the worse punishment that could be offered any egocentric SE ... They'll be ignored.

Declaration of Religious Priniciples Regarding Mike. The guy's a sharp tack. While here, he returned phone calls personally, talked knowledgeably about volunteer and professional human resources, had a good idea of what scouts and venturers were looking for in a summer camp, and was not preachy about political agendas. He didn't show-boat. As far as I could tell, whoever was doing the most work got the lion's share of his time. I wouldn't expect him to muck about with changes in principle. I would expect him to point out what's working in one part of the country and encourage the rest of us to get on board.

Patrol (v) = to hike and camp independently to get to know the lay of the land on behalf of your unit. Patrol (n) = a small band of scouts assembled (more or less permanently) for the express purpose of patrolling. Patrol Leader (n) = a scout whose goal is to qualify to take his patrol hiking and camping.

We have yet to have boys who decide on anything but Heritage Reservation week 1. After our merger, that's likely to change because the merging troop has been attending Seven Ranges.

Paperwork? I walked into the scout shop and grabbed them (maybe showed some Id for the Eagle, but didn't have to sign for it. The other one came with a venturing leadership award, I needed a spare, the DE got it for me. Having to complete paperwork is a show-stopper for me.

We don't make this too complicated. I tell boys if they are active to a particular level, their SMCs and BORs will be scheduled with a similar level of activity. We give the SM lots of discretion regarding this.

More carrots, fewer sticks. It could be as simple as special patches or ribbons for the hosting troop ... Or serious street cred.

Assuming that the crumudgeon wasn't your SM, I would ay you are on level footing, @@Oldscout448. You applied the EDGE method flawlessly. Which means you left the boys with inferior skills that will not enable them to reproduce the desired result. If only you had a reference that the boys could call upon in those times when your presence is not available and institutional memory fails ... As far as violating the patrol boundaries are concerned, that ship sailed when they came to you asking for your axe. You take my girls out for a spin, you're asking me for one eye on you until they're brought home on time and as pretty as when they left.

@, great suggestions. I have a NOAA weather radio ... couldn't find a station. Weather spotting skills were my best friend. Minimized panic. At least you can see what's coming. In PA and WV, we fly blind. Winds were below 50 ... I call it a good day.

So, the family was out hiking in Witchita Mts today, and once Mrs Q and I showered in OKC we drove back through a severe storm to Daughter's place in Norman. The kids are now on the couch howling at the weather report on channel 9. 1. There was hail, but the ground was not covered with it; however, someone sent a picture of what could have been an empty beer cooler of ice around a weather gauge on two square feet of ground by the edge of their house. 2. While the weatherman was jawing about resulting ground fog, I stepped outside and could see a couple of miles in either direction. Visibility had been bad during the drive back at times because of occasionally intense rain bands and WE WERE UNDER THE ANVIL where sunshine is unlikely to penetrate. 3. I'd reasonably say the car was pummeled with golfball size hail. On occasion. There is no reason to go on describing every other size ("not baseball, but some quarter, dime, and even pea...") If you see video of some northerners making a mock forecast with terrible drawls, please be kind to them, the do love you all, but they are so happy to be together again that they are chock full of the sillies ... We also saw some ruined houses and downed timber back where no news truck would go, so we're praying for the bad week some folks are having. All that to say there is a big difference between what a fella sees out his own back door every day for a week and what gets put in the record books. Don't let your Cubs think they deserve a rank for depending on someone else's news.

Writings about sexual expression in ancient cultures always seem to come from writers from other cultures. I once read a Roman description of Eutruscia that was in exactly the violent terms that you describe. (Sorry, couldn't find the source at my fingertips, but it had to do with how an aristocrat would treat his slaves.) The scholar I mentioned earlier covered the panoply of homosexual expression recorded in Ancient Rome, and it wasn't just limited to expressions of conquest. Furthermore, Paul, in his several epistles, and John in his gospel as well as the Apocalypse, elevates two forms of sexual expression: celibacy and heterosexual monogamy. It is a stretch to say that Paul in the letter to Romans was treating male and female homosexuality in anything other than a relational form: "consumed with passion one for another". The only effective arguments for requiring the Church to honor homosexual (or polyamourous or bestial) unions are ones that require the abandonment of two millennia of teaching for a new 5-decades-old orthodoxy. At which point one might ask, "So, now that we've concluded that everything was read out of context, do you mind if I hate on my neighbor?" BTW. Absolutely right about Sodom and Gomorrah that same-sex dalliances were the least of their worries. Boiling thier actions down to one sin (even to attempting to assault Angels) is reading more into the text than what is actually there. FWIW, I originally learned most of the Christian justification against homosexuality from a liberal pastor. Nice guy. Definitely one of those "It ain't necessarily so" types. But would bust a fella's chops if he found out the dude was shacking up with his gal.

Oops! 8th point. (Evidently I can't edit my post once it's been quoted.)

The only reason I'm not abandoning this thread on account of the incremental cussing, is that I have another tangent. Back in the day, in the church I went to in London, on the wall there was a list outlining which cousins could and could not marry. I guess it was a cheat-sheet if somone actually wanted to announce a reason to object to a marriage (or forever hold his/her peace). 1. Are those restrictions still in effect? 2. If so, would openning the door to same-sex marriage allow for closely-related kin to wed? Or will it apply in the other direction, and are bubba and bobby gonna have to check that family tree? 3. How 'bout polygamists and polyandrists? 'Bout time the clergy be forced to keep up with the muslims! 4. The guy who trained his parrot to say "I do"? The "Go Fund Me" sites are gonna be so much fun.

9th point says we should all be openly gay ... no room in this organization for the publicly morose.