qwazse

I think at some point you need to tell the Mom that advancement is only one method of scouting! The fact that he said "no" on his own does say something about the him. Now a lot of times I do get kids who are overly self-critical. They may make too many goals for themselves, or they may think that once they hold that patch their rough edges will magically disappear. But regardless, they were able to say something for themselves.

I can't answer for the cub program, but I have gone through the paperwork to apply for alternate requirements for a kid with a clear physical disability that prevented him from swimming and surviving. I am pretty sure that as a cub, he simply didn't earn aquanaut. For Aspergers, we generally take aquatic instruction slowly. We get other scouts to leave the swimmers area and spend time with the boy in non-swimmers area. Scouting is about overcoming psychological barriers. Generally scouts with this disability don't want special accommodation anymore. It makes their award seem "fake" to them. You will probably be better off telling the boy that his fear of water is preventing him from earning that pin. Then, go on to work on a different award until he tells you he's ready to try swimming again.

The definitive response against iconoclasm was written in the 8th century. You can find an excerpt of it on the wiki entry of that term. ... we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us. One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message. ... we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men. The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects.

Not sure why anyone would expect NYLT to be a slam-dunk qualification for SPL. I'm also not sure why it's a problem if all of your trained kids take non-SPL positions. If the non-SPLs truly have NYLT koolaid in their blood, they ought a be servant-leaders regardless of the patch on their sleave. They will help the SPL be successful. Maybe the one kid who was not NYLT trained was busy being a den chief, going to camp with the troop and the pack, and being a camp counselor at his church. Son #2 and a buddy wound up taking the VLST (yes, the adult leader course for venturers, long story) earlier this year. Then his buddy wound up being SPL and chose him for an assistant. Neiher had any other position-specific training and they really did a bang-up job at camp this week. At closing campfire, the SPL (last year with e troop) thanked me for steadily pushing him into leadership. None of our boys are NYLT trained because it is always held on our summer camp week. They just get it into their heads that the SM and I don't give a rodent's burro about patches on their sleeves. We expect them to lead at all times, and command respect of their peers. That way, any contingent leader can see their unit # and 1st class rank and know they are looking at the right stuff.

How sad. An aweful way to learn how important it is to spread out if you don't have a grounded structure to shelter in.

Definitely the primary way to configure the tent. Bugs fly in one way and fly out any of three others. Perfect shade and ventilation for siesta. Still enough open at your head to enjoy the evening stars. Only problem: when you lay down for the night and discover some over-zealous scouter left the latrine lantern on and it's shining in your eyes!

This is a topic covered at some point in most Christian education curricula that I've seen. (I've only worked with a small sample, so I don't know how pervasive it is, but I think the case that Merlyn sites was a motivation to make sure mainstream denomination members were prepared when the Jehovah's witnesses knocked at their door.) In a nutshell ... The pledge in its current revision calls for allegiance to the "one nation under God". That is, inasmuch as the nation is subservient to (and not a replacement for) God, a Christian's allegiance should not be torn. Jewish thought falls along similar lines. In fact the way the pledge is said emphasis this. Only non-religious civilian headgear is supposed to be removed. That phrase is not a litmus test for a Christian to use to declare fealty. St. Paul encouraged believers to view government to be a gift from God to order our lives. And certainly there was no reference to God in any test of loyalty in ancient times. Most of the 1st Century church didn't need to bother with oaths, but some were soldiers and servants of Rome. They all seemed to carry on their duties without much disruption. That changed with the edicts that all military officers (and other public figures) were to burn incense to Caesar. Even so, the record of folks martyred for the faith (as atheists, by they way, because they lived life without the pantheon of gods) included a broad swath of citizens, indicating that folks were still fulfilling their public duties in spite of the persecution. Of course, once Christianity became the imperial religion, things changed drastically and, in many unfortunate cases, to the opposite extreme (pogroms, Crusades, wars of reformation, counter reformation, etc...). Ultimately, it's not an oath or a flag that matters. Anything that declares itself as the sole authority above God is anathema. So each Christian is to determine in his/her every day life what lesser gods may be vying for supremacy. And from time to time, a nation with exactly an oath such as ours could be that lesser god. This line of thought renders the pledge itself as non-problematic, and directs a believer to be concerned about more immediate issues of social justice.

A couple of years ago, I met a troop from Michigan hiking the North Country Trail/Minister Creek loop in the Allegheny National Forest. They packed in 3 boys to a fly (maybe 2 older scouts) and seemed to be having a great time. My family, we get tents on sale (never spent more than $200), or at garage sales (Mrs. got me two pup tents for a dollar, I replaced the flimsy poles with cut-down scraps from a dining fly -- best pieces of nylon I ever had.) Keep in mind that I'm a tenting optional kinda guy.

Okay, maybe I'm biased. But, at a certain point you have to prepare a kid to count positives. Sure, he did precious little, but always bring him to what he DID accomplish. Who knows? That one troop tradition might outlast all of that management training we cherish so highly. Here's hoping at least one more "yes" is on the checklist in the next few weeks.

Then he contributed! (Can you guess my favorite scouting game?)

Those "conveniences" are not enough. It is the advent of home entertainment that is the key convenience. You can't lay blame at the foot of a program that boys did not even know existed or notice as different. I was a boy scout throughout the change in one direction and then the other. I did not see any difference in any of it. I still don't see anything signficant until the ODR uniform came about (an atrocity). What happened in the early 1970's was that TV exploded. It went from flickery, B&W lone ranger re-runs and test patterns at night to 19" color screens being in multiple rooms of the house. In the 1980's computers and video games came along and put more nails in the coffin. Today, video games and computers are such a massive world of adventure to explore, the scouts simply have nothing to offer to compete. Call of Duty is more interesting than scouting. It's better. It isn't real, which is a problem (is it?), but it is more fun for most kids. I stipulate your membership argument. I will also concede you could be right about the program. But having been a scout during the changes, and not noticing them, and having the handbooks from 1972 and 1980 on my shelf, I don't remember a thing changing. Which merit badges get you to eagle? Most boys didn't care. Because most boys don't even try to make eagle. I think that was mostly an annoyance for adults seeing boys earn Eagle without having to go outdoors. and videoI think it was TV anis video games. I could be wrong, but that's what I think it is. Every kid I know prefers video games to everything. Really, TJ? You don't know one kid who plays his guitar all day to the exclusion of video games? Video games have replaced watching sports in my household. Music got pushed aside. Maybe they have even crowded out some Bible reading. But they have not precluded scouting or sports.

FWIW, just came back from a week with boys who were having a great time. Even a senior scout who made it his point to "do nothing" the whole week, got sucked into a little service project I "volunteered" us for, got his fellow scouts involved in games, and genuinely had a good time trying to be obnoxious but failing miserably at it. This was not a kid swimming against culture, but he liked his scout buddies, and if it meant bunking in the woods, then so be it. On the other hand, some of the more rugged boys who went on a 5 mile hike after an evening meal came back with flowers in their hair. "prissy" would not apply to any of them. Let's just call it "Man enough to not be bothered."

The problem with the argument that modern conveniences keep boys at home, is that we know from membership numbers that at the same time that TV, air conditioning, suburban life and all its comforts were exploding, so was BSA membership. A/C, shag carpet, arcade halls, and TV didn't keep boys at home in 1965, we can't assume that's what keeps them home today. In fact, as Rush fans know all too well, it may be the case that suburban life actually pushes boys right into our arms (nerd time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4) because it denies their nature. But, perhaps the growth in membership had nothing to do with BSA's intrinsic qualities: historians of the US also know the 50s as a "culture of joining"--civic groups of all types, not just the BSA, saw their membership soar. So, we have a few reasons why there was so much growth: adventure, getting out of the home, getting out of the "mass production zone" suburbs, joining for joining's sake. Your point about patriotism doesn't much play, for me. Patriotism has never played a major role in my scouting experience as either a youth or adult. The fashion at this forum is to timestamp our modern problems 1972, tag them "Improved Scouting Program," and lay them all at the feet of national. And to be sure, drastically changing the program drastically changed what boys were getting, and they clearly didn't want the new menu. However, the program was corrected in 1979, but it hasn't stopped the bleeding. That's where we get to your best argument: Cultural change. There's no culture of joining, anymore, it's all about individualism. Mistrust of institutions is rampant. Mommy thinks Johnny will die if he's out of her sight. In the past, mom and dad wanted junior in the woods, out of the house, and to become a man as soon as possible, preferably before his first armpit hair; now they're scared to death to even consider that he will leave home by 30. There is also the proliferation of extra-curriculars. I didn't live it, so I will try not to overstate, but the after-school landscape was not as crowded in the past as it is today. Now, Johnny has a lot more options. Last, in terms of culture still, the baby boom is over. The decline coincided not just with Improved Scouting, but also with the aging-out of the boomers, and birth rates have continued to decline among BSA's core demographic (whitey). The answer, of course, is continued differentiation. The only traditional program that has seen membership growth between 1999 and 2012 is Venturing. Wow, BSA, what a surprise! The most freewheeling program is the only one that's growing. Yet BSA continues to dial back adventure and independence in Boy Scouting. The second thing is to keep reaching out to Spanish-speaking families; they have more kids than whitey, and they don't have the same access to other civic institutions. S99, hate to burst your bubble, but venturing membership has been trending downward since 2001.

Aw shucks, BD. Nice paraphrase. The line was from my introduction to the boys about the sandwich principle: "Safe scouting: bringing you as close to your creator as possible without making it a permanent stay."

Agreed that this is not in compliance with the policy. It seems that they are trying to skirt it using BD's reference which mentions housing, but they are using tents. Doesn't wash with me because in my mind campsite=house. However, this is where the policy shows its frayed edges. Are those boys or those adult females at any greater risk because they couldn't find a male leader? I don't think so. Would they be at less risk if an adult male were provided? Doubt it. As far as camp management is concerned, if possible, I would provide an adult male "site guide" to share the campfire with them and set up camp next to the boys' tents. As far as PSR is concerned, I would strongly encourage the crew to describe their situation to the head ranger, and leave it to them to resolve that leg of their journey.

DW, if you cuss. You secure my contentment at National's dismissal of your claims. For the other folks that may be in your predicament. I'm just a guy in the trenches. Just thinking about the depiction of events: .... At one point, the BSA attorney asked me about "God". ... I said that I was confused by his question and I needed to know the official BSA definition of "God" that he was applying, .... I saw the plaintiff attorneys wake up just then, though sadly too late. I also saw the BSA defendent attorney back-pedal furiously to get himself out of that quagmire .... Again ... He said, "God is whatever you say it is." So, knowing something about some non-theistic religious traditions, I offered an idea. "No, that's not it. But God is whatever you say it is." So I offered another well-considered idea and he again responded with, "No, that's not it either. But God is whatever you say it is." After a few more iterations of this nonsense, I stated, "Well, obviously my own ideas are 'God' are not the same as yours." at which point he terminated the conversation, obviously satisfied that he had gotten what he had wanted. I gotta, say. It sounds like asking a kangaroo, "Can you do something about this kick-me sign?" There is nothing but pain in that line of inquiry. Here's what I've garnered from what little BSA training I've had. Their definition DOES NOT MATTER. An attempt to lead a plaintiff to leverage a relativistic-argument DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is if when asked, one can say they are living a life answerable to God. The asker may not understand the breadth of that as well as the person being asked does -- or maybe it's the other way around. But, the choice of that word allows for that kind of latitude. At least what I've been taught through BSA's instruction on the matter, is that a person's willingness to say they are doing that is all I need to know. Then again, all that was in the context of taking care of youth -- not in the context of selecting adult leaders. I don't think the folks who would take action to reject an adult leader are on this forum, so a straight answer as to how things are being done now (or iff there is any method to the madness) is not forthcoming. Although Khaleila's testimony indicates that at least at the council or area levels, there are lines drawn in the sand.

You've just gone to great lengths to say that "God" probably does not mean to you what it means to me. Well, take a number. I did not ask if you believe in the definition that Christians have attributed to a very ancient word to great effect. What's wrong with just speaking English at face value? If your assertion is that you revere something more elevated than anything else in the universe of things to revere, it seems you've arrived at the end of an ontological proof for God.

Sounds like a good plan. Especially since your patrols are letters and not numbers. (My rant to my troop: "Dens have numbers, patrols don't.") Was bullying an issue before? Or was it a hypothetical? (Or something in between. Sometimes you can look at a cluster of boys and think "Oh, this is not gonna turn out good." Happened to me on the bus ride home last night.)

Stosh -- even the church I attend (which should know better because of it's Scottish roots, and more recent history with the pain of "untouchable" funds sitting idle) got in the habit of "holding over" funds for a particular annual youth activity. I had no idea until I took charge, income and expense report to the treasurer, and she asked "what about the $400 from last year?" Some elders forgot (or came on never knowing) how to read budget and finance reports. I made it clear, that unless our activity was in the budget, we should have $0. It took me explaining that I knew our youth leaders were afraid of a something nice activity for the ministry because of budget constraints before a light bulb came one and folks thought "Oh, we could have let them run with that 1/2 K!" If they chartered a unit, they would have been perfectly happy never knowing it's finances unless someone like me asked why the unit account was not listed as an asset on the annual report. I'm sure most other churches are the same way. Thus we wind up pulling stunts like this! BD.. you don't have a bone in this fight ... definitely have the CC talk to the parents and try to give them a vision for how much the boy will need for what all he's said he wants to do in his scouting career. He should it clear that your boys are using those funds in stewardship for the troop. (I know a lot of you don't see it this way, but every boy who makes it to camp is doing a service for the troop. Try a week at camp when a bunch of them aren't there. Or look at how down they get when one decides to go home early.) Have him point out that if they use his funds for their fees now, there is a strong expectation that they will put their shoulders to the wheel for the next fundraiser(s), and over the years they will have built the troops' coffers up enough to front an entire Philmont contingent. Will they listen? Probably not. But if y'all don't deliver the message, you don't stand a chance.

I was not asking for a definition. I was asking about your stance. Let me rephrase: Do you have a duty to God?

Yep. It's down again. Hold that thought until this round of server failure passes.

So this is a pack event? I'd be more inclined to accept the family pooling all resources together to go. I would try to get into their heads that you find this unusual and that those ISA funds now won't be available for other things they boy may want (e.g., new uniform, gear after crossover, etc ...), but leave it as their call. (Again, if the CC or Treasure should take this communication on for you. You have bigger fish to fry with camp coming up.) It would be nice if these are the kinds of parents who are there for the entire pack when they are there, but sometimes you don't know that until you have boots on the ground.

BD, in your position, I'd have the CC or treasurer ask the boy if he's okay with paying for his mom/dad out of his account. Make sure the boy knows how much will be left over in the account for his other activities. One time we had a Seabase trip with limited spots and too many parents wanting to fill them. We required all parents who wanted to participate to take IOLS. That thinned the herd.

My read is that the alternative requirement is for boys who have been active in the troop for the required time, but PORs weren't available to him. So ask yourself, has this boy been of some good (about six months worth) to the troop as a star scout? If yes, then any of the above are worth the time suggesting. If the boy just showed up today after being absent since his last board of review, you should offer to help him work to finish out a life scout with a legit POR for the duration.

JP, happens all the time to me as well. But, I'd tell the T2FC scout "excuse me one moment while I give your SPL/PL a refresher course." Then I tell the older scout to abandon that EDGE method, get with the younger scout and his book and the both of them learn together by my tried-and-true referential learning method. Nobody is off the hook because of a lapse of memory.