qwazse

ALB - There is a distinct difference between my female venturers who were girl scouts and the ones who were not. The non girl-scouts have more of that "pioneering spirit" which maybe is one slice of the "male mystique". The girl-scouts have great organizational abilities and can sing around a campfire until the cows come home. So I think some of that is learned behavior. But, they both want to be respected as ladies. And I think that's where with the co-eds you see the "male mystique" kicking in. A guy who slacks around a camp full of boys might get yelled at or have his stuff yanked out of his tent in the morning. In a co-ed camp, the punishment is much more severe: he'll be shunned. The pressure to "man up and treat the ladies with respect" is a little higher.

Yes, the potty mouth is an important issue. Perhaps the only redeeming thing about situations like these is an opportunity to help a kid manage better when they are frustrated. I just had to ding a former scout for cussing on his FB status. So, this never ends. On the other hand, if I'm ever out of line, I know there are a bunch of boys who will call me on it! The other issue is: can you work with this mom? If so, have a heart-to-heart over a cup of tea. Settle differences and move on. The final issue: are you willing to give ground on the cell phone rule? (A lot of us have.) How about on the shoes? If you are, that's less "up front" stress for you. Of course when some parent is upset that an $80 piece of equipment got ruined, you have to pull out the "not my problem, next time read the what-to-bring list" line.

I have no complaints about the cub program. I think the expectation that it would feed the ranks of Boy Scouts is overstated. I also have seen that Troops do not necessarily feed the Venturing program. Some of you have pointed out that this happens because of adversarial reasons. I have noted that Troops do not feed the crew even in non-adversarial situations. At every level you need to recruit, recruit, recruit! I think my venturers really like the cubs.

You really do live in your own little world don't you. Yes, it is a pleasant one with Muslims, Jews, Bhuddist, Jains, Athiests, etc ... with whom I have honest conversations about matters of faith. We've spent some good moments trying convert each other! No you don't have to be a credentialed theologian to not believe in the resurrection, however without some kind of credentials few will take anything you say very seriously. Actually, I find if your are willing to pray for someone when they're sick, visit them when they're in prison, morn with them at the loss of a loved one, welcome them when they're a stranger, they'll take you pretty seriously. I take a theologian seriously if he/she make sense. Calling oneself a Christian and denying the resurrection of the body does not make sense. Sects or denominations occur because of the reinterpretation or misinterpretation of scripture Or because there is something intrinsic to a religion that lends itself to sectarianism. Or, because the Holy Spirit has plans that require folks to part as if it were Paul and Barnabas all over again. I have no idea which it is, but when I see great folks with seemingly identical interpretation of scripture, yet in different camps, it leads me to doubt that it's as simple as you put it. It's more stuff that's just gotta sort itself out in eternity. So even if you live a "good life" but never believe in Jesus as the son of God or in a higher being can you still be a Christian? The answer is definitely NO. Agreed. There is actually more to being called Christian than putting all your chips on one historical event, but this is the biggest piece of the puzzle.

It takes a lot of faith to believe in science. Lot's of my colleagues don't want to believe the margin of error in their measurements any more than some false prophets want to believe in their margins of error!

NJS - This thread is about what Christians believe, which is why I have not weighed in, since it's really none of my business. Since, the term was given to us by non-Christians, it's allowed to be everyone's busines. What you think, looking from the outside, is pretty important. ... mentioned members of another religion ... and what they think about what Christians believe ... I don't think we need to be singling out anybody in particular. Ok? BP referenced theologians who asserted the ressurection was mere fabrication by early church leaders. My point was, you don't have to be a highly regarded theologian to assert such a thing. But, you'd might as well not be Christian. It's true, that you could adhere to any number of religions and have that opinion, but of all those who I know who have a lot to say on the one particualar issue, they had been of Jewish faith (either by birth or conversion). Also, I was very specific with the use of the word "strident", some of my Jewish friends don't have a problem with the resurrection, some don't even have a problem with the "Son of God" title. They do have a problem that modern (i.e. anything after the 6th century) Christians suppressed the Biblical holy days and over time made the religion more Western/Imperial and less Jewish. It's really hard to reconcile that an opressor of your family could be your brother in faith. My bottom line: one good way to get an honest definition of Christianity is to listen to what folks outside the faith have to say about it. They may say good things, they may say bad. All of them help fill in the big picture. That includes -- as much as BadenP wishes it were the contrary -- this propensity for sects and factions. But the resurrection from the dead is common thread among all the views that I've heard or read about. If you don't have that, folks will stop calling you a Christian.

Another issue, was the girl using the cell phone? Anyway, like ea says, there's a lot that's gotta be "water under the dam" because time has passed. You may need to consider the following ... An apology to the mom for not bringing the daughter to her on the first infarction. And a sincere apology for not insisting that she and her daughter be sent home to cool down without the eyes of the other moms and girls on them. An explaination to the daughter that being frustrated about not getting her way wasn't the problem ... cussing and being obstinate was. Making it clear that her fussing made took time away from the other girls' fun, and she needs to figure out how to make it up to them. Finally make it known that to the powers that be (moms included) that you will not operate a troop that is forced to retain a girl who is not enjoying the program to its fullest (rules included). So either this young lady improves her outlook, or leaves, or you pack it in. For what it's worth, we routinly have this with young boys. We haven't had to toss any out, but we have had to accept "modest" gains in improvement. (E.g., boy being willing to apologize to the whole troop for how his behavior caused us to cut short an evening activity. A year earlier he would have been permenantly indignant.)

Oh, and by the way, thanks for volunteering (again). If you're starting with grandson in cubs, the online stuff should be adequate for now. (I go over it myself from time to time by way of "refresher".) In fact if you took the time to knock all of those out, you'd be a step ahead of most committee members. With boy scouts, I would actually suggest recertifying first aid and CPR training. If you're into shooting sports, being a certified instructor for firearms or archery can open up a lot of opportunities for the troop. If you had BSA guard, try re-updating (although those sprints seem to get harder every year). The first person to talk to is your pack/troop committee chair. There's lots of good reasons for that, but the main one is that there may be someone else who needs trained, and you could partner with them to get it done.

There are a few theologians who have written that Jesus was not truly resurrected and claim that early Christian leaders made up that story to keep their movement alive and growing. A few? Only a few? Like, how about all my strident Jewish buddies? But weather the outsiders thought the story was a fabrication or not, they identified Christians based on this belief. Later on, they identified them by a stubborn unwillingness to burn incense to Cesar, but that flowed out from the whole resurrection thing. I get the whole doubt thing. But, often folks who confess to those doubts also confess to doubts about their own inferences. Some folks have been burned by "good" Christians, and this has shaken their faith to the core. So maybe not expecting a Christian to be "good" is a defense mechanism on my part. What I don't get, is folks who would chalk the resurrection up to fabrication and wish to stay in a Christian camp. Beav, had a good discussion with the Sunday School kids on this. Made things a lot more interesting for them! I owe the guy at least that.

We have a Eureka Teragon 4 that child #1 got and is now the tent of choice for child #3. The only issue was the fly's plastic windows that ruptured in maniacal gale force last-gasp-of-winter winds after it's second outing. Needs regular reapplication of packing/duct tape. It's suitable as a 3 man (cubs), 2 man (scout before the voice drops an octave), or 1 man (i.e., me). I'm guessing it has another couple of dozen outings left in it. As BD implies, he'll be chucking the Walmart tent in the trash the minute he wakes up after (or during) the first storm or gnat swarm, so get him started earning and socking away $100 a month so he can afford the equipment (and Jambo/Philmont/Seabase/NTier fees) he really wants.

Nostalgia rises as I stare at an empty but probably quite useless plastic coffee container.

Sounds like you did a great job listening to your team. Now you need to think of your next moves in "a game with a purpose." Like any coach, you gotta suck in your breath and not let your displeasure overwhelm everything. Let your ASPL know that based on what you saw in the weekend he may one day make a good SPL. Tell him there is room for improvement, but the best way to figure that out how to improve is to hear from his team. In a PLC have the SPL go over things (the usual "what went well", "what didn't go so well","what we should do differently"). Don't let this ramble on or divulge into a blame match. The point is to get the boys agree on what they expect of each other the next time. Then look ahead to that next time. Then, you get them back on task. "Our cross-overs did not come away from the weekend with as solid skills as we would have hoped. What can we do to help them get up to speed?" This is the tough part of leadership. We can have a good idea of how things should be. We can convey to others how should be. They could agree. But when things don't turn out quite how they should, we need to still figure out how to make the best of the experience.

Sorry if my choice of the word "cynicism" was equated with faithlessness. There was a time when that wouldn't be the case. BP - ... Dark Ages, countless numbers of wars, and enslavement of entire cultures by so called "good Christians" ... OE-AE - ... the people who claimed to be Christians and missed the mark ... don't align with what a 'Christian' should be Your summary judgments and condescension are duly noted. Scripture (and experience) tells me none are "good", not one. I'll work from that lens and avoid delusions that my walk is any better. My point is, that the one and only thing that qualifies them as Christian was a firm belief in the resurrection from the dead -- not metaphorical dead, not post-modern zombie dead, but your garden-variety-more-certain-than-taxes-dead. So, no, you can't ever be a good Christian. You can only merely be one. Given that, you can have varieties of zeal, or charity, or nobility, or theological astuteness or any number of other strengths. And depending on how your collection of gifts mesh with the times, you may get the additional label of "good." But if history is any indication, generations from now will judge your "goodness" critically, and you'll be labeled divisive, naive, or dictatorial. (Hopefully we'll sort this all out when we also are resurrected and have an eternity to sit and talk things through with the sectarians, ascetics, and fundamentalists of old -- or of many years to come if the Rapture still waits.) Now, I've met folks in good conscience who could not bring themselves to believe in the resurrection. (In spite of someone like OE-AE laying it out fairly well for them.) But when in spite of this they try to hold on to the attribution of "Christian" because they don't want to look "bad", it comes off as very pathetic. Better that folks accept that they are non-Christian and simply work out being "good" until they nail down what they are putting their faith in. P.S. SScout - What would be the advantage of this being in a "Faith and Chaplaincy" forum? Is it messing things up being in "Issues and Politics"?

Youngest son and I heard the story on the radio. What a riot.

NJ - It's probably a good idea to copy those E-mails to whoever you are training as your backup committee chair! Do you save your E-mails? You could put them all in a folder and say to some third party "here. please review for YP purposes", and you've fulfilled the policy. Have you made the boys any safer? Not a wit. Why? Your correspondence is largely administrative the person getting them would tune them out. And, if you were a predator, you'd send lots of inocuous E-mail's with cc's until you've picked out the boy who is willing to correspond on more than "strictly business". You will set up a bogus cc that looks like the adult's in the troop so the boy doesn't suspect anything. Eventually once you were sure you had your mark you could remove the cc knowing he wouldn't rat you out. THEN you'd start being outright evil. All along, you would be sending hundreds of messages with cc's under the pretence of being accountable. You'd even encourage everyone else to do it because it helps you fly under the radar! In short, there's no way I could be sure my youth were safe from you if I did or did not get copied on your E-mails.

I know it's small consolation, but there seems to be no amount of telling beforehand. Venturing daughter on her first hike decided to not put socks becuase 1) we were rushed and 2) we were only hiking a mile into camp. Next morning: lessons in mole skin application before 6 more miles on the trail. Silly me for thinking I didn't need to check footgear on 14 year olds. As far as aftercare at home: evening soaks in epsom salts. Keep clean and dry before bed time. In the morning put guaze over any blisters that haven't popped. I generally prefer powder for AF.

t366e, Thanks for throwing out the question, and it's too bad you did not hear from some other SPLs/JASMs. (They'll probably all write in after your weekend's over.) There is a very fine line between "scrutinizing" and "making feel like a failure". An event can not go as planned and still be a success. And leadership always occurs. Sometimes it's just not the leadership you expect. So stay positive, keep an eye out for those youth who are showing some leadership and be generous with the "attaboy"s.

my #1: Tent optional. Try ripping the cieling out of your hotel room on a starry night -- and that would only work if you were on the top floor.

That said, I think it is a very healthy excersize to have the scout collect reference letters.

acco4 had two questions the first one was rhetorical, but that never stopped us before ... How did JASM get into the discussion of Eagle Scout = SPL? Sorry for the tangent, but I was just saying that if our troop doesn't require rank for JASM, so we don't limit SPL to the lower ranks. ... should a Scout be able to become an Eagle without serving, or at least attempting, to hold the office of SPL? Yes. And we should expect more from a librarian Life scout than a first-class scout. That's the rules, I didn't write them. (Although, I would prefer that 1st class scout spend a stint as a PL.) To follow up on MT's most recent post -- just for the sake of contrast: our troop doesn't consider JASM to be a privelage (beyond the implied "we really trust you"). We just assign it if a guy really wants to take charge of some aspect of troop life. The purpose for us is to put a title on the kid that answers a question like "why is this high school junior talking to my little Johnny about a 5 mile hike in the middle of winter?"

Z. I've heard of Falun Gong. More power to you. 1. I'll defer to other's about the religious award stuff. I know there's an alternative for faiths that don't have an awards program. I can't remember what it is. The bottom line is that you understand your faith at a level that would be expected of a thoughtful and caring adult adherant of your religion. 2. Whatever your religious leaders say is service to your faith would count. Bottom line: the time you spend should help foster the religous life of the folks around you. 3. Teaching definitely counts as leadership.

drmbear ... making a nice cup of coffee and something good to eat ... I'm with you on so many levels on that one! Besides, you'd be amazed at the crossovers who'll stop by and ask to help you roll grape-leaves, grind hummus, or chop parsley for tabbouleh salad. Or if cooking isn't your thing, just sit down with rope and spars and start making a camp gadget, or be in the axe yard knocking out tent pegs.

It makes tour plans a little easier to sign. Besides that, there are no benefits. It depends on the leadership style of the CC. He/she may be tempted to act as the SM. If the partner has enjoyed direct contact with boys before (e.g. Den Leader) he/she should consider being ASM. If she has a track record coordinating adult committees, then maybe CC will be a good fit. The advantage of the CC being from a different family is that you are forced to work at communication. There's no taking it for granted. This usually helps formally get the word out to the rest of the troop.

Quadruple ditto of what niel_b said. Most importantly, are the boys having fun? Do they feel welcome? Do the adult leaders feel like they are accomplishing things with the den? If there's no fun, if boys don't feel loved, if adults just see their kids "jumping through hoops", it's not a den. You can bring the adults together and say "we want our den back!"

BP, I have to take issue with your Being a Christian is NOT:'s 1) Being able to define the miracle of the Resurrection by the very limited understanding human knowledge can provide. Defined: A guy dies, violently and certainly. Then he's hiking with his homies, busting their crib, eating their fish, making campfires, and then hopping the clouds (without any COPE rigging). How much more sophistication do you need? 2) Defining your faith by what particular Denomination you are since all of them were created by humans and not God. Jesus showed us how to live our lives he did not create a religion, humans did. But that's what Christians do! (A quote from the Koran: "The Jews are in 77 sects, the Christians are 777.") I wish I could live my life bringing the best drinks to the wedding, clearing hospitals, and occasionally toppling some tables and beating people with ropes for selling stuff at church. I can't. So I'll just spin-off a new religion, just like my master did! 3) Dictating to others what and how to believe, thinking your way is the only true way. Orthodoxy: straight teaching. Heterodoxy: crooked teaching. Christian history is mainly about dictating such things! Okay, I'm being cynical here. Just a little. But the problem is we've equated being "Christian" with being "nice." And, even though many are, that's just not what defines the term. The worse effect: folks who are non-Christian feel like they are considered second class citizens. I guess that's the downside of taking over for the Roman Empire and salvaging what was left of it by throwing the West into the Dark Ages. That imperious attitude is hard to shake.(This message has been edited by qwazse)