qwazse

Ea, I agree that our registrar deserves props. I did lock horns with her once over an advancement issue, but she did me the courtesy of bringing other folks in on the conversation and a call went to National and back in that same hour. Multiply my issues times the thousands of scouters in council, and I can't imagine a day when her agenda isn't derailed by one crisis or another coming through the door! That said, I can imagine a variety of scenarios where someone like OGE would like a voice of reason from outside council. But, I bet that "voice of reason" will first ask, "Have you talked to your SE about this?" Brace yourself OGE.

Because some stat methods I was researching last week brought up stuff by economists ... 1. Devise an algorithm for managing credit default swaps. a. Write complicated equations to make sure it looks like you know what you're doing. b. Analyze some "hard data" using those equations. c. Report your analysis in writing. Make sure that for each sentence describing likely risks, there are two describing potential yields. d. Tell your counselor the importance of disclaimers like "Past yields do not necessarily indicate future performance." Explain the proper small font size. I feel dirty just thinking about it. Gotta shower.

RSchiff, right on about that separation of work clothes. Son #1 started his first week at the mill. Got assigned jacket and overalls that he promptly tossed in with his last load of stuff from college. It all came out smelling like a coke oven! Reminded me of grandpa coming home at the end of his shift.

I guess it's just more motivation for a crew to design their own uniform.

Never counted. But, really, I think cub leaders endure so much more than the rest of us! Bless the lot o' yinz. And if knots keep you in the game, let's make you a few more.

NJ - don't need a source to say it isn't there. Read the youth application. There's no declaration of sexual preference principle. I'm around enough "rule spouters" to know if it existed. (The side of my head would feel the book being thrown at me.) There are other threads that discuss the "hows and whys" of this stance. EA - I don't think the council president mispoke at all. The guy's a lawyer. Misspeaking in front of reporters is bad for business. (Not to say that council reps never botch it royally from time to time.) The reporter never indicates that she directly confronted the guy about "stances against gays and atheists". (She wouldn't tell us that she didn't, that would be bad for business.) And, even if she did, his statement as quoted correctly represents BSA policy. And the OP wasn't interested in the name change. (Which I agree is a major waste of time -- just tweak the logo with a more masculine rainbow.) He was trying to convince us that a rule should be struck from the books by finding a prominent individual who was playing fast-and-loose with it.

Let me rephrase my last line ... Consistent adult-to-youth (emphasis on the singular) communication via electronic media with can be construed as direct contact. But, is impossible to prevent EVERY such transaction. Transactions that are logged at least leave a trail, but that's no guarantee of accountability. It's necessarily at the leaders discretion as to how he/she should operate electronic media to assure youth protection.

I've had to deal with the electronic YP allegation scenario. Of course it was 18 vs. 13 y.o. But the issue wasn't so much the medium, but the content that would be tolerated between two boys or between two men, but is unacceptable between a "man" and a "boy". It got swept under the rug for a year which made things worse. These guidelines aren't extreme, but they aren't easy to follow either.

The quote says nothing inconsistent with BSA policies. There is no ambiguity. Membership is not denied to youth who openly claim to be gay. Never was. Period. The quote does not discuss athiesm. (Unless I missed the memo that "orange" is the new euphamism for it.) The reporter uses the term "everyone." Davidson does not. This is a case of the 4th estate trying to stir up trouble where there is none.

Not much enthusiasm for the new shirts around here. Venturer's rarely have OA Flaps. So although there's nothing against them, it probably wasn't a design consideration.

I WISH my cell had a Morse code repeater/converter. Texting is so slow and requires so much concentration. I never really remembered Morse code more than a year after I'd (re)learn it, but if I had a way to integrate it into rountine communication, I bet that would change.

What a relief! I was about to call the SE and tell him that our district's advancement committee was playing fast and loose with the regs. Actually BP, sounds like the fundamentalists would be the ones properly administering the rules. They would take the DRP at face value, and -- like Merlyn did -- point out the distinctions. They would also recognize -- by virtue of the print -- that scouting allows someone who's religion has "poor fundamentals" to participate fully in the program. The one's I've seen have no qualms about non-semitic religions being represented in thier scout units. I think this is for two reasons: 1. They actually believe in the written word, they understand its limitations, and they make that calculus the moment they sign a charter. 2. Their Lord demands that they be hospitable. 'Nuff said,

[The first time I submitted didn't take, so this is a hurried do-over ...] V, while we're dithering with semantics, "the way" was what they used to call themselves before everyone else started calling them Christians. BP, Except for insisting that a district representative moderate it (what our council does as well), I don't see how any of your EBOR rules (DAC who decides ... where ... who ..., NOT allowed to be organized by any of the unit leaders or held at the CO) do anything to insure that there was "impartiality, consistency, and fairness in the way they were conducted." Say you make three boys travel some variable distance for his review, how is that more fair than making the DAC travel to three locations in the same night? To bring it back to topic, this was also to insure the reverent part of the law, the DRP, and the belief in "GOD" was determined accurately and fairly according to the policies of the BSA and not an individuals interpretation of those policies. Do you really think you'll catch the "inquisitionally minded" with that strategy? They will have 5 unsupervised BOR's to your one. If they know you're going to force them to check the thumbscrews at the door on step number 6, you'd never see the "problem child". They'd make sure to do the job by step 3, 4, or 5. It is clear from what I am seeing here that this is not being done consistently on a nationwide basis Is our council being inconsistent if someone on our committee asks the kid how they apply the 12th point (or duty to God) in their own life? Without any micromanagement from the district, we have accepted all manner of responses from boys. Enough of us go to roundtable to know we're in no position to throw stones. We are also kind enough to not twist a boy's words. If he says "I no longer believe in God, religious life is a waste of time, I'm done with church/mosque/temple/shrine/statue/tree, and - no offence to you lot - I'm putting my faith in natural forces that humans can measure, control, and eventually dominate." We're going to forthrightly tell him that his beliefs are in starck contrast with our DRP. It would be an insult to him to require an oath that he cannot keep in good conscience, and there is no medal worth the lie. (Never had to do this myself, but the DAC told us it has happened.) A boy need not say the a- word to be shown the door. But, he does need our time and friendship to come to that conclusion in his own right.

Dinner by citronella candellight! Wildflower bouquet. The boys singing "Misty" in the background. Oh well, two out of three aint bad.

Oh, and when I was a committee member, I recall one or two boys bringing up the DRP as one of the things they liked about scouting. As ASM, I recall one SMC where a boy linked his rank advancement to his spiritual walk. (We encouraged him to tone it down a little for the EBOR. Religious though MC's may be, mid-week sermons can put them in an ill mood!)

Although 60 miles north of the Mason-Dixon line, our troops' EBORs are always hosted at our CO (a church) are moderated by a council volunteer representative (the district advancement chair or his assignee). are open to troop committee members, the COR, and possibly the crew committee members. Representatives of the CO are in the minority. are closed to SM's, ASM's, or crew advisors -- except for a brief moment when they introduce the candidate. include a hand-out of suggested open-ended questions, one of which is "how do you apply the 12th point to your daily life?" That question is ALWAYS asked. Therefore in SMC's we always ask it of the boys so that they are prepared to give an answer that represents their beliefs. We've spared committees a lot of ear-tickling because boys are really tempted to say what they think their audience wants to hear.

I'd peg the year at 1965 based on that blog of unvarnished truth, Wikepedia, under Eagle Scout Leadership Project ... History The merit badges required for Eagle have been a requirement since the inception of the award. A Scout's "record of satisfactory service" with his troop was first added to the Eagle requirements in 1927. This changed in 1952 to "do your best to help in your home, school, church or synagogue, and community." This vague statement was refined to "plan, develop, and carry out a service project" in 1965. In 1972 a leadership component "give leadership to others" was added. c.f. Peterson, Robert (November - December 2002). "The Way It Was: Evolution of the Eagle Scout Award". Scouting. http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/issues/0211/d-wwas.html.

b540mom, Bottom line: Ask detailed questions, including why the boy chose the team he did. Take the list of "did he's" in your original post and turn them into "how did you's". Did he do the work himself? ==> How did you divide up labor? Did adults do all the work? ==> How did you employ your adults?** Did he delegate well? ==> What tasks did you ask others to do, and what did you do yourself? Did he problem solve well? ==> How did you solve the biggest road block in your project? **(Note: not a problem if they provided lots of manual labor or expertise. We would not want to hear that they *supervised.*) And, for future EBORs, always ask these questions even if other members of the troop were present and are sitting on the board. Part of leadership is being able to reflect on and evaluate your performance. By the way - The project report should include service hours contributed by each person. That's often a great springboard into discussion.

So (besides not letting a good post fade away prematurely), there are two suggestions that I will not follow ... 1. Pretend that the 11 year old boy in the original post must mean that he's simply "fed up" with the God of his parents and is fishing for an offering from a pantheon of options from our pluralistic society. Life is far too short to not take a boy at his word. 2. Swift and sure dismissal in the name of BSA policy. In spite of Merl's protestations, there is -- as with many policies -- room to be deliberative. There's also room for individual courses of action. I like OXE82's recap.

Eng, much as I'd like to agree, the ability to enforce will be nearly impossible. Sooner or later, there's going to be a campout where your guard is down and the fuel is smuggled in. I like the "incremental enhanced educational opportunities" approach. I wouldn't see it as punishing the troop. You're just "sharing the love". And if the boy needs to be suspended from a hike into a drought area because of your love for the outdoors, then so be it. Scoutfish -- The Firem'n Chit card is not a bad idea for younger scouts, for older scouts it probably won't have the desired effect. Unless: if this is the kind of boy that's gone around nagging younger scouts to show him their cards, TwoCub, you are almost obligated to turn the tables on the boy. The only fault I can see with the incident itself is that *too much* fuel was taken on the trip. Again, this is hard to regulate, but in my estimation if someone has a bottle to burn, someone didn't plan well. Just something to review with the PL. Oh, and the patrol owes the troop for wasted fuel. Like everything, your ability to lighten up depends on the boy's ability to own up and apologise to his fellow scouts.

I've been in situations like this and made exceptions. But it sounds like these guys want a routine. Also tent walls are thin. Boys will catch on. Did they have a designated driver? How many cold ones? Do they realize that there are troops who've lost drivers because of DUI? Do they know they could have an adults-only affair on their own time? If your COR does not have a zero-tolerance policy, it's up to the adults in the troop to decide how much is too much. Here may be a polite way to pull in the reigns: Does your troop try to do the patrol method? Require the boys (your chuckwagon patrol) to go resupply. The dads are along as drivers. The boys hold the money. They do the shopping. They schedule for precisely how long they will be away.

That's funny, qwazse, there are quite a few atheists who were forced to attend church when they were 10 years old, because they were 10 years old. ... How many 10-year-old atheists do you know, anyway? And there are quite a few believers who were denied church as children because their parents were athiests. And lots of folks in between. I agree with you that there's no point in mincing the kid's words (like scoutfish is). The OP is clear that his scout's statement was athiestic. And I've known several kids who made statements like that.** But, on the flip side I've known kids to make statements of religious faith but effectively lived their teen years as if God was nowhere to be found. Should I drum them out too because their actions speak to their true belief at the time? Or, should I give it time? Give the parents notice of what the kid is thinking. Give the kid a chance to self-select as he realizes that the ideals of scouting stand in increasingly stark contradiction to his belief. What my religious convictions tell me I should *not* do is offer a kid a reward for acting faithful. The worst action at this point: tell an 11 year old that he has to believe in God to be a scout and the scout say "Okay, I'll believe then..." Second worst is the boy say "okay, I'll leave" decide to believe the next week (or whenever he reads Mere Christianity or some convincing text from another faith) but miss out on scouts. ** It's not just kids. I met a young man at a coffee shop who first said he was an athiest, but he then said "I'm counting on when I die, that if any God worth worshiping will cut me some slack for coming to the wrong conclusion. At least I've tried to be a decent fellow."

Last check, M., no rules ignored. Most atheists I know don't go to church with their families. (Unless we're talking about 2nd century Christians who were burned at the stake for their "athiesim".) So the boy's actions aren't aligning with his words, better to give him time work that out on his own. On the bright side, this gives you leeway to assume that every boy who spouts off religious rhetoric before their "age of accountability" is just going through "a passing phase" on the road to cynicism.

Written apologies from a 10 year old are a waste of time. If the two kids won't settle the grievance then the agressor (or winner, if you really can't tell who started it) is out of the pack. Done. Tough part: convincing everyone else this is the right thing to do.

There's always a few who make rank while incarcerated.