Renax127

Try taking a gal out on a first date and it's her birthday.  You go to Texas Road House and she has to get on the saddle and have the wait-staff sing stupid songs FOR her?   She doesn't even have to say anything.  So, seriously, do you really envision a second date out even in the far future?  Yes, singing happy birthday can be embarrassing.... even without the moose hat....  

 

By the way, I took my daughter out to Texas Road House on her birthday and as we were going in, she reminded me that she did have cab fare to get home if I so much as mention to anyone there that it was her birthday.  

Yeah I'm not comfortable with that sort of thing, my life isn't for public consumption and/or spectacle. Really any sort of public recognition makes me uncomfortable though I have no problem with public speaking.

I'd like to hear how closely other packs and dens follow the listed requirements for achievements, electives, belt loops, etc.  I'm definitely a do what the book says kind of guy, but I'm at the extreme in my pack.  It seems to be the norm in my pack that the scouts get credit if a topic is touched on, viewed, or is otherwise in the room when something is covered.  Our dens don't seem to hold to the letter of the law.  I recognize that sometimes staying true to the book is not always feasible given logistics and other circumstances, but I wonder how often other packs & dens stretch things?  

Far as I'm concerned the job #1 for a Den leader is to make sure the boys have fun. If I eased up on a requirement (and I frequently did) it was to make sure the boy had fun. I did get a little more strict every year though and AOL was "ya gotta do it" unless there some actual reason ya can't. One kid, like a boy mention already, just was not gonna get some of the physical stuff, it didn't matter how much time was spent with him. So the choice was don't sign him off or let it slide, I let it slide. Failing him for AOL served no useful purpose.

Well speaking as a den leader for 5 year (Tiger thru Web II) I wouldn't do it again. The kids I loved but honestly the parents just made it not worth the trouble, they loved to offer advice or criticism on what I was doing but" oh no I'm too busy to help". And on ANY event the majority of parents just checked out on watching their kids and would allow them to do thing we had specifically asked them to watch their kids for after all most Cub leaders have their own kids to deal with as well.

Now maybe a smaller pack wouldn't be so bad, we had routinely 100 cubs and all their assorted siblings and parents attend camping or anything else but I think the difference is only in degree. I REALLY got worn out dealing with kids from 2 months to 11 years old all at the same time.

Gravity is a known force of nature, evolution is not.

 

Which brings us full circle.  How can any of the evolution tradition believers out there be qualified to determine the "correctness" of my creationist tradition beliefs?

 

So for 17+ pages of posts, I have been told I am ignorant, incorrect, etc. because my belief tradition is not the same as yours.  That really doesn't bode well for the future of the Scout is Reverent which is supposed to lead a scout to a level of tolerance and respect for other's beliefs.  Of course my anti-evolution beliefs don't count in that scenario because everyone knows how utterly ridiculous believing what the Bible says is totally irrational and basically, ignorant mythology.  So everyone who doesn't buy into Socrates' philosophy that religion is a myth pretty much has to reject the 12th Law as even necessary or even valid to begin with.

 

All along I have said evolution is a philosophical argument that has rather large gaps which have remained unanswered by a rather large majority of opportunities to do so.  I happen to believe in a tradition that has been around for a very long time and has more of a valid track record over time, religious traditions, and social significance than has Darwin's reiteration of a 2 millennium discussion on the "origins" of humanity that hasn't really made much of a dent in the religious traditions of 3 major religions accepted by people today.

Well as I see it the reason creationism shouldn't be taught is multi-faceted. First science is not religion and is not supposed to be taken on faith, it also changes as new evidence is presented. So the current theory may be change soon or never depending. Religion is about faith and by it's nature can not be prove and if it could what's the point in calling it faith. Finally, which creation tradition do we teach? There and at least 20 different ones (I'm sure WAY more) do you propose that we spend all of our time in biology teaching a couple of dozen creation traditions?

Oh wanted to add this just for fun; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html.

Though as I understand it a lot of the opposition to evolution is the "lizard to bird" type so this doesn't really help with that. My personal favorite is that dolphins started in the ocean, moved to land as a dog like thing, then back to the ocean, still find that one unlikely despite my belief that evolution actually happened.

Well I am speaking in this discussion from an ideological perspective of integrity on building character. Ignoring the chaos of the actual applications of religion, who do you trust more in setting the definition of morality, God or man? Now some folks might say man for whatever reason, but my point is that the vast majority of people even today believe God to be the ultimate authority on the subject morality. So for any organization to have integrity in the business of developing character, God is their best resource.

 

If poll was taken that asked of an organization that helped youth develop character, what would be the top three answers? What links those three together?

 

The challenge of learning God's true word on the subject morality in this pop culture is a different discussion of which I'm sure many here would enjoy. 

 

Barry

Yeah you just are never going to admit that despite whatever God may be (I make no claim to know) what we humans end up with thru Christianity is no different than what we end up with outside it. Something driven by the intentions of whoever is in charge.

God is omniscience,  man is not. 

 

Barry

Yes but as far as society is concerned God is whatever the preacher says and that is what the morality is built on thus the morality for Christians/Jews/etc is no more set than for anyone else.

We are remarkably similar because we are decent loving people whose daily actions resemble the scout law. 

 

I can only guess why we are mindbogglingly different. I am a big picture sort of person and we tend to be more pragmatic in are thinking. We appear more black and white, but in reality, it's just coloring within the lines. Adults used to be surprised that I could predict the performance of their unit programs. What they couldn't see is that scouting while complex in its managing, is fairly simple in its design. I try to teach adults the simple basics of scouting here on the forum and in my area, but these basics are so simple that folks don't really believe they have that much application. 

 

So as a big picture guy in this discussion, I can see how morality and ethics get's corrupted when folks take credit for being the best source of living by the scout law and oath. While that does have the appearance of respect, in reality it opens the door to chaos eventually leading corruption. How can a boy equate living the law when his role models consistently lie, cheat, and steal? I'm thinking hypothetically in the big picture of course.

 

The only way the BSA as a National institution for youth can even propose the idea of encouraging boys into ethical moral decision makers is to put the responsibility of those ideals on a resource that never changes it's virtues of morality. That can only be God. You don't have to be religious to understand the importance of pinning to a source that doesn't change with fickle cultures. So, it is just plain logical to hang the values of the scouting program on God. And you don't have to be a genus to see what happens when God is taken out of the program. Morality (law and oath) becomes defined by the man with the biggest stick. What's left dilutes over time and eventually becomes just meaningless words. 

 

A lot of the replies to this discussion are something to the order that if the other is guy acts moral and ethical, that is all the scouts need. True enough I guess in the small picture, but in the bigger picture, our standards of what is acceptable has to be based on perfection so that we always keep raising the bar. We can always do better and here is our target.  I know through the years scouting has had to deal with really bad leaders that embarrassed the program. But the program survived without really taking any hits. That is attributed to the reputation that Scouting teaches boys how to be men of character. And if anyone is held to define the attributes of character, they will quickly lead up to God. If Scouting had started out without God to set the high standards, it would not have survived past those bad leaders because there would not have been anything to show folks that the program was better than the self-serving desires of those men. 

 

So yes, people can be nice by their nature and set good examples of living the scout oath and law simply by the luck of the draw. But the program only survives because it acknowledges a source of moral perfection that can never be changed even with new leaders year after year. Once the BSA starts giving the credit of good moral behavior to man, the program is over because it will no longer be above scrutiny. 

 

Barry

Except that even God isn't unchanging, his desires, morality whatever are dependent on what particular sect of Christianity you ascribe to and their interpretations, otherwise we'd only have a single Christian sect. You can argue that that isn't God but in practical terms it is as far as the society affected by those interpretations are concerned. 

I'm a sure you are fine folks, but the problem with mad made morality is that it can change in a flash, and often does depending on the mood of the moment.

 

In the bigger picture, the poor suffer the most in cultures with man made morals because there is no "one" agreed reference to hold their leaders to be fair and just when it is not convenient for the leaders. As I've said before, in a godless society, morality is dictated by the guy with the biggest stick and motivated only by emotion and ambition. The 10 Commandments are basically just saying who has the big stick and protecting the innocent. 

 

Barry

 I am seriously not wanting to start anything but everything you mention happens no matter what the belief system is mostly because people are people. 

Thanks. I have some of the long sleeve BSA tech shirts and like them, I also saw the new Venturing pants and those do look nice, good to hear they are working well.

To me, it's simple.  The words are duty to God; not duty to a higher power. 

What does that mean exactly?

A Jewish mother approached me during my first year as a Cub master and told me her family felt left out of our the unit prayers because they typically ended with In Jesus Name We Pray. So to be respectful we asked the persons saying the prayer leave that part out. 

 

When I was SM, the Scouts did all the praying and I reminded them of that experience, so they also tried to be respectful. But from experience, it is hard to change a habit, so it slips out now and then. 

 

It is up to you, but who knows, maybe the response will be what you would consider reverent.

 

Barry

Well this is scouts so it's not about me and my son isn't sure what to believe now so it hasn't been a problem for him, I've asked. It doesn't really offend me, honestly I'm not sure how I feel about it. I was raised around here and grew up Southern Baptist so nothing they are doing is new to me. Also being we are in Boy Scouts, I would never say something to a scout that would make him feel uncomfortable about his religion, at least I wouldn't do it on purpose. 

The only time I was offended about it was at a summer camp closing where the program was designed such that it felt like they were requiring attendance at a Scout's Own.

All good points, thank you. Still I am curious, would you please ask you friend his opinion of god in scouting and if he has ever referenced the subject to a scout. 

 

Around here religion is part of life and not a scary thing. Not even to atheist parents, of which we have had several. I have worked with scouts of many religions including Wicca, but again it wasn't a problem because it is personal to the scout and his family. We only need to mention that spirituality is part of the oath and law and let them figure it out.

 

Barry

I'm curious are you Christian? Just because someone doesn't articulate they have an issue doesn't mean they don't.

I am not Christian, my son has no idea what he is yet, I have yet to attend a Scouts Own or any other Scouting event with a religious component where I live that was not Christian. Christian as in "Dear GOD...In Jesus name we pray amen" Now I could make a stink about it but to what purpose as the most likely outcome is me and my son being treated "differently" in some way.

 

With all due respect Morzart, I can't read your stuff. Anyone who goes off ranting about scout leaders looking to "ambush" scouts is not quite right to me. I've been around this scouting stuff a long enough to know what is real and what is made up. I admit my weakness of lacking patience, so you'll have to forgive me that I am not giving any credence to your ridiculous hypothetical analogies which contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion. I enjoy intellectual discussions, but I'm a bit pragmatic and rather start from a practical starting place of common reason. Not far out extreme what-ifs intended more to get attention. Have you ever been to an EBOR? 

 

 

 

Have a great scouting day

 

Barry

 

I have seen someone identifying them self as a SM on the Scouting forum say that they would not allow a non-Christian to be a Scout because the BSA says duty to God. So it might be a rare thing but it will happen, heck there are plenty of troops where the adults do everything they can to control the scouts now.

Merlyn, did you remove that quote intentionally?  It seemed to me I was looking at it and then it disappeared, long after the time it says you edited the post.  I am wondering if the forum is playing tricks on me.

 

SE Rogers said several interesting things in that article.  Such as:

 

 

 

It makes one wonder, is his council following the national membership policies?  Or are some of his words being taken out of context?  Or what?

Nah I bet he just meant non Judeo-Christian kids (assuming you meant the don't believe in God part). Because honestly calling the religion aspect of Scouting a "grey area" is a MASSIVE understatement. 

What about the nylon switchbacks and nylon long-sleeve uniform shirt? 

Heh not necessarily opposed but I'd like something a little less official looking for when it's just me, my kid and 1-2 of his buddies.

You know, sometimes I wonder about the strange things complained about.  Paperwork for advancements has been required for years, but some councils did not monitor things well.  Yes, there are units that have been known to hand out ranks and merit badges not actually earned.  All those ranks and badges have to be on record for the Eagle check, and that means from Scout on up.  Scouts are given verification cards if their unit is doing what they should; it has the date and leader's signature.  Parents can bring that, or they can politely request a record check in the office. There really is a valid reason for paperwork and certain rules.

 

Storing unearned items is not supposed to be done in order to try and keep invalid advancements from occurring and in some cases to control restricted items properly.

 

As far as the eBay comment went, that is very real.  It really hit the breaking point at the centennial period when some councils were letting anyone buy the supposedly limited items, as well as the specially designed rank patches and so on, and selling them in quantity.  These began to show up on eBay for very large profits to collectors that did not have access or whose councils perhaps actually followed the rules.  One seller somehow got hold of even Distinguished Eagle kits and Silver Beavers.  So, National finally started cracking down on the situation and it is now a lot tighter.

 

But, what is the big deal with making sure a parent or someone does not simply buy something pretty or unearned to brag about?  It is pretty likely that it can be easily verified in the main office, as noted above.  

I can get a set of Captain's Bars easier than I can a Scout rank badge. What purpose exactly does it serve to require paperwork to get a rank badge? The problem I have with the paperwork required is it's useless, it does precisely nothing to stop people and only serves as an inconvenience. 

I am looking for some good and inexpensive (as possible I get they can be expensive) nylon or whatever long pants and shirts for hiking in the summer in Florida. I've been looking around and found some but have no idea if they are any good.

Anybody have any recommendations?

<edit because I can't spell>

Why wouldn't they do it again? If the scouts are involved in the program and actually camping then doing it again should just be a part of being a scout. My thoughts on it are that they should do it separately for each requirement.

That said there is not, that I have ever seen, a rule anywhere about it either way but there are people here with a better answer to that.

So I misspoke, not merely a third party but another "adult leader" must be party to every telephone call with a "member." (Apparently we care less about non-member minors.  Strange since the rules are to protect us.  Are members really more likely to falsely accuse?)

 

And how can we be sure this rule is obeyed?  

 

First, no telephone calls to houses without adult leaders unless you first call another adult leader and only then add the number of the "member.".  

 

The same applies even if the member's house has another adult leader in residence because he or she might be absent or otherwise not on the line for the entire conversation..  

 

Finally, accept no telephone calls from Scouts unless you have a second adult leader who can pick up with you on "1, 2, 3  'Hello.'"  Otherwise, you cannot be sure the required second adult leader is on the call.

 

I hope this is a mistake, as was the former rule that only adults were to deal with "discipline" in Scouting.

 

I know better than most that we live in the age of the lawsuit.  But trying to shape the entire enterprise to deal with narrow risks runs another risk - destroying the enterprise out of fear to run any risk.

 

Further, history tells us that enacting rules that inspire doubt, distrust, hostility, and contempt for the rule-makers tends to reduce compliance with all rules.  

 

Were he alive, we could ask George Germain,, Secretary for America, how all those rules for the colonies worked out for the UK.  He too was a superior person who saw more clearly than the mill run of folks out in the day-to-day world.  He too would not listen to the discontent of his "inferiors," much less hear them.

Yep, this over the top useless kind of rule (along with slip-n-slides will paralyze you) pretty much just teach everyone that BSA National hasn't got a clue about what they are doing and not only can but probably should be ignored most of the time.

First time I went canoeing with my son (on a Troop visit) they had him ride with me despite me asking if he could ride with one of the scouts. Anyway, we managed to dump the canoe within 500 yards, we were in a spring and he wanted to see the bottom so leaned WAY over and I reacted ... um ... a little too strongly the other way. 

Just heard that at the last camp out....new Scout told it and received the usual "let's laugh at the new Scout's joke we've heard 100 times" laugh. Glad the boys were welcoming and not otherwise.

 

Is it "Arrrrrrr"?

Nah ye's think it would be but my first love be the CCCCCC

SM can re-evaluate all he wants during a SMC, but the SMC is checked off.  No pass or fail with SMC.  If the scoutmaster designate signed off on the requirement, it's done.  Even the scoutmaster can't undo it.

I might ask a scout to demonstrate some skill or knowledge but I make it clear that a SM conference is not a test and that I'm asking so I can get an idea how their teachers did. An inability to do something signed of will earn the signer a  "how can it be done better" question and probably a quick word at the PLC that the program needs to better reinforce scout skills.

NOTE: Renax, it looks like you might be typing in the quote box rather than below it.  It appears that your text is being confused with Qwase's.

oops

I upped HH's reply because he took the first essential step in teaching any scout skill (and saving Western civilization): referencing.

I upped LC's because, well, because his pic and HH's are similar , and he kinda used the "anti-reference" technique.

 

Renax, when the ASM told you that, you should have asked him if the class had everyone look up this supposed rule in a copy of the GTA, or if they were instead taught by the inadequate EDGE method.

 

ha, my experience with the live classes is that frequently the trainer is only teaching from "what he knows to be true" and never bothers with doing some studying on his own, I've caused more then a little trouble in the few I've been in. usually the trainer say something to the effect of, Well I'm right because I'm the teacher.

 

The other ASM had no intention of pushing that idea it came up because we were talking about SM conferences and how we do them. I did ask him where exactly the BSA documents said that.

 

The answer is in the Guide to Advancement (http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf)

 

​4.2.1.2 The Scout Is Tested

 

The unit leader authorizes those who may test and pass the Scout on rank requirements. They might include his patrol leader, senior patrol leader, an assistant unit leader, another Scout, or the unit leader. Merit badge counselors teach and test him on requirements for merit badges.

 

Once a Scout has been tested and signed off by someone approved to do so, the requirement has been met. The unit leader is accountable for ensuring proper advancement procedures are followed. A part of this responsibility includes the careful selection and training of those who approve advancement. If a unit leader believes a boy has not learned the subject matter for a requirement, he or she should see that opportunities are made available for the Scout to practice or teach the requirement, so in this way he may complete his learning and further develop his skills.

 

In our Troop, any scout above First Class can sign off on the First Class requirements but we encourage the sign off to be done by the Troop Guides, Patrol Leaders or Assistant Patrol Leaders.

 

Thanks, I knew it was somewhere I guess I just did not have the google-fu to find it this morning.

 

Oh our troop does the First class and above can sign, though some second class patrols leaders have been allowed to sign off on Tenderfoot stuff, depends on the kid though. 

 

I was asking for a specific place it was listed because the SM Specific I'll be taking is taught by the same people and I REALLY hate the "it's common knowledge" thing in Scouting. Ya know gotta wear uniform when traveling, no fixed blade knives etc.