Rick_in_CA

So I read this in the comments of the scouter magazine blog: Still not an official answer (it's second hand). Why can't national get this topic right??? Put it in the FAQ or something! Or is it they just hope the question doesn't come up?

Interesting. Our UC was at the presentation, and he said that it was under LFL, and the membership standards didn't apply. I can't find an answer either way on the STEM Scouts website.

My local council (Silicon Valley Monterey Bay Council) was asked to be one of these pilot counciles, and said no. It was going to cost the council around $300,000 to do it (one full time professional plus equipment), and that would have taken away from the traditional program. However, I thought it was going to be run out of the Learning for Life side of things (like explorer posts). The STEM Scout website says that the program is going to be run in schools, and follow the scout oath and law (they will recite the Pledge, Oath and Law at the beginning of every meeting). But my understanding is that like LFL, there will be no membership restrictions. So if atheists are fine in STEM Scouts, which is following the oath and law, that would imply that the oath and law doesn't exclude atheists? Where does that leave the rest of the BSA on their stance that atheists are not capable of following the oath and law and so must be excluded?

I think it's because the people at national that said "no atheists" (because atheists are “bad" and think all religion is stupid), had no idea that many Buddhists (and others) are atheists (they are a religion so they can’t be atheists right?). As I was told by someone from National a while back, the people that really care about keeping out the atheists have no clue that there are atheistic religions, and don’t really understand what an atheist is.

The vast majority of scouters I have met are good people trying to do their best, and that includes trying to be respectful of people of different faiths. If that wasn’t the case, I wouldn’t be a scouter. But I too have met a few scouters that are not. I have met a scouter that said non-Christian scouts "don't count†and we don’t have to respect their faith. I have been told to my face by a scouter that my religion (Unitarian Universalism) is "not a real religion and shouldn’t be allowed in scoutingâ€. I have met a scouter that told me the story of how he was basically run out of his previous council for daring to lead a prayer to Allah at a district round table. As Stosh and Barry have said, there are good ways to address this subject in SMCs and BORs. I think the BSA suggested “How do you honor the 12th point of the Scout Law?†is a perfectly good question to ask (just like “How do you honor the 3rd point of the Scout Law?â€), and not just at an EBOR. Discussions of faith can be tricky things, but they can also be good things when handled well. It’s the handled well part that can be hard at times. My worries over the new requirements are not in relation to the scouters like the “non-Christians don’t count guy†(actually I think he is off to Tail Life - good riddance), they are going to plow ahead doing their own thing no matter what national says. It’s the well meaning, good scouters that inadvertently make a scout feel uncomfortable and unwelcome through ignorance and misunderstanding that I worry about. A good Scout Master Conference is a conversation, not an a lecture. Questions and opinions go both ways. The new requirement is to effectively start up a conversation on the subject of faith in every SMC. Again, this can be handled well, but it also isn’t hard to find oneself in deep water without realizing it. Scouts of minority faiths often feel a bit like outsiders already. I want requirements and directions from national that help make these scouts feel more welcome, not less. I’ll wait and see how things turn out in May.

Moosetracker is right. We are a country driven by fear. Letting your kids walk around without adult supervision can now get you arested in some places ("it's not safe!").

I have heard that too. I disagree with it. When backpacking in the back country, I think tents and such should be brightly colored so they can be seen from the air and not mistaken for something natural. It just might save your life.

The danger is that when someone says "that rock is god", we might fail to understand what that really means. It might be something really profound (and it might not). Faith is a very personal thing, and it can be very complicated. There is a reason we are not supposed to judge a scouts faith. As for the atheist thing, I don't undersand why the oath and law wouldn't work for one? Sure there are some atheists that couldn't follow the "show respect for other faiths" part, but there are a few Christians I have met that wouldn't be able to follow that either. As to duing your duty to God, as the BSA leaves the definition of that to the individual, I can see plenty of atheists that could do that (and not just Buddhists). Or are you defining "atheist" as someone who believes all faith is stupid? Or believes nothing? Because that isn't what the word means.

Regardless of what the BSA says they mean, the language they actually use is Judeo-Christian (“belief in God†with God as a singular proper name). So it shouldn’t be surprising when we run into scouts and scouters that are confused. The language dates back to the beginning of the BSA and comes from a time when religious pluralism usually meant “we allow Catholics and Jewsâ€. As a society, the United States (and most other western countries) have grown since then to recognize that pluralism means a lot more than that. We ended Jim Crow (at least officially), it’s illegal to fire someone or deny them housing for being Catholic, the federal government is no longer taking native american children from their families to “Christianize them†(or trying to stamp out their native languages), etc.. The early 20th century was in many ways a different place than today. In some ways the BSA was actually pretty liberal for 1911. I think it’s time for the BSA to update their language to make it more clear. Perhaps replace “Duty to God†with something like “Duty to your Faithâ€. My understanding is that the original DRP was written by James West and the current one is largely unchanged from that. If the BSA wants to be “absolutely nonsectarian†they need to put it up front. Of course that will offend those that believe the BSA is (or should be) a Christians first club.

That's just wrong.

I also bet a large number of people also don't realize that the DRP they are agreeing to subscribe too isn't even printed on the form (an excerpt is).

DEET is nasty stuff. Anything that melts plastic is not something I want on my skin. Not to mention that there is evidence that DEET can have negative health effects in some people. I prefer to use Picaridin (also known as Icaridin), as it is as effective as DEET, without some of the negatives (it isn't a skin irritant like DEET). Children using repellants that are 90% DEET (like one local troop) I think is a bad idea.

And that is one of the risks of today's environment of paranoia. Since people are looking in every corner for hidden "predators", it is easy for a false accusation to cause a lot of damage. One thing that most training doesn’t mention is that even though there are predators out there, they are in fact pretty rare. Things like car accidents are a much bigger threat to children then sexual predators (don’t get me started on the whole “don’t ever leave you child alone in a car†silliness).

It's interesting to read the comments on the blog post. Lots of good discussion on how YPT has moved into "safety theater" and how the no-one-on-one applied to phone calls, email and other electronic communication does nothing to increase safety and could actually hurt kids.

When I was a boy scout, we did almost everything in uniform. Back packing, canoeing, service projects, summer camp, everything but swimming. That was mostly the pre-ODL uniform, but I was still in boy scouts when the ODL uniform was introduced, and ODL uniform wasn't treated any different. Though my troop did suggest we all replace the BSA pants with Army surplus as they looked the same, were cheaper and lasted a lot longer than the BSA ones. And we often swapped the pants for shorts if it was warm. I don't think any of us had any idea if there were official BSA shorts available at the time - non of us had them if they existed. The concept of "class-Bs" didn't exist - you were either in uniform or not (and the defining piece of the uniform was the shirt). And I remember the other troops were the same. So what changed? Is the uniform more expensive today then back then (adjusted for inflation)? Is it less practical today? Or is it that we are so used to wearing t-shirts and such in our non-scouting lives that a shirt with a collar feels constraining?

There was an interesting article I read somewhere that thought a big part of it was an unintended consequence of Newt Gingrich's idea of having all the congressmen go home every weekend to fund raise. Before, the congressmen moved their families to DC, now they don't. It's tough to demonize your opponent when your kids go to the same school and play together, and your wives socialize with each other, and you go to the same parties. Now without the families in DC, we have lost one of the big reasons to speak to and get to know the people on the other side.

It looks like the Girl Scouts asked the Radical Brownies to change their name, and so they are going to: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/24/oakland-radical-brownies-troop-change-name-girl-scouts/

I think it has less to do with video games, and more to do with the culture of fear we have in our society. When I was a kid, there were indoor distractions too (books, the TV). But our parents allowed and encouraged us to go outside and run around (and even climb trees!). Now unsupervised children are a cause to call the police. The kids are inside playing video games because that is where the parents want them. They are protected from the "dangerous outside world". In my youth during the summer, almost every neighborhood had groups of kids outside playing tag, throwing balls or Frisbees around, roller skating, riding bikes, etc. The local school fields and parks had kids playing on the swings, climbing the monkey bars, playing pickup baseball, etc. Almost all without adult supervision. Today? The neighborhoods are almost ghost towns, the local fields and parks are either empty or it's some sort of scheduled organized activity (with plenty of adult supervision). The monkey bars are gone, and letting your ten year old play outside without an adult escort can get you arrested. If we want to change that, we need to figure out how to fight the culture of fear. I'm really not sure how we can do that. There is a lot of money in selling fear in the media, and attitudes (and laws) appear to be getting worse not better in this regard. Even the BSA is falling victim to the fear. Just look at the guidelines for tool use. They are mostly ridiculous (a 13 year old can't use an electric screwdriver? Or a little red wagon? Or a wood chipper (OK, I guess that one makes sense )?). The no-adults patrol camping is out, how long before the no-adults patrol hike is out too? The age for the Whittling Chip keeps going up, soon it will be a boy scouts only thing. How long before walking on a non-paved surface will require helmets and knee pads? And in this environment we want parents to let their kids to go out into nature, explore and have adventures? Sounds dangerous!

So the big problem here, is who is the "employer"? It sounds like if I volunteer with a cub pack (lets say it's CO is a church), the CO's youth ministry and I also help run the district pinewood derby, I'm going to have to get two sets of checks done no matter what. One for the CO, and one for the BSA. The question is, for the cub pack who is the "employer"? The CO or the BSA? If it's the CO for the cub pack, then that is going to kill district and council events like cub camp and Scout-O-Rama. A lot of these events need parents to volunteer, if they have to get a second set of background checks just to do that, I think a lot are going to say no. If it's the BSA, it will probably hurt recruiting as many of the parents will probably have already done the background checks for the CO and will balk at having to get another set. I think PA just shot their volunteers in the foot.

I think this is an interesting idea, but it would be a big change. Splitting up current boy scout troops in half by age could be pretty disruptive. It would be interesting to hear from our UK members on how it works there?