Rooster7

firstpusk, Your post reminds of a story. There's this very dangerous mountain road in Italy with all sorts of hairpin turns. It's a dirt road, very narrow, and intended for two-way traffic. There's barely enough room for two cars to pass one another. So there's a lot of frustration and anxiety for the drivers coming and going in both directions. As one gentleman approaches a curve nearing the top of the mountain, another gentleman driving downhill comes around the bend swerving to avoid the first. The driver going down the mountain shouts at the driver going up, "PIG! PIG! PIG!" The driver going up the mountain sticks his head out the window to return the insult, but before his words leave his mouth, he rounds the bend, and hits a pig. Obviously, you're convinced that I meant to include you. Unfortunately, sometimes things are not what they appear to be. I am aware from your previous posts that you possess a belief in God. I never questioned your personal faith. My statement was addressed to those self-professed atheists that do post to this board. I didn't want to identify any one individual because it was for all of them. As for my original statement, I did not make a blanket statement that addressed all believers of evolution. I worded my statement so it could be understood that it was meant for those individuals that placed limits on God's capability. Since we are no longer debating the issue, I suggest we end our debate (at least among ourselves). If you want to continue to portray me as you have, there's nothing I can about it. As for my "tears", I'm not that torn up about it. I'm just trying to set the record straight. But as was true for the original debate, this seems to be a futile exercise. My words are my own and there are here for everyone to read. I'll let others decide.

firstpusk, I take it that you will take back your statements about misrepresentation. I find it ironic that last week you were upset saying you did not question my faith and this week you imply I an atheist. But I suppose you will claim that you were just making a statement and not saying I am an atheist. Seenow that's clever. You take my position and discredit it before I can even reply. Well, if it makes you feel better to believe that, then so be it. Regardless, I had Merlyn and a couple of others in mind when I made my statement. If there has been a misrepresentation, it's been your portrayal of my intentions. It must be the easiest for you. Dismiss the argument and the person at the same time by making an assumption about my beliefs. After all, how can someone who accepts the validity of evolution also believe in God? You are pretty good at this kind of mean spirited back handed slap. And yet, somehow I feel like the one who is the victim of a mean spirited backhanded slap. How did that happen? Just consider the possibility that I didn't have you mind. Furthermore, keep reading my old posts over and over againperhaps, eventually you will understand these words - I simply said, I would question the faith of someone who insisted on the validity of evolution, because they felt God's power has limits, and He was incapable of creating the world in seven days. OkayNow, I am truly done. I think this thread has run its course. Neither one of us is going to change his mind. Amen. Peace. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Some questions (some sarcastic and some not): Could it possibly be that these boys are individuals? Could it possibly be that no matter how good the BSA program is, that some individuals simply decide its time to do something else? Could it be the combination of many factors can cause a high dropout rate? Could it be that Cub Scouts, who enjoy the creature comforts of home, don't like spending as much time in the woods as they first thought? Could it be that the camping aspect alone is enough to drive a lot of boys away (i.e., bugs, no running toilets, humidity, heat, cold, rain, no TV, no electronics, scared of the dark, away from mom and dad, etc.)? Could it be that some folks move? Could it be that some parents just refuse to do what is good for their own kid? Some kids quit everything and mom & dad never questions why. Could it be that there are circumstances in and around a troop that are beyond the knowledge and control of the adult leaders? Could it be that some of the boys are guilty of bad leadership and the younger boys just aren't smart enough to vote for someone else? I feel it is pretty arrogant to label a troop as "poorly run" without any knowledge of the people (boys, parents, and leaders) and/or their circumstances. I feel this criticism is unfair even if the dropout rate is high year to year. There are thousands of troops. There must be all sorts of differences which no one individual could possibly take into account. I realize that some people will point to these questions and label them as more excuses. Yet, I think reasonable people realize that a high dropout rate and a badly run troop are not necessarily synonymous. By all means, it's worth investigating. Adults and boys alike should do a regular self-examination. Nevertheless, the answer isn't always going to be a bad program. Of course, having said the above, I'm sure I will be accused of either burying my head in the sand, or providing an excuse for those folks who want to, or perhaps as someone who prefers a bad program. I don't feel any of these are true. I simply believe that they are so many variables involved that a high dropout is possible even in a well-run troop.

Science is tentative the reliability of a theory is based on the same result being repeated by other researchers. The guys insisting on absolutes are on your side. OkayFirstpusk's definition of science sucked me back into this thing. Science is tentative. In other words the scientists take it on faith (based on their interpretation of the data) that they know the truth unless or until someone can prove them wrong. Theoretically, this may serve the scientific community in their so-called quest for truth. However, it can hardly be stated that this process is fool proof. If science is not subject to human biases or failings, then it's the only area of life that humanity hasn't tainted. Now, using the scientific method, what is the probability of that being true? My point is, whether we're talking about science or religion, both are prone to corruption by human beings. Whether or not it is willful or not, is irrelevantbut both are subject to misinterpretation. For those who believe in God, evolution may be a controversial and interesting topic, but it's not going to keep us up at night or change our worldview. It does not matter how much evidence is introduced to support or discredit it. In the grand scheme of things, it's a minor and inconsequential issue. God is not going to judge us based on our ability to interpret scientific data. On the other hand, one's relationship with God is worth exploring and contemplating. This truth is very consequential and will affect us for eternity. I can't help but address the atheists that occasionally post on this site. Here's a truth that I find rather ironic. If you're right, we'll never know it. If I'm right, you'll know all too well. If you haven't made any real attempt to find God, then you're making a horrible mistake. Try reading his Word and praying in earnest. If God doesn't exist, then he won't answer. That sounds pretty scientific to me.

Amen. On that note from Quixote, I will bow out of this debate.

besides it shouldn';t be an I statement. if you are indeed following the program this should be plural. This is what I call "Classic Bob". To that, I can only smile If you're nothing else, you're consist Bob.

Bob White, Dare I bite...Okay, I'm a sucker, I'll bite. There are several items noted in your post that we have debated before. I dare not address them all...It would be too tasking even for me (despite my love for a good debate). But let's take one item to start with: Lose 50% of new scouts - Your disdain for this possibility, seems to indicate that if the program is being run properly (according to BSA), it is impossible for at a troop to lose 50% of their new scouts. I think that is a poor assumption and one that insults a lot of dedicated leaders. I am not going to revive all of the disagreements that we've already debated. However, I want it to be noted that I have not used the quotes that sctmom provided to defend any of my positions. First and foremost, most of them don't come close to any of the positions that I have staked claim to. And secondly, any of the ones that might come close, don't representative my reasoning. For example, I might say - "A retention rate of 50% is okay if you're presenting the program as best you can." (I give folks credit for realizing that "best you can" means following the BSA program). I wouldn't simply state - "A retention rate of 50% is okay." Obviously we should be striving for something better. Yet, I don't automatically assume that the adult leaders are presenting a bad program.

firstpusk, I respect the right of everyone, not just Scouts, to believe in whatever one chooses to believe in. However, I do not necessarily respect what they believe. I respect a parent's right to shelter their children from others and their beliefs, if that is the parent's desire. I also respect the right of any individual, adult or child, to request others to refrain from preaching to them (or teaching them). If someone has heard all that he's willing to hear, his freedom should be respected and no one should attempt to force his or her views on that person. However, if an adult and/or child is not making this known, I feel there is nothing wrong with someone sharing his/her beliefs, whether that be in or out of Scouting. It is incumbent upon the parent or child to make their wishes known. You seem to be irritated with creationists that refuse to listen to the other side. I understand. Yet, you don't seem to recognize that this arrogance extends to both sides. Many evolutionists speak as if the theory is fact. Yet, there's nary a blush if any of the so-called facts are made suspect. Moreover, one can build many different theories around the same set of facts. Ask any detective. Until one can identify the person pulling the trigger, a smoking gun is merely a smoking gun. It does not prove anything. While you may have a point, in that, some creationists are not willing to listen - How is this different among evolutionists? They've made up their minds and nothing said by me or anyone else will change their minds. They're just as stubborn and even more arrogant.

I know that our SM is tired of hearing me quote from the various resources but I've told him that it's not his program he is only the delivery man. Okay, I buy this. I understand that when we stray from the program that we are in affect breaking a promise. We should participate, and deliver the program, as BSA intended. I don't fault ScouterPaul or Bob White for such proclamations. They are simply staying true to their promise to BSA. Sure enough, this is honorable. If I follow the recipe I will most likely end up with a good product. If I start to change the recipe I will most likely end up with an inferior product. However, I think this is an overstatement. BSA has altered its program over the years. Does that mean the boys who were raised on the older version of the program suffered and are inferior products? If BSA alters the program in the future, does that mean the current products will be inferior to those boys? Let's remember that BSA is not a religion. It's a great program with honorable intentions. Yet, the decision makers in BSA are fallible. It's not unreasonable to believe that you have a better idea. It may not be honorable to incorporate it in the BSA program, but it doesn't necessarily mean you will be creating an "inferior product". I'm not suggesting that we divert from the program. I am saying, let's keep it in perspective. Otherwise, we might as well stop thinking for ourselves. And while BSA has a great recipe, there are areas in the program where they allow the leaders (adults and boys) "to season according to their taste".

Firstpusk, What got me started in this thread was Rooster7 deciding he had to question the faith of someone who can dispassionately look at the evidence and accept evolution. I don't think he has a right to say that without understanding the theory. In regards to understanding the theory, I will be the first to admit that I don't understand the theory of evolution. There are so many suppositions presented that are not logical to me. Nevertheless, you continue to misrepresent my thoughts and I do take offense. I have no problem with a "dispassionately look at the evidence". Furthermore, if someone were convinced that evolution was valid via the facts and logic, then I would not question their faith or intelligence. For the last time, try to understand the gist of my original comments. It's really not that difficult especially for someone with obvious intelligence such as yourself. I simply said, I would question the faith of someone who insisted on the validity of evolution, because they felt God's power has limits, and He was incapable of creating the world in seven days. On the other hand, if someone believed that God used evolution as a means, not because he had to , but because he chose to do it in this manner, then I can accept that explanation from someone who professes faith in God. However, I would still disagree with evolution as a theory. And I don't think it is right for you to quote other peoples' work without at least making sure you understand the original context. I am truly blown away by this comment. Or as the AOL weenies might say, "I was ROTFLOL!" The irony is incredible. Immediately after misrepresenting my thoughts for a second time, you have the nerve to criticize someone else for supposedly quoting someone out of context. UNBELIEVEABLE! Firstpusk, it's difficult to believe that your misrepresentations are not intentional. You apparently do a lot of reading, at least on the topic of evolution. For someone that is so well read, I cannot understand why you do not grasp my simple point. GOD is not bound by anything, except His own character. Do I personally believe in evolution? No. Could God have used evolution? I suppose it's possible. Did he have to use evolution? Surely we can agree that this would be a false premise. Okay, I'm off my box. Fboisseau, As for creationists, that refuse to acknowledge what science has discovered and proven, why did God create that evidence? Your question assumes that all of the so-called evidence supports evolution. It also assumes that evolutionists have interpreted all of the evidence properly. In other words, your question is tantamount to asking someone, "So, how long have you been cheating on your wife?" It's not a very fair or reasonable question. In short, obviously creationists do not view the evidence as supporting the claims of evolution. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

firstpusk, Okay, perhaps evolution can be used as a model to explain why there are very few slow antelope (faster antelope avoided their prey and populated the gene pool) or why certain insects are green (green insects were able to avoid detection and fed the gene pool). I understand this point - "survival of the fittest". However, I don't think you're going to able use that argument to explain how sea creatures adapted to land, or how life spontaneously developed from non-living matter. Belief in the Genesis account can be justified on the grounds of religious belief, not science. If you're as well read as you seem to be, then you know this is not true. Or perhaps, you're simply choosing not to read the books that make strong arguments against your position. There are plenty of good scientists who support the "young earth" theory. Furthermore, much of science (regardless of position) is based on the faith and wills of the scientists as opposed to fact. They conduct a study. They make a declaration. They publish a paper. Then, once they have "gone public", they channel all of their energy and reasoning to support that declaration. They adapt the theory constantly to justify "anomalies" in order to maintain the integrity of the declaration. It doesn't matter how ridiculous the theory becomes so long as the outcome remains the same. A perfect analogy would be the Kennedy assassination. So-called ballistic experts will look you straight in the eye and describe a bullet that takes 90-degree turns in order to maintain the theory of a lone shooter. A quote in scomman's post put it best - "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160 A few quotes strung together, don't refute the scientific evidence supporting the theory. You may take comfort in them, but they don't make the reality of evolution go away. I realize that you have already stated that you have a belief in God. I take you at your word. However, many folks who support the theory of evolution don't have any faith. In fact, by my reading (elsewhere, not in this thread), it appears to me that most evolutionists are on crusade to deny the existence of God. Ironically, my words to them would sound strangely familiar to you. Poorly constructed theories such as evolution are vain attempts to deny the existence of God. You may take comfort in them, but they don't make the reality of God go away. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

firstpusk, My concern is that scouters make statements like following one from Rooster7. "However, I would question someone's faith that claimed that the God of the bible had to use evolution to create the earth." First, please refrain from taking my statements out of context. If you're going to quote me, state the relative comments before and after. Otherwise, you're just practicing the art of deception. Regardless, to clarify my statement, the key words were "had to use". In other words, I question a faith that represents God as a being with such limitations. This is not the God of the bible. Second, please enlighten me how these animals adapt themselves to new environments and evolve. Exactly when does a fish decide that he needs legs? Is this done on a conscience level or sub-conscience level? How does the next generation know that something has happen that necessitates the development of legs or some other physical manifestation? I realize that the books you may offer will present some technical discussions and some mental gymnastics that will explain all of this. However, as a layman, can you tell me in simple English how simplistic beings such as the early primates, realized that standing erect was something to aspire to? And, how did this aspiration become a physical reality? And how did that reality get pushed down to the next generation, particularly since the need or aspiration had to be initiated in a previous generation without the benefit of genetics. After all, how could previous generations know what the environment was going to do in the future. While I await your answers with baited breath, my common sense tells me the whole concept is ridiculous.

Mattbib, First, thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected. It's just that I've seen others subscribe to the belief, "that when one expresses his faith as fact, he is being intolerant of others." I disagree with that definition. In my zeal to defend my understanding of tolerance or intolerance (depending on one's perspective), I misinterpreted your comment. So, thank you for being tolerant of my faux pas. ...yet our entire faith and the religious beliefs of others are based on a book completely devoid of proof. However, as you cleared up my confusion, you gave me a different bone of contention to chew on. I believe the above statement is false. While the bible implores us to keep a strong faith, it does not do so without proof of a living God. All of the people mentioned in the bible are historical figures. No one denies that Jesus existed. There are numerous documents that testify to his existence and the miracles he performed, including his death and resurrection. In fact, the New Testament and much of the Old Testament are supported by more documentation and testimony than most of the stories found in your average history book. No one questions the existence of the Roman emperors, the Egyptian kings, or the stories about them. With much less documentation, these stories are accepted as fact and printed in our schoolbooks. So why should Christ's life (or Moses' life for that matter) be any different? Secondly, there is plenty of empirical data to support the existing of God that can found by anyone living that is not devoid of one's senses. I'm not suggesting that Christianity be taught in public school as our country's official religion. That would be unconstitutional. However, just because its not taught as history, doesn't mean it is not supported by fact. Many scientists, historians, biologists, archeologists, etc., have tried to disprove the bible without success. In their efforts, many of these folks have found evidence to support stories in the bible (i.e., a lost city that was only mentioned in the bible, repeated designs in nature that screams there must be a creator, more documentation supporting biblical stories, evidence suggesting that the earth may not be as old as previous scientists had claimed, etc.). Not surprisingly, many of these same individuals have come to believe in the God of the bible because all of the facts pointed to his existence. I believe one can subscribe to the theories of evolution and still be a believer (an Christian). However, I would question someone's faith that claimed that the God of the bible had to use evolution to create the earth. If God knows the number of hairs on your headif God knows your every thought if God can conquer death, how could anyone believe he lacked the power to create the earth in seven days, or even one second if He so chose? If you believe in God, it seems kind of silly to put Him in a box, as if He must be limited in His power, knowledge, and wisdom. If these things limited His ability to do as He pleased, He wouldn't be God. acco40, Building off the previous dialogue, I just want to point out that evolutionists do not have any solid evidence to support their claim. Evolution is a theorya poorly thought out one too. This theory is not more valid than creationism. Yet, it is taught in our public schools and creationism is not. I believe, if the theory of creationism cannot be taught in our schools, then evolution should not be taught either. We should not promote a theory to be taught that contradicts many religions without scientific proof and/or allowing those faiths to present their alternate theories. If/When scientists universally accept evolution and can prove it, then this argument goes away. Until then, evolution is merely a theory developed by an atheist scientist. It is taught to many Christians and others of various faiths against their wills. Since the proof is not there, I am suggesting that this is unconstitutional. Funny, how some folks will "fight to the death" to get a teacher to take a bible off of his desk, but yet do not recognize the transgressions of this unproven theory. If you subscribe to the liberal interpretation of "separation of church and state" (an over used phrase which has been misinterpreted and does not appear in the Constitution), then you cannot have it both ways. That is, one cannot scream that a Christmas tree on public grounds is unconstitutional, but allow a theory (not fact) to be taught that contradicts many people's faiths. Both of these examples represent an act by the state that either tacitly endorses or denies a faith. Truly, if the tenant of separation of church and state was interpreted properly, then most often the Christmas tree would be left standing and evolution would be thrown out of the public schools. More often than not, the erection of a Christmas tree on public grounds represents the will of the people in that community. Furthermore, the community exercising their will as such does not impede others from practicing their own faith. In short, the erection of a Christmas is not an act of the state that establishes a religion. It's the community exercising their freedom to express their faith publicly. On the other hand, evolution is an unproven theory, which undoubtedly contradicts the faiths of many. Furthermore, by allowing such a theory to be taught in the public school system without solid proof, the state is clearly overstepping its boundaries and imposing its unsubstantiated and anti-religious views on the people. This is further compounded by the fact that the government (or rather the Supreme Court) will not allow a rebuttal by the offended faiths. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase "separation of church and state". He did so in a reply to a letter from a Baptist minister who was concerned that the federal or state governments might over step their authority and interfere in the business of the church. Jefferson' writings supported the thought (and quelled the concern of the minister) that the state should never interfere with the church. Never did Jefferson indicate that the state should be sheltered from the influence of religion. Ironically, until Jefferson wrote his letter, no one suggested that religion could not or should not influence the direction of the state. Yes, the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion. However, this is a far cry from the idea that religion and/or any belief held by people of faith cannot have a role in a state sanctioned event or influence the laws of the land. This idea is quite amusing since every law ever created has some sort of moral or amoral basis. Consequently, per the extreme logic of the current interpretation of separation of church and state, only atheists or the irreverent can create constitutional laws. Revisionists and atheists have done much to damage the intentions of Jefferson's reply to the said minister. They have twisted his words and taken them out of context to promote their own desires. We should remember our forefathers and their noble ideasthey were much more profound then most of our current leaders.

Intolerance for other's beliefs, however, has no place in the program. Does that mean Scouters cannot disagree and debate what they believe? I'm a little taken aback by your proclamation. It implies that intolerant statements were made.

ASM1, Here's a thought...Join the chartering organization, volunteer regularly, work your way up the ladder, become the COR and/or the IH, and fire the new the Scoutmaster. Wouldn't that be something! Sorry to hear of your situation. It sounds ugly. Frankly, given all the ongoing ugliness that you'd have to deal with in order to bring about change, I would leave that sinking ship. Or, to turnabout an old cigarette ad - "I'd rather switch than fight!" Save yourself the ulcer and put yourself and your family in a friendly troop that believes in the Scout oath and law.

ScoutParent, Amen to that...I agree!

This is not an attempt at being smug. These are the only answers I have: For the short-term: Keep one eye on your kids (and the other eye on what they're watching) - And keep your faith in a righteous and holy God. For the long-term: Vote for politicians that believe in traditional values and holding criminals accountable (i.e., appropriate sentences, no probation, death penalty for capital crimes, etc.) - And keep your faith in a righteous and holy God. Option B - Run for office if you have the time, energy, and finances - And keep your faith in a righteous and holy God. One big advantage of having an eternal perspective and faith in a righteous and holy God - The innocent do not suffer for long and no one escapes justice.

Do keep in mind that we hear about more of the horrible cases than we did in years past -- thanks to CNN and the web. Weirdoes have always been out there. To some degree, this statement is a comforting thought. If true, it means our children are no more at risk than previous generations. If true, it means our children are as safe as we were as kids. Do you really believe this to be true? I don't. When I was I child, I explored miles of creeks and wooded areas around my home (in Maryland). By the time I was 12, I was familiar with every neighborhood within a four to five mile radius. Today, I won't let my 12-year-old walk to the pool without a friend accompanying him. Do you think I am being paranoid? Probably more than most, but I have good reason. I seriously challenge the notion that there were just as many weirdoes walking around 70, 60, 50, 40, or even 30 years ago as there are today. Do you think major newspapers conveniently buried all the stories of child kidnap and murder for decades? Do you think there was a government conspiracy to keep these crimes a secret? There was a time when "the crime of the century" was the St. Valentines Day Massacre or the Lindbergh kidnapping. In the past 15 years, in my state alone, I know of a massacre in an apartment complex that claimed seven lives, several child abductions and murders, countless rapes, and a never-ending series of drug related murders. Yes, weirdoes, rapists, and murders have been around forever. But don't kid yourself, they are growing in number everyday. I know there are some that think the key to making our nation healthier, is to release our Victorian attitudes, and to indulge ourselves without embarrassment. Frankly, I think we surpassed that so-called barrier many years ago and we are now feeding a very sick society. One can hardly turn on a television set without being bombarded with a sexually laced message. Pornography is pervasive in our communities. We are told that its only natural for "healthy, curious boys" to seek and view this material. Sex between teenagers is expected. Indiscriminately violent and obscene shows like 'South Park' are popular. Movies like the Friday 13th series continue on for years because more and more teenagers find the gratuitous and grotesque violence to be entertaining. Rap music proclaims the joys of rape, wife beating, and cop killing. All forms of entertainment are more and more explicit in their portrayals of sex and violence. Even children's cartoons are spiked with sexual messages. A crucifix in a jar of urine is called art. Worse yet, a large number of "art lovers" defends the artist. The more shocking something is, the more it is lauded as entertainment or art. Compare what your father or grandfather's generation called entertainment 40 years ago to what we gratify ourselves with today. Read a newspaper from 40 years ago and compare it to what is happening today. Perhaps the vast majority of Americans have remained relatively unaffected by this attitude ("If it feels good, do it"), but we have created many more monsters - and these monsters are affecting the vast majority of Americans. By the way, in case one should ask, I don't have a scientific study to back up my claim. However, to those who would argue, I say take the veil from your eyes and take a close look at what's going on around you.

NJ, Despite the fact that your questions are neutrally worded, it is obvious to the boy what you are trying to get him to do, and the fact that you call it "mentoring" clinches it. So you are trying to influence the boy's behavior. Shouldn't a SM or ASM be allowed to influence Scouts? BSA is a character building organization. BSA clearly identifies the SM and ASMs as mentors. How can parents expect them not to influence their children? Just for the record, I do not believe the fact that I call it "mentoring" reveals (or "clinches") anything. I can accept a boy wearing an earring as long as he has examined his motives for wanting to do so. If his motives are noble, I have nothing to criticize. If his motives are not noble, I feel free to advise him of the same. After all is said and done, whether he listens to my counsel or not, I am still going to treat the boy with respect. That does not mean I have to respect everything he does and/or keep my opinions to myself. Does it matter what the parents think? Your frame of reference for this question is not clear. Does it matter what the parents think about a particular issue? OR Does it matter what the parents think about me giving advise on a particular issue? If it's the former, and the parents have not asked me to refrain from advising their son, then the short answer is no. By asking these questions, do I denigrate or dishonor his parents? I believe a SM or ASM can have a different viewpoint than a Scout's parents and still be respectful. If it's the latter, and the parents have asked me to refrain from advising their son, I will respect their wishes. Regardless, parents of Scouts should not be surprised that a SM or ASM will advise their son, whether he is asked or not. This is part of the program. If a serious matter is being discussed (such as faith, sex, etc.), then I feel the SM or ASM has an obligation to bring the parents up to speed as to what was said. However, unless specifically asked to refrain, I believe the adult leadership has a right to give advice. Of course, the chartering organization has ultimate authority in this regard. Yet, this can cut both ways. A chartering organization may choose to tell its leaders that they cannot give advice on such matters. Or, they may advise parents that such a limitation will not be placed on their leaders and that they are free to seek a different troop. I stand somewhere in the middle. If a Scout's parents ask the adult leadership that they refrain from advising their son on a particular issue, and its of a fairly serious nature, then I believe we need to honor that request. On the other hand, if a Scout's parents made the same request in reference to less serious matters, then I think the request is unreasonable. It goes against the charter of BSA, which is to develop a boy's character. This goal would become impossible if the adult leadership was instructed to always refrain from giving advice.

Supermom, Are you judging these kids? This is not our job. We are teaching valuable life skills, with or without earrings, nose rings, or other rings, etc. We all have something the may not be the "norm". So do not look down your noses at these that do not follow the "norm" instead learn something from them. you may be enriched! Where does that come from? What is your bone of contention? If you're referring to my post (it is not clear as to what specific statement you're responding to), then allow me to make my position more clear. Nothing is inherently wrong with an earring. However, it is our responsibility as adult leaders to help these boys develop good characterto make them think about their actions and their motivations. If given the opportunity, we should encourage them to examine their hearts and minds before they act. As for "nose rings, or other rings" (I'm afraid to ask), I have to wonder just how far are you willing to let a Scout go before you deem a "fashion statement" as unacceptable. There comes a point where it is not only in bad taste, but a serious health risk as well. Furthermore, some fads, such as body piercing are more akin to self-mutilation than embracing the latest style. In short, I am not judging a Scout for wanting an earring. I am challenging him to think about why he wants that earring and to consider what value or benefit he may gain from it. If this is to be considered judgmental, then I stand as guilty. Fella, But since, let's face it, so many boys DO wear a little ring in their ears (if only sometimes to keep the hole), then I wonder if you would be prepared to ask such repeated serious questions to girls as well. Since our job is to mentor boys, I see this question as moot. To satisfy your curiosity, yes, I would ask a girl most of the same questions. The simple fact is though; society tends not to look at an earring worn by a girl as an act of rebellion. I suppose, with each passing year, more and more of society are accepting earrings worn by boys as well. Still, I feel the questions are still worth asking. The average teen, girl or boy, won't rest upon some magisterial Harvard-standard thesis for the mere fact that they have got an unremarkable, tiny ring in their ear-lobe. They won't have committed themselves to a confessional testimony as to why there's a little round stud protruding from the bottom of their ear. Well, I have to admityou're losing me. If you're saying that the presence of an earring will not hinder a boy from advancing in life, I tend to agree. On the other hand, the presence of an earring doesn't add anything to one's life either. If anything, it's merely a sign of vanity. Lest anyone accuses me of insulting women, the customs and traditions of our country for the last several decades (if not centuries) has encouraged women to wear jewelry. That much is obvious. There is a distinction to be made here, but I am digressing. I'm simply saying we should encourage a Scout to ask himself what he gains by wearing an earring. I never implied that we should make proclamations about his character if he chooses to wear one. But my point was simply that if there a safety issue, let them take them out, but let's not get worked up about what is really unremarkable. Character is what counts. I understand and agree. Since "character is what counts", isn't it worth exploring why a Scout feels compelled to wear an earring. If such a boy ever gave me the opportunity, I would counsel him to consider his motivation before piercing his ear. It's not about judging them, it about asking them to use their judgmentto seriously think about why they do the things they do. Once a Scout has figured out why he wants to pursue a course of action (i.e., get an earring, dye his hair, take karate lessons, etc.), I would further encourage him to ponder as to whether or not his reasons are noble. This is called character building.

Bob White doesn't need anyone defending his assertions (he does well by himself, although we often disagree), but I feel compelled to step in and restate his position. Unless I'm mistaken, I understand that a troop can adopt any hat as part of their official troop uniform (per the new policy). Unless the hat is inconsistent with BSA standards (i.e., offensive in some way), it would be recognized as part of the official uniform (including a Philmont trading post hat).

Returned from summer camp (Rodney Scout Reservation on the Chesapeake Bay) this past Saturday. We took 43 Scouts and 15 adult leaders. Overall, it was another successful camp experience. Our Scoutmaster was unable to attend because he was leading a high adventure trip at Mount Rainer (Wonderland Trail). One of our regular ASMs stood in for him at summer camp. He did a pretty good job, but I had a difficult time with his style...had to bite my tongue. He's a bit of a control freak. Consequently, I felt he did not give the boys enough room to run their own show (so to speak). To his defense, 21 of the 43 boys were first year Scouts. Also, because of two high adventure trips going on during the summer, our boy leadership at camp was reduced to two 13-year-olds and a handful of 12-year-olds. Had the usual assortment of issues. One boy became so homesick, we had to call mom to come pick him up. Another boy became ill (102 temperature), and again, we had to make arrangements for him to go home. Two or three young boys struggled with the swimming merit badge (to the point of tears), but the camp staff was able to bring about some success and the smiles returned. We lost about a half dozen first year Scouts after several moms and dads showed up for the Friday night dinner and campfire (family night). Our stand-in SM was pretty upset about it. In regard to first year Scouts, I see it as pretty much par for the course. We'll probably lose most of these boys within the next year or so. It's been my experience that about half of the boys who bridge, drop out within 12 to 18 months. Getting back on topicRodney is a great camp. If you're in NJ, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, or southeast Pennsylvania, I highly recommend this camp. It's probably already too late for 2003. This camp fills up almost immediately at the end of the summer. They probably have the best aquatics program on the East Coast. From talking to other Scouters, I think Heritage Reservation in Pennsylvania is pretty close to its equal in all other areas. Any way, its good to be back home where the mattress is firm and the only other adults (my wife) is soft.

fella, "If boys want to pierce an ear, go for it!" Yes, yes, yes...I understand. It's the fad of the day. We had long hair so we should tolerate their earrings. It's their bodies. Let them express themselves. Don't let the repressive Victorian types put you down, and so on. But, just to be a fly in the anointment, I think I would ask the Scout some questions, like - Why do you want this earring? Do you really believe it will make you look better? Do you think it will affect others' impression of you? If it does affect others impression of you, will it be for the good or the bad? Does it matter what these people think of you? Does it make a difference as to who these people are? Family? Friends? Employers? Strangers? Mohawks come and go as fashion statements too...but I wouldn't recommend every boy to "go for it!" BSA is about character development. Its primary purpose isn't to encourage individualism. Its primary purpose is to turn boys into men. So, if a boy wants an earring, I say, "lets talk about it!" Maybe he'll learn something about himself. Like - an earring doesn't make a man. While these so-called fads are harmless (in the sense that no one is truly scared physically, mentally, or emotionally), what are we teaching the boys? Superficial fads should be embraced? Why not use the opportunity to teach them that its what's inside that counts? The boy may still get an earring, but he should know that it's a poor substitute for good character. If he already has the latter, than I see no harm in the former. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but we shouldn't blindly endorse every fad (harmless or not) to satisfy the desires of the young. MentoringThat is the most important role of the adult leadership in BSA. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Has our society become so sophisticated that we are willing to sacrifice our children to ensure our status as progressives? What's more important, proving ourselves to be uncompromising intellectuals, or protecting our children? I am sick of the horrid stories of child kidnap, rape, and murder, which have become the norm in our country. But what sickens me more, are those self-professed academics that have twisted and perverted our criminal justice system. Consequently, across the country, many states cuddle and protect the perpetrators of these crimes. Our justice system has been turned upside down. Our courts should have two top priorities - 1) protect society, and 2) ensure justice for the victim and his/her family. A third, but very secondary priority, should be to reform the offender. Unfortunately, we have become so refined; we are willing to sacrifice the first two priorities in a flailing and most often unsuccessful attempt to attain the third priority. I am disgusted and enraged that innocent children must pay the price while judges and politicians (and their supporters) try to out do one another to be urbane and open-minded. Let's get real. Get rid of the probation system. Seek the death penalty for those monsters that seek out our children. To those folks who wish to embrace a justice system that puts your children second or third, I pray that you open your eyes. Just venting

"Dining In" and "Dining Out" in the military, particularly in the Air Force, is done to build camaraderie and to emphasize proper military etiquette. At least, this is how I have seen in done in ROTC units. For these dining experiences, they have a set of rules that look something like this: 1) If any cadet or officer attending notices another cadet or officer violating military etiquette, they will call it to everyone else's attention by publicly addressing the head table in rhyme whereas the violator and the specific violation is noted. 2) The violator will be given the opportunity to defend himself by publicly addressing the head table in rhyme (i.e., "Roses are Red. Violets are Blue. The cadet next to Fred, doesn't know how to chew.") 3) If the violator is unwilling, or unsuccessful, to make his defense in rhyme, he must march to the head table. Square his shoulders. And drink one cup of the Grog*. Upon downing the drink, he will place the cup upside down on his head. The violator will then return to his seat. 4) If the violator successfully defends himself in rhyme, then the person calling attention to the violation must march to the head table. Square his shoulders. And drink one cup of the Grog*. Upon downing the drink, he will place the cup upside down on his head. The accuser will then return to his seat. The Grog is a disgusting mixture of liquids and solids (often it is an alcoholic beverage, if all attending are over 21). It could contain just about anything. Just to set the record straight, military or not, I'm not in favor of the alcoholic Grog bowl. What is the purpose of dumping the cup on one's head? That's an out for those who are too squeamish (or principled) to drink the Grog. In other words, if you don't drink it, it gets dumped on your head. Okay, the above is the military version of "Dining In". I believe, "Dining Outs" are more formal. However, they often still have a Grog bowl. Very often the rules are bent to include phantom transgressions and just plain silliness. For example, one cadet might accuse another cadet of a violation because "he's just plain ugly." Bare in mind, these are young men (not boys) and the purpose is to instill a sense of familiarity and camaraderie while emphasizing proper etiquette (or vice versa depending on one's perspective). This is how I envision something like this being incorporated in a Scouting venue. First, as is true for the military version, everyone is advised about the event beforehand. No one is surprised by the unusual "rules" and/or consequences. The event is advertised as a fun/silly event with the goal of teaching proper etiquette. If someone does not want to participate, they can opt out and not attend. Two, I would make the setting an outdoor picnic. Three, I would modify the rules. Something along the order of this: 1) If any Scout or Scouter attending notices another Scout or Scouter violating Scouting etiquette and/or proper table manners, they will call it to everyone else's attention by publicly addressing the head table in rhyme whereas the violator and the specific violation is noted. 2) The violator will be given the opportunity to defend himself by publicly addressing the head table in rhyme. 3) If the violator is unwilling, or unsuccessful, to make his defense in rhyme, he must march to the middle of field. Square his shoulders and face the "Water Balloon Brigade". From a distance of 15 feet, the brigade will launch one round of water balloons. The violator will then return to his seat. 4) If the violator successfully defends himself in rhyme, then the person calling attention to the violation must march to the middle of field. Square his shoulders and face the "Water Balloon Brigade". From a distance of 15 feet, the brigade will launch one round of water balloons. The accuser will then return to his seat. I don't know if ASM7's event is anything like this. Nevertheless, I think this would be a fun learning experience for the boys.