Rooster7

I should have added this as number four - 4) Any country that enables a man to worship God as his conscience dictates, allows him the opportunity to provide for his family, and protects its citizens, IS worth fighting for. God, Family, Country...To me, it's a no-brainer.

eagle90, You make good points. We definitely need to be careful in that regard. However, I have to reply by saying - 1) Merit badges are optional. I don't think anyone is saying we should make Etiquette an Eagle required badge. 2) While boys join to have fun (and we need to ensure that they get plenty of it), the purpose of Scouting is to build character. In the end, I like ASM7's idea. A military style "dining out" where etiquette is emphasized, and a fun penalty is devised to make the point to ensure the boys enjoy the experience. My only reservation - How much guff will I get from committee members for making the suggestion? I don't think any is deserved. However, many folks want to ban anything that is even remotely associated with the military. I think this result is the byproduct of two occurrences - 1) A misinterpretation of the BSA policy, which bans military style discipline and drilling, and 2) a group of folks in Scouting who long for the sixties (when it appeared to be popular to despise the military). But I digressASM7 I like your idea. It sounds like your troop knows how to learn and have fun at the same time.

I agree with Quixote and Glenn. Just to further expound, and perhaps just to rattle a cage or two (sometimes I'm not sure of my own motives...I have to work on that) - 1) Any Christian who would put God second to anything, needs to read his Bible more. From a common sense perspective - My life as a citizen of this country, and as a husband and father is temporal. My life as a child of God is eternal. You do the math. 2) Any man who would put his family second to his country, may be a "great patriot", but has failed one of his first duties to God...to protect and provide for his family. 3) Any nation that would ask its citizens to forfeit their faith and their family for the sake of country isn't worth fighting for.

eisely, I think you may well be right...Does the military wear the flag on their left shoulder? If so, your theory seems to be valid. My son asked his buddy who is in the reserves. He said the "stars" always head into battle first. It's an interesting answer, but I think your reply is more likely to be true. Perhaps, they're both true.

This is not the approach that everyone would take, but this is how I prevented homesickness. For the first year, I attended all of my sons' camping trips (as a Scouter). I did not hover around their site. I stayed with the adults. They knew I was around if they needed me. They soon discovered that I was "not needed". My sons realized that if I were not there, they would still have fun and be just as safe. Consequently, when I did stay home, it was no big deal. Of course, the trick is...you can't be babying them on these trips. You have to make yourself transparent. Any way, it worked for my family. My kids are pretty independent.

It's not custom, but New Testament bible teaching. Read 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Actually, I do remember when women were expected to wear a hat to service. I don't believe it was ever proper for a man to wear a hat in church.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

In the "Take off your hat" example, a simple "Please" added would have shown that respect for the adult. BubbaBear, It's definitely better, but I still think it's inappropriate. Why? Because the Scout is assuming that he knows better than the adult. This is a big assumption. In fact, I think it's a disrespectful assumption. However, I do believe that there is a respectful way for a Scout to challenge an adult in this circumstance. This is how I would instruct my son: 1) Do not assume that you are infallible. It is possible that the adult may be right and you may be wrong. In fact, quite often this is the case when boys are involved. 2) Do not draw public attention to any correction you feel compelled to make of an adult. This rules out - "Please remove your hat", because it would draw the attention of others. 3) Approach the adult after the flag ceremony. Be humble when you do. 4) Ask him if he was aware of the flag code. If he says yes, ask him if he's has a different interpretation or understanding than you. Allow the adult to either defend his action or admit his mistake. If his interpretation is different that yours, then advise your Scoutmaster at some later time, but don't argue with the adult. Now, why do I believe my son should act any differently if the person needing correction is a Scout as opposed to an adult? The boys are a part of the boy-run structure. The adults are not a part of that structure. So, depending if my son was the Patrol leader or not, I believe he has several different options in the way this situation could be handled. 1) As PL or SPL, he could simply instruct the Scout to remove his hat and explain why after the ceremony. 2) As PL or SPL, he could treat the boy as he would any adult. There is certainly nothing wrong with this approach. Although, I don't think there is anything wrong with the first option either. 3) As "just" another Scout, he could advise the PL or SPL of the Scout's "improper" etiquette. 4) As "just" another Scout, he could treat the boy as he would any adult. Respect is a tricky term. That is, you need to put it in context. Respect for what? In regards to treating each other as human beings, with human emotions and frailties (fear, humiliation, embarrassment, etc.), EVERY one deserves EQUAL respect. Of course! That's easy. Nevertheless, as I have already noted, the boys are a part of the boy-run structure. By the nature of that structure, Scouts knowingly submit themselves to the direction of others. By definition, they should be subservient to the leaders of the group. In regards to knowledge and wisdom, while everyone deserves some respect, I feel there is a big distinction between Scouts and Scouters (and/or other adults). A boy should give adults credit for having knowledge and wisdom proportionate to their years. When dealing with an adult, a boy should not assume that the adult is wrong. In short, children should give adults the benefit of the doubt and approach them in a very humble manner. This is the way that I was taught by my parents.

I am willing to learn from others even if they are younger than me! (unlike some here) Nice... Obviously, you failed to grasp the basic nature of the complaint. The issue is not about the adult's willingness to learn from a boy. The issue is about the boy's willingness to show respect. Yes, I am willing to take correction from a boy. However, the boy needs to be very careful about his attitude. He should not be approaching adults as if they are his equals. If he feels compelled to advise an adult about proper flag etiquette, then he should present the information in a humble and respectful manner. In other words, he should say something along the order of, "Are you aware that the US flag code says that one should..." as opposed to telling the adult, "Remove your hat." It's a matter of presentation. It's a matter of respect.

scomman, We are not to discipline or drill Scouts as if they are in the military. However, there are many things that are considered militaristic that are perfectly acceptable. For example: Marching in uniform in a parade is not only allowed, its encouraged. While BSA advises charters and Scouters that troops are not to be run like a paramilitary organization, they do not condemn all things that are considered military. This issue was rather hotly debated on this forum back in October. I know because I was part of that discussion. At the time the 9-11 attack was fueling my emotions. Regardless, I stand by my posts. Please see this thread -"Saluting" under "Open Discussion - Program".(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I agree with the thoughts on this board. However, I would caution against over-reacting. In Scouting, I see two general types of disciplinary problems. One is a matter of self-control. The other is about being malicious. In your story, the Scouts surrendered to their impulsiveness, and failed to restrain themselves from an activity that they knew was wrong (i.e., speaking out of turn, horseplay, playing with fire, etc.). In these cases, while there are varying degrees of wrongness, the Scout is not malicious. In the second group, the issue is maliciousness. That is, the Scout's "pleasure" is derived from someone else's displeasure (i.e., teasing, bullying, theft, destruction of property, etc.). I believe that these two different behaviors deserve two different responses. Here's my point, while I fully agree that the Scouts (in the above story) need to suffer a consequence for their actions, I believe the response should be measured. Given the fact that two of them are Eagles, I have to conclude two things. One, at heart, they're probably pretty good kids. And two, they're probably embarrassed and repentant for their actions. If not, then I'm surprised that they were able to reach the rank of Eagle in the first place. I think the "scared straight" tactic is wise (i.e. visit a burn center). I agree with Mike's suggestionsdefinitely, they should lose the Fireman chit until they prove they've learned their lesson. However, I wouldn't make them do a service project on top of everything else. Also, I would only "suspend" their rank as JASMs for a few weeks. In other words, I think you want to be careful that you do not humiliate these Scouts. Assuming these boys fall into the first group, I have to think that it's not going to take too much to get through to them. While I understand the dangers of fire and why folks are dealing with this matter seriously (as we should)my guess is, these boys probably already understand that point. On the other hand, if these kids fell into the second group of misbehaviors (maliciousness), then I say let the chips fall where they may. I am much less tolerant of this kind of bad behavior. In many cases, these Scouts refuse to recognize their actions as being cruel and/or uncaring. These guys are a tougher problem. So, if you feel that these boys were being extremely callous and had little regard for anyone's safety; that they were not being impetuous, but rather uncaring and self-absorbed, then I say go ahead and pile it on. It'll either make or break them. That is, they'll either eventually bow to the authorities within the troop and recognize their poor attitude, or they'll rebel further and probably drop out (or be booted out). Either way, I say the problem would be solved. I know those last two or three sentences might draw a reaction, but I'm prepared to defend them. Bottom Line: I say show some tolerance and temperance when dealing with basically good kids who've fallen victim to their own impetuousness, but act swiftly and decisively when dealing with kids that are malicious and show little concern for others. I discovered the dangers of an aerosol can at the age of seven or eight. I tossed one into the family BBQ after dinner one day. I remember running around the house playing army with my friends when I heard a loud boom. I sprinted to the backyard to see what had happen and before I knew it, I was breaking out in a very strange dance. My feet had discovered the hot coals, which were dispersed all over our backyard in dramatic fashion. It was a real revelation. After I got over all the weird thoughts that boys have, like "Wow! That was neat!"I realized that my family could have been in the backyard when the explosion occurred. It gave me a few nightmares. Needless to say, I quickly recognized the possible ramificaitons associated with pressurized cans and heat. I never did that again! Sometimes God displays His mercy in unusual ways.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Quixote, I don't know...I just know what I've seen at various BSA camps. Some instructors are great. Some have no clue. If you go to a camp that has the latter, be prepared for some tears by your weaker swimmers (and in some cases, even from your good swimmers). My main point is, talk to your boys (or son) ahead of time. Don't scare them off, but prepare them for some possibilities. If they go into camp thinking I'll probably receive a partial, their failures (if any) are not as devastating. And if they can get the whole enchilada, well then they're walking on air as they leave camp. Also, if you see a kid having a really bad time of it, be there at poolside to console him. I've seen a lot boys upset, mostly after the "inflation" exercise. JMHO.

Is the pledge right? As a statement of fact, it is probably not completely right (or accurate). Some could argue that our nation is not "indivisible". Many social, political, and economical issues divide our country today. However, I would respond by noting that we are united in our desires to be a nation where many opinions can be expressed. In this sense, we can claim to be "indivisible". Regardless, I don't view the pledge as a statement of fact. To me, it's a declaration that this is what our nation aspires to be. Is the pledge necessary? As free people, nothing is necessary but to follow the laws of the land. However, private organizations are free to make their own requirements for membership. From the perspective of a private organization, especially a patriotic group such as BSA, I would say it is right and necessary. From the perspective of an American citizen, who is free to associate with whomever he pleases, I would say the decision is his. Yet, the individual cannot dictate the membership requirements of the private organization. BSA has a right to maintain its standards as they see fit. Going back to your original post. How does your Scoutmaster intend to hinder your progress in rank advancements (if you chose to no longer say the pledge)? Or, did I misread your post? If you've already joined BSA, this should be a moot issue. As was noted by others, I do not recall any rank advancement requiring the recitation of the pledge. This brings us back to sctmom's post. You seem to be picking a fight that doesn't need to be fought. If your intention is to be a crusader for like-minded boys that have yet to join, I guess I understand your interest. Nevertheless, you will find no sympathy from me as you do battle with BSA. The pledge of allegiance does not supersede my allegiance to God. There is nothing in the pledge that opposes my moral beliefs. The ideas presented are noble and worthy of a nation aspiring to serve its people. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I have one caution for Scouters, and in particular the Scouts about to take the swimming merit badge at summer camp. I have seen good aquatics staffs and bad ones. That is to say, I've seen boys flounder in the water with little instruction and even less encouragement offered by the instructors. This can be devastating to a boy, who is embarrassed by failure, and/or cannot deal with the prospect of receiving a partial blue card as a result of that failure. In other years, I have seen the instructors go to great lengths to provide proper instruction, to ensure that boy continues to receive that instruction in and out of the pool, to encourage him to complete the task, and to make him feel successful even if he could not complete the requirement. In short, pray for a good aquatics staff, but prepare all of your boys for a bad one (i.e., let them know that a partial is acceptable, tell them how they can complete the badge back home, make sure you have arrangements to do so, be there for him if he fails to complete a requirement). As an adult Scouter, my most painful memories associated with Scouting is watching 11- and 12-year-old boys come to tears because they struggled with the swimming merit badge at camp. Most of the time, if the aquatics staff was better trained, their struggles, fears, and tears could have been greatly reduced. The "inflation exercise" was a particularly heart wrenching event for some of the boys, and for the adults that cared for them. By the way, this is also a great time to teach the older boys about being "helpful" and "kind". Use your veteran scouts to encourage and comfort the younger boys while they struggle to earn this badge. I know I went off track a little bit, but this warning seems especially appropriate for over-weight kids. Just a word of caution based on my experiences at BSA summer camps...

buffalo2, I'm not sure I agree. Etiquette can be, and should be taught by one's parents. However, if you mean to say, "We cannot make our children follow good etiquette. They must learn to appreciate the value of good manners so that they want to follow it." Then yes, I agree with that thought. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it." This is a sad truth.

I don't know how many times I was told at summer camp, by boys who did not even know me, to remove my official troop hat while I was outdoors, in full field uniform, saluting, at attention during the flag ceremony. Guess where they picked up that behavior? I'm guessing it was from a scout leader who never hesitated to do the same to the boys for whatever reason. I have to agree that the boys' behavior in the above story was wrong. In fact, in my mind, their attitudes were deployable. However, it's their refusal to recognize the difference between adults and boys that rub me the wrong way. When I was a boy, whether I was dealing with a janitor or the principal, I treated adults as authority figures that should not be questioned or challenged, unless they gave you good reason to do so. "Good reason" being issues of safety primarily (i.e., don't get into a car with an adult just because he says so). Yes, even boys are worthy of respect, but not the same respect that boys should extend to adults. I don't buy, "treat the boys like adults and they'll act like adults". It's been my experience that if you treat the boys like adults, they're apt to run you over. Of course, there is a time when the boys earn that respect. Until then, I have no problem treating them as the children they are. Children learn by repetition. So, I see no harm in reminding them to remove non-BSA hats during a flag ceremony, or to cover their hearts if they're out of uniform. They are in the program to have fun, but they're also there to learn. Adults are volunteers. They're in the program to help the boys, not to be taught by them or by other adults. The boys should know the difference. Furthermore, there are times when a boy brings public admonishment on himself. If you're conducting a Scoutmaster minute and the same boy interrupts you for the third time, are you going to wait until your minute is up? Or, are you going to do something to correct the situation immediately? On the other hand, as a boy matures and displays the behavior expected of a Scout, I agree that he deserves an extra measure of respect, perhaps even equal to that which is extended to most adults. Despite my "rant", I agree with almost all of what's been said. My pet peeve is treating children as adults. Boy Scouts or not, children need to be instructed. Sometimes that instruction deals with poor behavior. If it can be done in private, great! If not, I guess it's a judgment call, but I think there are times when it needs to be done in public. Just so that I'm not misunderstood, everything should be measured and kept in proportioned to the situation. I'm not advocating screaming at kids. I am saying that sometimes the situation warrants an adult to say, what needs to be said, immediately.

Jcfraz, Earlier in this thread, you posted: My current situation is that I will be 1st class soon but when My scout master found out Saying the pledge is aigainst my religios beliefs he questioned my qualifications to pass any ranks at all! More recently, you submitted the above post, which begins with - "One nation, under God, indivisible..." Really? Am I to believe that the same person wrote these postings? There seems to be a disparity in style and substance. Did you fail to give credit to someone else? Regardless, I'm not sure that it is a good argument for removing the words "under God". You make some good points. Yet, I still believe the phrase is important because it tells the world what we aspire to be as a nation. Also, I fail to see how this writing supports your claim for refusing to say the pledge.

I agree with scoutmaster424. I believe the merit badge would fill a void in many areas: Table manners - behavior at the table, in a restaurant, explanation of table layouts, etc. Religious customs Flag etiquette Public behavior - such as covering one's mouth when coughing, offering a seat to others (elderly, very young, a "lady"), etc. Date etiquette - holding open doors, pulling out a chair for a lady to sit, paying for meals (depending on the circumstance), etc. An understanding of how etiquette is different in different nations Even, being a good Samaritan and the associated risks. For example, stopping to help fix a flat tire. If you know the individual, I think this would fall into the category of good etiquette and behavior expected of one's neighbor. If you don't know the individual, while it is very courteous, one is assuming some risk (especially in today's world). There is a very large list of customs and expected behaviors that our boys should know. Personally, I think it's an excellent idea. While I agree the adults should set the example, it seems to me that the territory is pretty large...too large for all the said areas to be communicated by example. Furthermore, when something is taught by example, a proper explanation of the behavior is not always apparent.

Jcfraz, If it is truly against your religious beliefs (as NJ has stated), then you may have a "case", so to speak. In the 60's some boys claimed it was against their faith to be a combatant in a war. Yet, not everyone was successful in avoiding combat. Some were not able to prove their claim. You should be prepared to explain the teachings of your faith that corroborates your assertion; persons of my faith should not say a pledge to a flag and its nation. Even then, I'm not sure you have a strong a position. BSA is not the US government. They are a private organization (as has been stated in this forum numerous times). Perhaps they will make an allowance for your situation, if you can prove it to be true. On the other hand, I'm pretty confident that they don't have to be flexible on this. I'm an elder and deacon in the Presbyterian Church. I know of no such teaching, either in the bible or by PCUSA that says you cannot pledge allegiance to a flag and the country it represents. In short, I think your case is pretty weak. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

acco40, What boggles my mind are people who feel the need to wear their religion on their sleeves and proclaim such things as "A Statement of Faith" on a chat forum. Why would you be so presumptuous to believe that I or anyone else cares about your faith? It still sounds like an attack to me, but thanks for your clarification. Suffice it to say, my faith instructs me not to be shy about proclaiming God or His Word before other men. As for Quote's reference to Mark 16:15, you should recognize that verse. It supports his claim, which is, his faith demands that he tells others about God's saving grace...the Great Commission. So what you call "being pompous", others might call "being obedient".

NJ, I actually understand your logic. It is well thought out and presented. However, I still take issue with your stance. Your supposition presupposes two givens that I feel are not true - 1) a prayer that mentions God by name is inherently offensive to believers of all other faiths; and 2) there will always be someone willing to say a generic prayer. As for the first (offensiveness), if we are truly a religiously free and tolerant nation, than that tolerance should be demonstrated by and extended to, every citizen. By that, I don't mean we should accept practices and teachings that contradict our own. However, we should be able to withstand someone living their faith without feeling threatened, and that includes the closing acknowledgments of a prayer. As I've mentioned in another thread, if/when that happens, Scouts and Scouters are free to acknowledge the god of their choice. As for the second (willingness to say generic prayer), this assumes that at least one person in your group feels that he/she can say a generic prayer without contradicting his/her faith. I must admit that this is a fairly safe bet. However, this means that you or your designate must search out such an individual. Are you going to interview every Scout and Scouter before allowing the individual to offer a group prayer? Are you going to establish a pool of people who can say public prayers for the troop and another pool that cannot? I think these efforts to be "inclusive" are contrary your goal. If you want people to be tolerant, teach them tolerance. Don't try to establish a policy, which hides their differences. This policy teaches intolerance. If you want to be inclusive, don't establish a policy, which enables one group of people to say public prayers, and bans other group from doing the same. This policy would be exclusive, not inclusive. The simple answer is to let everyone live their faith as they see fit. If someone prays to a different god than yours, than silently insert the god of your own faith. acco40, As a Christian, I have to question why you would attack another Christian for simply expressing his belief in Christ Jesus and maintaining his right to recognize Him in public prayer? Do you think that believers who seek to fulfill the Great Commission are wearing their religion on their sleeve? Why Ecclesiastes 1? How does that testify to your faith? jmcquillan, I appreciate your approach. It enables folks to be true to their faith, and it doesn't force them to sit on the sidelines. It teaches tolerance. It is inclusive. My only hesitation would be in regard to what and how much is sermonized by the Scoutmaster. In other words, I think it is right to be inclusive and to expose the Scouts and their families to other faiths in the troop. I don't think it would be appropriate if the Scoutmaster lectured the Scouts and their families as to the significance of those differences. scoutmaster424, I understand your point, but I disagree with your definition of tolerance. We should be tolerant of people who wish to practice a faith different than ours, and respect their right to do so. However, I do not believe that I must respect the religion itself, only the people who wish to practice it.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

As a matter of fact, I cannot attest with absolute certainty that Mr. Mori did not intentionally try to deceive anyone. Yet, I can make this observation. Based on his numerous prior posts, it is not consistent with his character to lie. If the facts were misrepresented, Mr. Mori has not given anyone any reason to believe it was intentional. This trust should have been extended to him as a matter of simple courtesy. As for Merlyn's post, it is rather self-incriminating. He is not interested in courtesy or any other part of the Scout Law, his goal seems to be singular - win the debate at all costs.

Merlyn_LeRoy, When one intentionally makes a false statement (i.e., knowingly misrepresents the truth), one is lying. This much we can agree on as being true. When one unintentionally makes a false statement, the truth is misrepresented, but one is NOT guilty of lying. In other word's, deception must be one's motivation if he/she is to be labeled a liar. I'm not sure what to make of your post. Since it is fairly obvious that Mr. Mori did NOT intend to deceive anyone, your intentional misrepresentation of his character seems to indicate that you are in fact guilty of your very own accusation. Just an observation

Wow! I found nothing to disagree with in this thread. The above advice was great and gave me a lot to think about, even though I was not the one with the question. I'd like to build off some of the comments already made. I think we (most parents and Scouters) unwittingly tend to emphasize advancement over achievement. We remind our sons that they "cannot advance" unless they are able to perform a certain skill. Yet, we forget to counsel them on the wisdom of acquiring the skill. What will save a boy's life - the First Class rank or the skill of swimming? Obviously, it's the skill of swimming. I'm sure there's plenty of Scoutmasters that realize this and emphasize it to their scouts. However, I think many of us unintentionally allow ourselves to slip down the slippery slope of advancement, and fall off the path of learning life skills for their own inherent value. In short, I agree we should not overlook requirements for advancement, but we should be more concerned of about the scout's skill deficiency than his lack of advancement. This is not coming from the top of a soapbox. Trust me, I am as guilty as anyone else. It helps to be reminded now and againso thank you to those who contributed to this thread. SagerScout, Nice story. I love kids that overcome obstacles. They inspire me. Be proud of your son, but more importantly let him know that you are. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Just to summarize what others have said... Any weather condition that the troop is ill prepared to handle in a safe manner. Proper preparation should include proper clothing, proper equipment, proper training, and proper expertise. Snow, by itself, is not necessarily a reason to cancel unless it's a blizzard. Even then, one needs to consider whether or not it would be wiser to wait for it to pass. On the other hand, if you're dressed for warm weather, canceling for one inch of snow may well be the wisest thing to do. In other words, with exception to the most obvious hazardous conditions (lightning, blizzard, flood, tornado, etc.), it hinges on whether or not the troop is properly prepared.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)