Rooster7

I understand the condemnation and the concern about sexually transmitted diseases. However, what bothers me more is the lack of concern or thought in regard to the sacredness of the act itself, not just by bigstrohl but apparently many others as well. So many are quick to say, "Doesn't he think about AIDS?" Few say, "Doesn't he care that sex is a sacred act that should be shared between a husband and wife?" Yes, he should be concerned that he does not spread a deadly disease. But what if this disease (and others) did not exist? Are you implying that he would be acting morally? I hope not. Morally straight? To me, the greater issue is - "Are you behaving in manner that God would approve?" Examine your heartare you doing the right thing? Despite some people's claims, the spiritual aspects in life are more important than the physical. The treasure we strive for is not here, but in heaven. Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But tore up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. - Matthew 6:20-23 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." - Ephesians 5:25-31 I realize that not every poster is a Christian. Nevertheless, Christianity shares principles with many different religions. The concept of sex being a sacred act between a husband and wife is not foreign to other faiths. Before TJ or someone else jumps in and claims that there are Christian denominations that teach otherwise. Ask yourselves when and how these denominations popped up. They weren't around (at least not in large numbers) before the previous century. Did they come to be as the result of prayer, biblical study, and new credible interpretations of the bible? Or, were they the result of lust, popular culture, and wishful interpretation? I propose it was the latter.

Making someone feel unwelcome is not respect and is not scoutlike. OGE, First, there is a difference between "making someone feel unwelcome" and "not making someone feel welcomed". Perhaps you see no difference, but I feel it is significant. Your statement is proactive. It implies that I am endorsing the persecution of these "parents". My statement was passive. I was simply saying I find it very understandable if folks did not make an effort to make these parents feel welcomed (particularly in this setting). Do you make everyone feel welcome under every circumstance? If you believe someone is immoral or not scoutlike, do you invite him or her to become an ASM? If you believed someone is promoting immoral behavior, do you ask that person to monitor your children? When I said, they "should not expect to feel welcomed"; I meant it in terms of people seeking their involvement. I assumed that members of this forum would read my comments in context with littlebillie's most recent post. I think it was the Romans who first commented, "See how these Christians love one another..." Interestingly, my last post does not mention religion, much less Christianity. OGE, I have to ask, how welcomed do you think you make most Christians feel with comments such as these?

I always find myself concerned about the Cub Scout who belongs to a two-dad or two-mom family, whe then sees his parents marginalized, turned into second class citizens w/in a Pack. Marginalized? If BSA considers the behavior to be immoral, why would these "dads" or "moms" expect to be solicited and utilized by the pack or troop? If their son notices this fact, there isn't much one can do. The pack or troop is simply following their convictions. They believe the "dads" and "moms" in your example are improper role models. This belief is backed up by BSA policy. Homosexuals, who enroll children in the program, shouldn't expect members to change their views on homosexuality. It's sad that a child might suffer, but it's the "parents" who are creating this situation. The two "dads" or two "moms" should not expect to feel welcomed.

What about the scoutmaster that commits adultery? Is that not an immoral sin? Of course it is. Certainly, BSA would have a problem with this Scoutmaster as well. The fact that BSA does not specifically spell it out does not mean otherwise. For example, to my knowledge, there is no specific policy against white supremacists. Does BSA consider them to be engaged in immoral behavior and improper role models? Needless to say, they do. The policy against homosexuals became a written reality when large portions of society (although not necessarily the majority) started to make claims that homosexuality was acceptable. If large segments of society start to make claims that bestiality is acceptable, you can be sure that BSA will create another policy.

OGE, Yes. I am stubborn. Nevertheless, my point was this...Referring to homosexuality as "one's sexuality" or "preference" or "orientation" are poor attempts to sanitize the behavior. These labels don't hold water when one considers the full spectrum of sexual preferences. In short, we're talking about a sexual perversion, not a preference. This fact should be plain for everyone to see; simply pick up a book on biology (no insult intended).

OGE, Believe me...they do! It's just that GSUSA is so far to the left; few feel it's worth the effort. BSA powers-to-be are strong supporters of traditional values. Conservative Christian want to fight to keep it that way because 1) It's worth fighting for, and 2) It's a battle most feel can be won. While GSUSA may be worth fighting for, few folks believe that it is a winnable battle. The very people who oppose traditional values are running the organization. This is tantamount to pounding one's head against the wall. Smart people tend not to do it.

NJ, You don't make distinctions in your argument with respect to BSA's declaration of religious principle and it's stance on moral issues. BSA does not require membership in a particular faith. BSA doesn't tell folks what god to worship. BSA doesn't tell folks how to worship. They do embrace moral principles. Some of these principles are not endorsed by some faiths. That fact does not nullify the strength or virtue of any particular principle. In short, their stance is not an endorsement of one faith or denomination over another. They simply endorse a set of some long standing moral principles. No, they haven't changed with the "times". This should be a testament to their resolve, not a source of contention. They stand firm and to a large extent, alone. As long as they continue to fight for moral principles, I will be a proud member.

Your questions appear to be skewed in order to obtain a desired outcome. Why not just ask - Do you believe homosexuality to be immoral? It's a much simpler and more honest approach. All of your questions presume that homosexuality is a behavior and a mindset that can be restricted and controlled within the boundaries of one's bedroom. They call it a "lifestyle" for a reason. Furthermore, these questions presume that a perverse sexual orientation does not reveal anything about one's character, except one's sexuality. Take these same statements and apply them to other sexual "preferences". Do they still seem like reasonable suppositions? Of course not, because even the most "open minded" (i.e., stubborn) individuals understand that bestiality reveals something about one's character. It's not just the sexual act, it's the mindset that enables one to justify and act out the behavior that causes one concern.

I could nit-pick and complain about the wording of a sentence or two, just to be argumentative. Despite some people's contentions, that's never been my motivation. I believe we are all in agreement. What I meant, and I believe you support this as well - Scouting is about character building, outdoor skills, mentoring boys, etc. We should not abandon the heart of the program because someone may have a clever idea as to how to bring in more boys. In other words, Scouting has a place and a purpose. We're not a sports club. We're not a chess club. We may do some of those things, but our "first love" is the outdoors. Our purpose is to help boys become healthy and honorable men. At least, that's how I see it.

Why would anyone stand in the way of growth (i.e., offering the program to as many boys as possible)? Who would argue against such a concept? Of course, the safe and Scout friendly answer, is no one. I don't disagree. Yet, I would like to offer this thought. We need to ensure that in our attempts "to offer the program to as many boys as possible", we don't change the program simply to increase those numbers. Numbers ARE important, but they're not everything.

Hmmm. Yes, I see two special needs - Atheist - He needs God. "Gay" - Same answer. Sorry, that was easy pickings.

littlebillie, There is One Who is a Shepherd of many flocks... That's a provocative statement. I reserve further comment unless you want to elaborate. I hate to make assumptions about what you may have meant. TJ, I'm not sure I am one of those folks that you're alluding to... Nevertheless, I contend that most conservative Christians on this board are not trying to force their religion on anyone. There is a difference between supporting moral principles (regardless of its roots, or perceived roots) and promoting one's faith above others. For example, conservative Christians feel strongly that homosexuality is wrong and speak out against it within BSA and elsewhere. That fact does not prevent anyone from practicing his or her faith. That fact does not discourage others from participating in BSA. That fact does not place Christianity above all other faiths within BSA. Of course, an argument can be made that homosexuals are being excluded. Yes, this is true, but it cannot be said that Christianity alone is the reason. Many other faiths, in particular those most practiced and observed at the beginning of the previous century, speak out against homosexuality as well. This debate is more about the moral standards adopted long ago (and probably endorsed by most Scouters today) verses a "new" standard that others are trying to impose today. It's wrong to blame it on Christianity or those Scouts and Scouters who follow Christ. Certainly, when BSA was founded, they were a dominating force. They probably influenced many polices and positions of BSA. Still, if the majority is being driven by another majority, well that's a simple fact of life that one must learn to live with in a democracy or a representative republic (if you prefer). That fact should not nullify the will of the majorityit is still a majority. Before you address the Constitution (i.e., the rights of the individual) and the morality of BSA's stance, let's also remember these facts. BSA is a private organization. Our Constitution supports the existence of all lawful organizations. Our Constitution does not require the people (the citizens of our nation vice the government) to support all viewpoints. Furthermore, no government decree suggests that the people or private organizations should respect all viewpoints (in this case, what is moral or immoral). If the founders (and the current overseers) established an organization in which certain moral principles were to rein supreme despite the whims of future majorities in future generations, that too would be within their right. There is nothing inherently wrong with this concept or practice. Again, it's simply a matter of standing on moral principle. Whether those principles were originally rooted in a particular faith is not the point. As a private organization, BSA has a right to establish a code of conduct and to exclude those folks unwilling to support it. So, while BSA invites all major faiths to join its ranks, it does not forfeit its rights to establish and maintain a moral code even if some of those same faiths disagree with it. If you join BSA, the onus is upon you to reconcile your faith with the organization's code. It is not BSA's responsibility or moral duty to reconcile its moral code with the faith of each potential member. Nor is it BSA's responsibility to explain or justify how its code was adopted. Lastly, most members apparently agree that BSA's positions on these issues are morally proper. BSA is not being controlled by a conservative Christian conspiracy. BSA is standing firm on these issue because they believe in moral principles, which were established long ago and happens to be supported by a majority of its members. You are seeking to nullify the will of the majority simply because you believe that majority is supported by a large group (conservative Christians) which you do not care for. Nevertheless, even if the majority does not support BSA's stance, it is legally and morally acceptable for the organization to embrace a moral code that other's may not subscribe to. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

OGE, In another thread you said, "I am a little disconcerted here. On this forum we have a raging debate over what constitutes hazing and 'just punishment' (of which I am an active participant) while a quite salient issue, such as how do we get everyone on the same page, same book, or in this case, the same universe if not ignored, has not received the same passion." I'll bite. Our Supreme Court justices frequently have significantly different interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. A document which I submit was crafted with much more forethought and understanding than BSA's Guide to Safe Scouting or any other BSA manual. In short, I doubt seriously if all members will ever be on the same page. Scouting, while an admirable and worthwhile pursuit, still must operate within the confines of this universe. We shouldn't expect complete agreement amongst ourselves when that cannot be found anywhere else. On the other hand, when we do disagree, we should expect to be treated in accordance with the Scout Law. I do not believe that there are two basic camps as some have suggested"us" (those who chose to follow the methods of Scouting) verses "them" (those who do not). I feel this is an unfair portrayal, which assumes one is always on the right side of the argument. "There are still people who refuse to accept that 'death camps' existed during WWII, or that man actually landed on the moon." I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about Scouting.

I think the NFL is the closest example of how scouting works. Okay...I'm not going to join this debate because I see it leading to a conversation that Bob and I have had time and time again. Regardless, I just felt compeled to tell Bob (to his delight I'm sure) that I am a fan of the politically incorrect Washington Redskins. I'm sure he can work that into his analogy somewhere. I'm not a glutton for punishment (whoops, that's another thread)...I just found it rather humorous.

A snipe that eats bacon probably doesn't have much credibility with PETA. But then again, PETA doesn't have much credibility with anybody themselves, so who knows...

sctmom, YES. Please reread my posts on this subject under the thread "Hazing". I specifically mentioned that no one should force a boy to do ANYTHING against his will (including singing in front of a group). Like I said, use the same logic. Again, I have no problem with the snipe hunt that you described. However, if you want to nit-pick, there's more danger of a child being humiliated in your "snipe hunt" scenario than the "singing for lost possessions" scenario. In your example, the boys do not know that the event is staged. They do not know whether or not the danger is real. This fact opens the door to all the "what ifs" I listed in my previous post. In regard to my example, I made it known that the boy is allowed to opt out and do something else. He is NOT forced to participate as you have indicated. Regardless, as I said, as long as thoughtful and caring adults are monitoring these activities, no harm should come to the boys.

eagle90, That's exactly my point. Trust me, you're preaching to the choir. I was simply illustrating to sctmom that the same logic that permitted this controlled snipe hunt should be applied to "singing for lost possessions".

Their is a difference between separating a scout from danger such as taking away a misused tool, or segrating him from the other scouts for their safety, and making a scout stand up and sing, (or as some troops do, push a penny across the floor with your nose.). There is no way you can defend stunt as a positive way to protect scouts or teach the importance of following rules. The sole purpose of stunts is to embarrass the scout, and that is a violation of Youth Protection Policies. While I don't have a problem with the tradition of "singing for lost possessions", you have confused your arguments. That topic is being covered under the thread of "Hazing". Again I ask, "Why the enthusiasm for wanting to be able to punish other peoples children?" In what scout manual is punishment listed as a skill or responsibility of the SM or ASMs? Interesting that you keep portraying us as being "enthusiastic" and "wanting" to "punish other peoples children". I find that to be offensive and a cheap tactic. The point that we are making is that unit leaders have authority to institute punishments (or discipline) in a number of ways. The fact that they should advise and seek assistance from the Scout's parents does not prevent them from taking such actions. Please don't answer with "where does it say we can't". That is a weak excuse for not following rules. The manuals don't say you shouldn't run over a scout in a blue Chevy on a Tuesday, does that make it OK to do? If BSA wanted to remove all authority from Scoutmasters to punish Scouts, they would simply have left the word "corporal" out of the following statement: The BSA does not permit the use of corporal punishment by unit leaders when disciplining youth members. The manuals don't say a lot of things. They appear to give adult leaders some credit for being thinking individuals. By the way, nor do the manuals say, "When in doubt, ask Bob White." The GTSS is clear that parents are to be involved, that scouts are not to be hazed, and that the Leader is responsible for maintaining a safe haven. True, but this statement does not conflict with the contention that a Scoutmaster has authority to implement discipline. You are mixing arguments . If that is not enough the Scout Law charges us with being friendly, courteous and kind. Words to live by indeed.

First, I agree. It sounds like all, the boys and the SM corps, had a great time. I think it was perfectly acceptable, and an interesting twist, which accomplished its intended goals (fun for all, but without hurting anyone's feelings). I applaud your SM. However, let me point out that everything, including this "stunt" has risks. I have no bone of contention with your "new tradition". Yet, using your own standards for hazing, let me demonstrate how this situation could have gone wrong. What if some of the boys became frightened by the specter of a "wild animal" being so close to them? What if some of the boys because of their fear refused to form the circle to trap the animal? What if some of the boys who were either not afraid or had caught on to the prank, made fun of the boys who were afraid? What if some of the boys burst into tears when the "wild animal" emerged from the trailer? What if some of the boys became so embarrassed by this incident, that they dropped out of the troop? One could point out all of these "what ifs" and claim that your SM contrived a horrible prank. One might even portray this stunt as hazing. I don't agree with that claim. I merely want to show you that the best and most noble ideas can be abused. Now, let me explain why I would argue that your SM did an excellent job of providing a fun and safe snipe hunt. I am fairly confident that if the SM or another adult monitoring the activity noticed any of these things developing (fear, taunting, embarrassment, etc.), they would have consulted the Scout in question or stopped the activity all together. I am convinced that most caring adults are smart enough to see when a prank or activity has gone wrong and promptly correct the situation. That's why we adults are here. In another thread, there is much being made over the tradition of "singing for lost possessions". As your story illustrates, if thoughtful adults are doing their jobs, these traditions can provide wonderful opportunities for fun, excitement, and learning. Again, I think your SM and troop created an outstanding and thrilling moment for your boys. Best of all, no one was intimidated. Nevertheless, all of these things have an element of risk. I hope you see my point.

Like the rule or not it is the rule. Do you also teach the scouts in the unit you serve to only obey the rules they like? I teach them to follow the rules that are defined, not unstated ones that some others presume to be implied. Sctmom, OGE, and dan, I would happily pull up a log next your campfire as well. From your posts, while I can safely assume that we would disagree on a number of issues, I feel fairly confident that you would not discount my experiences and/or training, or insinuate the same to be inferior to yours. I am humble enough to admit, that while my opinions are strong, I may in fact be wrong on occasion. That's not to imply that I am wrong about this particular issue. Nevertheless, I am aware that I am human and that my interpretation or understanding of a policy could be flawed. I am open to that possibility. In other words, I can appreciate passionate debate and the strong convictions that others may have, but those who submit their opinions as if they are undisputable facts repulse me. As far as "doing the right thing", this applies to us all. Have you called your local council? I have. In nearly every circumstance, the answer has been "use your better judgment and to error on the side of caution." While to some, this may mean, "Don't do it" or "If you have to ask, don't do it", I strongly disagree. A group of adults should be able to look at these situations and apply their "better judgment". That does not mean become a bunch of Chicken Littles. It simply means examine the situation and ensure that Scouts are not abused. Glass bubble? I refuse to believe that this is BSA's intention. A safe haven is not Fantasy Island. It does not mean remove all obstacles and challenges. If this were true, Eagle Scout would not have the meaning it has today. Do you think society would place any value in that accomplishment if it was all accomplished within a glass bubble? Safe from abuseyes, but not impervious to all the challenges that the world may have to offer. This is counterintuitive to the program. How can we develop a child's character if he is not given challenges? Singing alone in front of a group is a challenge. It's not hazing. If a troop forced an unwilling child to do this, I would agree that it constitutes hazing. Likewise, if a troop forced an unwilling child to hike five miles or sleep on the ground without a tent, I would consider that hazing too. Anything can be abused. As others have said time and time again, that's why we (the adults) are here. For the safety of the boys, we need to ensure common sense is applied, whether that be taking a hike or applying troop discipline. It does not mean removing anything that has the potential for abuse. If that were case, we would have to shut the whole program down. There isn't a single activity in life that doesn't have some potential for abuse.

Parents of youth member who misbehave should be informed and asked for assistance in dealing with it. This does not say a unit leader cannot punish/discipline a Scout. It merely says that the parents need to be advised and their assistance requested. If the parents refuse to assist the unit leader, it does not prohibit the unit leader from acting alone. As long as he has informed the parents and asked for their assistance, he's fulfilled the mandate. If a SM sees that a Scout is not handling a knife safely, it's within his right to take it away from him. Furthermore, he may very well advise the Scout that he's lost his privilege to bring a knife until he can demonstrate to him that he understands safe knife handling procedures. Likewise, if a SM notices that a Scout is acting un-Scout-like, it's within his right to send that Scout to his tent. Now, one can play word games, but I see these things as punishments. This type of discipline is common in almost every troop. There is nothing in the G2SS that prohibits these actions. "Advising parents and asking for their assistance" does not mean to the exclusion of all other actions. This, once again, is Bob's interpretation. An interpretation that he apparently feels is so obvious, that he's willing to insult and be condescending to anyone who does not agree with him. Unfortunately, this is his standard MO for squelching the advise of others who refuse to accept his interpretations.

If the G2SS or another BSA publication defines "singing for lost possessions" as hazing, then I will yield to your supposition. Nevertheless, you are making a huge presumption. IMHO, it is a presumption that not only mislabels the activity, but it impugns the individuals who support it. As to how you present your arguments, one merely has to read your previous posts to see where you're coming from. Apparently it is from way upon high, too far for us mere mortals to reach. Sorry if I refuse to bow, but until I hear thunder and/or see lightning when your words come forth, I have to assume you're one of usjust another volunteer. Sharing the confidence, but not your opinions

Keeping in mind that discipline comes before the transgression, program leaders have the responsibility to teach discipline but do not have authority to punish. Does anyone find something different in the program resources? The G2SS (although I'm not sure I have the current edition, so check it out) says in bold - Adult leaders of Scouting units are responsible for monitoring the behavior of youth members and interceding when necessary. Parents of youth member who misbehave should be informed and asked for assistance in dealing with it. The BSA does not permit the use of corporal punishment by unit leaders when disciplining youth members. I understand this statement to say that corporal punishment is prohibited. It does not ban other kinds of punishments by unit leaders. The G2SS goes on further to say: The unit committee should review repetitive or serious incidents of misbehavior in consultation with the parents of the child to determine a course of corrective action including possible revocation of the youth's membership in the unit. Certainly BSA is not inferring that the Scoutmaster and/or the PLC should ignore non-repetitive or less serious incidents. As I read this statement injunction with the others (already noted), I conclude that unit leaders can discipline/punish Scouts. They handle the routine day-to-day stuff. When the behavior escalates to something more serious, or if the Scout refuses to yield, then the issue is referred to committee.

Bob White, Let's stop trying to infuse the program with our personal take on what life is or isn't, and stick to presenting the "scouting " program as determined by the BSA and the handbooks you should be reading. Your arrogance is insufferable. We (those who disagree with you) are all doing exactly what you're suggesting. The fact that we all may not agree with your interpretation of the text in the G2SS or your understanding of the Scouting program in general, does not mean we disagree with BSA. Our disagreement is with you. So, please, please...stop claiming that you have exclusive and complete knowledge of BSA policies and guidelines. We're all reading the same material. I have an opinion. You have an opinion. The difference isI'm not insulting you intelligence, by restating the issue in such a way that it is no longer a difference of opinion, but whether or not one chooses to earnestly follow the program. You must realize that your lectures are pious and bombastic. Really I can quote all the same BSA materials that you do. I AM following BSA policies and guidelines. That's my opinion. If you believe differently, that's fine. But please STOP lecturing us. It may be difficult for you to believe, but yours is not the only opinion that counts. It just may be that you're the one that has "infused the program" with your own "personal take on what life is or isn't".

Ozemu, My point is that we must be humane in our dealings with people and that as personalities mix in different ways we should use our best judgment on all occasions. Relying on a policy, be it on hazing or on singing is a mechanical approach to a human issue. Amen. I agree. While I feel "singing for lost possessions" is normally acceptable, each circumstance needs to be examined. As I have alluded to before, I would not force the issue with a boy. There are always alternatives. However, it has been my experience that this tradition has not been the source of discomfort for most boys. Dan, Now he goes home and tells his guardians, no I did not lose my watch, the scoutmaster has it. Someone took it out of my tent, and said they found it, and the leaders wanted me to get down and sing for it! Would you have a leg to stand on? No. You wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However, your scenario doesn't give the SM credit for having a brain. Ozemu's statements reflect my position well. First, a "stolen" watch (i.e., taken from someone's tent) is not a lost item. The SM and/or the PLC should be smart enough to know the differenceor the boy should be smart of enough to make this information known. Second, even if the watch was not stolen, the SM and/or the PLC should be flexible. They could easily find an alternative for this boy. Also, let's give the parents some credit as well. That is to say, isn't it more likely that the parents and the SM would have a polite conservation about the incident and come to some sort of friendly agreement? Regardless, an intelligent and thoughtful SM is not going hold the kid's watch ransom. There was also a picture of a chicken and a mori ell also, I could not quite figure out what that was about. Are you sure? I heard the chicken picture can be found next to the word perfect. NJ, When human beings make mistakes, especially those that don't actually hurt anybody or anything, they don't expect the Spanish Inquisition -- nor do they expect to be hauled on stage to be made an object of ridicule. This is not exactly what happens in my troop. Typically, it happens like this: SPL - "Okay, at the last campout someone left his sleeping bag behind. Does anyone recognize it?" Scout - "Hey, that's mine!" SPL - "Okay Scout, you know the drill. Come up front and sing a song for us!" Scout sheepishly goes up front and sings song (sometimes accompanied by spontaneous dancing) - usually "Bushy, Bushy, Grey Squirrel" or "I'm a Little Tea Pot." If the Scout refuses, its no big dealThe SPL gives him some small task to do as a consequence for his carelessness (like stay behind and help clean up today). The Scout is not, nor would he ever be, "hauled on stage". The Scout is not, nor would he ever be, "forced to be an object of ridicule." If a Scout protests, he's given something else as an alternative. This "singing for lost possessions" has been a tradition in our troop for years (10+). Because the SM and the PLC are not mindless, it has never become an issue for anyone. And if in a particular unit, they have come to expect such treatment, the expectation needs to be changed. Scouting is not about punishment. 1) The Scouts in my troop expect that they will be treated as individuals by a SM and a PLC that know more about life than just what a few troop policies and traditions have taught them. You seem to be of the opinion that troop traditions and policies mandate that every person and situation be treated the same. This is simply not true. 2) No, it's not about punishment. However, Scouting is a great place to learn. Learning that there are consequences for certain behaviors is not such a bad thing. Especially when its being mentored and monitored by well trained leaders. Bigbeard, Gotta go with Rooster You don't have to make it sound so painful. Our solution, following a little strategic forgetfulness, was a nice rendition of Yankee Doodle for Trios, arranged for scout, PL and SM. Fun, supportive, instructive, fair. Great ideathat was a nice alternative and it reflects an intelligent and thoughtful SM. I like the Patrol idea too. Hmmm. Like I said, if we give people credit for having a brain, if we exercise a little common sense, these kinds of traditions will cause no harm to anyone. No one, at least not me, is suggesting that we force a kid to do something that he is strongly objecting to do. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)