Rooster7

Sctmom, But sometimes people make mistakes and we all do the best we can with what we have. Put yourself in their shoes before condemning them. Advocating a traditional family is not a condemnation of all other family structures. At least, I don't think anyone was expressing that opinion. I believe it is preferred over other alternatives, and God's intended design. However, as you pointed out, sometimes circumstance does not allow that to happen. The children in all these situations NEED stories that calm their fears and worries. They don't need society telling them their family is not the best, is somehow lacking. I agree whole heartily. However, at some point in time, I would hope that they would come to understand and value the traditional family structure. This teaching shouldn't be used to demean their circumstance or upbringing. I would never endorse such an idea. Yet, I am fearful that some folks are demeaning the traditional family in attempt to uplift less desirable circumstances. Why, I am not sure.

It's not the program. BSA has a great program and I agree with its tenants. It's not your knowledge of the program, which for most the part seems to far exceed others on this board. It's not your experience, which to my knowledge, no one has disputed. It's the pharisaical judgment that you cast upon others whenever a perceived transgression of the rules may occur that gets my shorts in a bunch. I think there is room in the program for error, misjudgment, and special circumstances. You quote BSA regs like their bible verses. You'd probably make an excellent legislator, but I wouldn't want you as a juror.

Car accidents and heart attacks are just as real as child molesters. All three are every day occurrences. The examples we gave were plausible. Given your response, I sure hope that you are never put in a position where you feel like a rule is preventing you from doing the right thing. On the other hand, if you feel it is okay for a kid to bleed to death, I suppose that may never be a problem for you. I find you too rigid is an understatement.

I think you underestimate the BSA's resolve in the area of youth protection. As a parent I would not want it any other way. By that mantra, your neighbor's kid bleeds to death. I don't care whose kid it is, I'm getting him to the hospital as fast as I reasonably can, even if it means speeding. I'm not suggesting that BSA accepts every excuse. However, a reasonable excuse that's backed by witnesses, available evidence, and common sense, should have some merit. Any violation will have a high price and for good reason. Violations of Youth Protection Policies endangers our scouts, the reputation of volunteers and the reputation of the scouting program. It just isn't worth it. Your stance borders on legalism. The means (follow the rules) justifies the end (dead kid). As long as I followed the rules, I'm blameless. I don't believe that is the standard for which we are called to follow. Letting my neighbor's kid bleed to death because I'm afraid of litigation or expulsion by BSA is not only less noble, it is a coward's answer to a difficult situation. This brings me back to a statement that I made in another thread. Is BSA a religion or a boys program? Sorry if I offend any true believers, but it's a boys programa very good one at that, but still it's a program. If my God tells me that I need to do more, I willeven if that means I have to break a BSA rule. BTW, the pretences, which you imposed in my example and DD's, is just mudding the waters. There are all sorts of innocent reasons, which could explain either one. These reasons do not nullify the examples. For the sake of discussion- My example: A car accident disables or kills the other adult. If you truly want to get ridiculous, please assume the proper tour permits were completed. DD's example: The second adult, who knows his way around the woods better than the first, suffers a heart attack and cannot be of help. The kid doesn't have a buddy because he went into the woods alone, which is why the two adults went after him. This can become inane. If you disagree, fine. Give us a logical answer, but please do not create facts just to give credence to a failing argument.

Bob, I love you man...but you're response to eisely is exactly why I started this thread. Of course eisely recognizes the seriousness of the rule. Nevertheless, he also recognized the seriousness of his particular situation. Perhaps, there was a better way...And if he overlooked an obvious solution, then perhaps BSA would have sought his expulsion. However, barring a clear-cut alternative, I vehemently disagree with your conclusion. I submit that BSA and its councils have more common sense than you give them credit for. Certainly, if it did come to light, there would have been a thorough investigation. Given his circumstance, I'm confident that eisely would have been exonerated. "Oh, well see, there are circumstances when violating Youth Protection is OK". Obviously, a rule is a rule. Yet, every case is different. Common sense, a.k.a. judgment, is sometimes necessary and can be contradictory to a policy or rule. If you're on a deserted road and your son is bleeding to death, do you violate the speed limit? I realize this is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. Adult leaders should be held accountable, but that doesn't mean that we should put blinders on. If I'm a policeman and I pull over the speeding driver in my example, I'm going to give me escort to the nearest hospital. I'm not going to lecture him on speeding laws.

Okay Bob, I give. Perhaps I am just missing your point. I see no sense in beating this thing any further. Whether or not we agree, I wish you the same success.

Am I playing Baden-Powell by saying "Here is the BSA program according to the BSA, we should follow it". It is when the policy or rule in question ("according to the BSA") is not clearly defined, and you pretend that your slant on it is the only possible correct interpretation while claiming everyone else is "just not playing by the rules". The Scout Oath and Scout Law are defined by the Boy Scouts of America not by the Chartering Organization. Those definitions are written in every Boy Scout Handbook. Yes, BSA wrote the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. However, how a Scout fulfills the Oath and the Law is defined in a manner, which in many areas is open for interpretation. For the Scout Law, it simply says - "Obeying the Scout Law means living by its 12 points." You don't see how a Scoutmaster could have room for interpretation when the Scout Law merely says - "Be reverent"? Likewise for every other point of the Scout Law, there is no clear-cut definition for any of these precepts. Concerning the Oath, BSA is clearer, at least in regard to one's "duty to God", but their words do not support your claim. The handbook dictates that the Scout should follow the teachings of his religious leaders. . . . To do my duty to God . . . Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs. In my example, "shaving one's face" was a religious duty proclaimed by the Scout's religious leaders. So how can a Muslim Scout (in my cited example) show that he is reverent (according to BSA) when his spiritual leaders, his chartering organization, and his Scoutmaster believe he is not? What specific BSA criteria in the Oath or the Law override the values of the chartering organization and the Scoutmaster? How can the Scoutmaster be faithful to the chartering organizations values, when the Scout in question is defying a tenant of the faith? Please be specific. So far, your arguments have not convince me. Each faith has its own standards for being reverent. BSA acknowledges that fact. There is no contradiction here between the Oath, the Law, and the chartering organizations beliefs. You have elevated the Oath and Law above the Scout's religion. Additionally, you are implying there are definitions for the same that are not written anywhere. The Oath and the Law should be used to re-enforce the Scout's faith, not contradict it. By claiming the chartering organization (assuming the CO is a church or some other religious organization) has no say in its interpretation, you put the two at odds. Furthermore, as I showed in my other example, I believe that this argument can be extended to other, non-religious organizations (American Legion, etc.). Why would an American Legion sponsor a troop if boys were permitted to contradict their values? It's the Scoutmaster's job to reflect the chartering organization's values and to ensure the Scouts in the troop are living by them. I still don't understand why some posters find the recommendation of using the program so offensive, or why some feel using the program so difficult. The program is not offensive. Claiming you know the unadulterated truth, and inferring that those opposing you are against the program, is offensive. Your BSA references and quotes have not been definitive, but your interpretations of them have been. You are not the only one can read and analyze BSA policy.

Weekender, Great post. Love the analogy.

Someone really needs to fix the edit function on this board... In my last it should read - He represents that organization too, not just BSA. Despite your contention, they do NOT have to be contradictory to one another.

Lets stay with my examples. Many others, arguing from a different perspective than what I am presenting here, have debated the long hair and earrings issue. Using those examples now, only serves to confuse the point that I am trying to put forth. Different chartering organizations have different perceptions as to what is meant by the Scout Law and Scout Oath. My specific examples demonstrated that point. I really wish you had answered my two questions directly. They are key to this debate. Nevertheless, I submit that most of your last post on this subject is an opinionjust an opinion, one of many concerning this specific policy. I have read the BSA material covering chartering organizations (and yes, I am BSA trained). Nevertheless, I do not agree with your position. It does not ring true. One, you refuse to recognize the fact that different chartering organizations may disagree as to what is meant by duty to God (as well as other parts of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law). Two, you refuse acknowledge that BSA has an obligation to support the goals and objectives of the chartering organization. The Scoutmaster's values should agree with the chartering organizations' values. He represents that organization too, not just BSA. Despite your contention, they do have to be contradictory to one another. I stand convince that you are not interpreting BSA policy correctly. As to your last statement: There are a few posters who tire of my pointing out the resources of the scouting program that most of us use, so I will make this perfectly clear that the next part of this post is my own interpretation of the scouting program. The BSA program has a host of training opportunities, manuals has policies and procedures in place to protect youth from the other leaders. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. My first impression is not good. So, to cover my bases, here are two replies: OPTION 1 ("Go get training?) - To that, I can only say - Your arrogance knows no bounds. If it turns out that you REALLY ARE Lord Baden-Powell reincarnated, I will apologize in the afterlife. In the meantime, try to understand why some of us are not going to bow down to every word leaving your mouth. We actually do read those resources and do not come to the same conclusion as you do. Imagine that! OPTION 2 ("For Your Information?") - This is interesting information. While I may agree with your interpretation, why do you feel it is relevant to this debate? If your response is anything similar to OPTION 1, then please reread my response OPTION 1. Otherwise, please make it relevant.

There ARE traditional/family values! I could get into this discussion (and believe me, it WILL turn into a debate), but I don't have the energy today. Suffice it to say, some folks feel anything short of "murder" (and then some will still argue) is a subjective opinion. Some will say "your values" are not "my values" and they would be right...but there is a list of values that this country has subscribed to for most of its 200+ years. However, I am not going to start listing them, just so some revisionists can tell me differently. As I said, I don't have the energy today. So why did I bother to state this much? I guess I didn't want people to interpret the silence, as evidence that traditional/family values do not exists. This is what the homosexuals, atheists, and others want folks to believe. It's a lie.

Bob White, Is a Scoutmaster suppose to reflect the character of the Chartering Organization? Is BSA suppose to help the Chartering Organization reach its objectives and goals for youth? I submit, if the answer to the above two questions is yes, then I have interpreted policy correctly. A Scoutmaster can (not necessarily should, but CAN) not sign off a boy for Scout Spirit per the examples I already provided.

By the way, the full title of this thread did not get posted for some reason (I probably goofed it up somehow) - It was suppose to be: Broken Rules and "Bad" Scouters I agree with most of the statements made in this thread. However, I would like to comment on a couple of thoughts. I remain curious as to why when references are given to basic scout manuals that show the correct scout method, we receive such hostile replies. For the most part, I hope that my posts have not been hostile. However, on occasion, I have been frustrated with a given interpretation of a BSA manual where the wording was not so clear-cut. I submit, that frequently the BSA manuals use ambiguous terms such as "shouldn't" verses the more definitive "can't". "Can't" is a rule. "Shouldn't" is a recommendation. Scouters (on this board and elsewhere) have made declarations about BSA policy and/or rules that have not always been backed by the appropriate wording. This is why I used the phrase "perceived BSA policy" in my first post. In short, the policy or rule is not always straightforward. Furthermore, there seems to be a disproportional amount of condemnation for some "broken rules", especially since there very often seems to be some room for interpretation. Some seem to subscribe to the "Maximum Critic Theorem" - The degree of one's BSA expertise, faithfulness to Scouting, and devotion to boys, is directly related to one's ability and frequency to quote manuals and strew criticism at other Scouters, especially when said Scouters do not rightly interpret the manual (read: have the same opinion as you do). That was not meant for anyone in particularbut if it hits a nerve, maybe it did for a reason. I would have to ask why do you think it is okay to break a small rule? I don't think that it is necessarily okay to break a small rule. But sometimes it happens. I don't condone jaywalking, yet nearly everyone I know (even the ones who strongly support our laws), including myself, has been done it. Does it make it right? No. Does it mean these people are horrible citizens (less worthy than others)? I say, no. So, when I see a Scouter directing a bunch of boys in camp (as opposed to encouraging the SPL or his designate), I don't necessarily think he's a horrible Scouter. No matter how much the program works, we can't possible know everything about someone's circumstance to stand in judgment of them. Having said all of the above, I do believe in BSA policies and rules. I just don't think that every time one is broken that we need to sweat or shed blood about it. I think there should be more perspective, and a little less judgment.

FScouter, Do you live in the DC area? I do myself (graduated from U of MD).

I disagree. I still see this as a potential Scout Spirit issue (depending on the chartering organization's values and goals). Advancement would not be denied due to personal preference (i.e., the SM "didn't like his jewelry"). Rather, it would be denied because the Scout failed to show Scout Spirit (per the values and expectations of the chartering organization and as it applies to the Scout Oath and/or Law). You did not acknowledge my examples and how they are in fact tied to Scout Spirit. Nevertheless, looking at it from your perspective, then what would be more Scout-like? a) You're not living up to our membership criteria, so we are removing you from the troop. "You are the weakest link...Good Bye!" Or b) You're not living up to our membership criteria, so you can either conform to it (in which case, we'll be happy to continue with the advancement process) or if not, I guess you'll have to find another troop. I prefer "b", which in affect, is nothing more than an iteration of my last post. It gives the Scout a choice.

Actually, I can understand and relate to most of your questions. Although, I think the norm is to treat the adult offender as some sort of pariah, not the other way around. I just think we go overboard sometimes (and I'm as guilty as anybody). It's not meant to be a personal attack on anyone. Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way...Just asking?

I'm trying to show the correlation, but I guess I missing the mark. My point is, if a chartering organization finds something to be inconsistent with their values (such as tattoos or even hair style) then the SM (reflecting the chartering organization's values) may not sign a Scout off on the Scout Spirit requirement (assuming he could tie it to the Scout Law or Oath). For an example: Some Muslim sects believe a boy should not shave after reaching a certain age. So, if the said Muslim sect was the chartering organization, a SM could refuse to sign off Scout Spirit for a boy that insisted on shaving (violation of the Scout Oath - "to do my duty to God and my country" and the Scout Law - "A Scout is reverent"). Here's a non-religious example: An American Legion, as a chartering organization, may feel that all Scouts in the troop must show respect for the American flag. If a Scout chose to wear a flag on the butt pocket of his jeans, a SM (reflecting the values of his chartering organization) may refuse to sign off the boy for Scout Spirit if he refused to remove the flag (violation of the Scout Oath - "to do my duty to God and my country" and the Scout Law - "A Scout is Obedient").

This is why I love our President. (From the Washington Times, March 9, 2002): ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - President Bush, tears streaming down his cheeks, yesterday told the parents of a U.S. soldier killed in combat that their son "died for a noble and just cause." Meeting the relatives of a slain soldier for the first time since the war in Afghanistan began Oct. 7, an emotional Mr. Bush began to break down as soon as he pointed out the parents in a crowd gathered at a local electronics business. "Today, we've got the mom and dad of a brave soldier who lost his life, and a brother. God bless you," said the president, his voice breaking and his chin quivering. As Mr. Bush struggled to regain his composure, the crowd stood in applause. The president blinked back tears, then stepped back from the podium and took a deep breath, exhaling slowly. He smiled meekly and shrugged his shoulders. Stepping back up to the microphone, he said: "Thank you all for coming." Several reporters thought Mr. Bush was cutting short his speech. But he took another deep breath and smeared tears away from his left eye. "I know your heart aches, and we ache for you. But your son and your brother died for a noble and just cause," he said as a tear rolled down his right cheek. "May God bless you. May God bless you," he said, to more applause. As a father of three teenaged boys, I know our President understands the costs, the sacrifices that are being made. He is taking his job and responsibility as President very seriously, and personally. God bless our President.

What if the applicant does not reveal everything there is to know? What if new information comes to light when the boy is already in the program? Chartering organizations do not explicitly tell a Scout that he must not be a liar to join, but a SM could hold him back on advancement (via the Scout Spirit requirement), if it is revealed that the boy is exhibiting this behavior.

Why is it, every time an adult leader breaks a perceived BSA policy or rule (even "small" ones), the adult is portrayed as "poorly trained" and/or as some sort of self serving, egotistical, "the boys be damned" maniac? Is it possible, while he is not being fully faithful to some small portion of the program, that he is a fully capable and caring person, a true mentor for the boys? Isn't possible that the program is not perfect? Is BSA a religion or a boys program? I'm not suggesting any changes to the program. The fact is, I like BSA pretty much the way it is. So much so, I do pick my fair share of fights to keep the program, as I perceive it was designed to be. I am suggesting - There seems to be a mentally among many of us (myself included) that elevates the Scouting program to something more than what it ought to be. All of the debates concerning policy and rules are worth having, but sometimes I think we lose perspective. Something to thing about...

DISCLAIMER: Before you read my next statement, know this - I am not arguing for what ought to be, but what I feel is legal per BSA policy. Scout Spirit can cover a lot of ground. If a SM feels a Scout is not being reverent, than he may chose not to sign him off for Scout spirit. This is true for all 12 points of the Scout Law and the Scout Oath. The SM is expected to reflect the values and goals of the chartering organization. This has implications for such issues as wearing earrings and the like. Furthermore, BSA policy does not distinguish between religious organizations and others when it says - Program Schools, community and religious organizations, and groups, with the help of the BSA, organize Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops, Varsity Scout teams, Venture crews, and Learning for Life groups for children and youth. They manage these units and control the program of activities to support the goals and objectives of the chartered organizations.

I submit that it can be dictated by the troop per the beliefs and values of the chartering organization. Otherwise, I agree, it would become a subjective matter and should not be left to the whims of an individual or a group with no guiding principle (provided by the chartering organization).

NJCubScouter, I will grant you that there is something inconsistent about a SM who would select a kid as his SPL, and then deny him an endorsement for Eagle because of his long hair. Especially since the boy had long hair when the SM appointed him as the SPL. I'm assuming the SM never made mentioned of it before. If I chose to make assumptions (reasonable ones at that), I could easily throw my name in the hat with so many others who are basically stating, the Scoutmaster should be taken to task. I know, with no other facts presented about this situation, in regard to BSA policy, the SM is wrong. I've never disputed that assertion. Yet, I maintain that all of our advice to this Scout should be well qualified, and accompanied with appropriate disclaimers. Rereading my own posts, I've come to realize that depending on the mood of the reader (not to mention background, culture, education, etc.) my words could be interpreted differently than I intended. The same thoughts could be construed as friendly humor, or as mean spirited sarcasm. Likewise, when one is presented a story, no matter how many facts are thrown out, it's not the same as being there and knowing the people involved. So, I like to discuss the issue thoroughly and examine the hypothetical situations. Some may view this as a stubborn refusal to recognize the facts. I recognize the facts, but I like to tread out on the ice slowly. We think we know how thick the ice is, but we really don't know unless we cut into it, or until it breaks.

I was going to slowly back away from my terminal and run...As long as this debate has been running, it would be the wise thing to do. But, something compdcd said is compelling me to comment. I think it may be a little overboard to equate someone with a tongue, ear, or eyebrow piercing to a Scout who wants to parade around a Scout meeting in a dress. I've debated both sides of the earring issue. However, in regard to the tongue and eyebrow piercing, mark me down officially as being "overboard". As to DD's comment regarding a dress, it's an exaggeration to make a point (but no one ever seems to get that - go figure). Point being, when does the Scout's fashion statements become an issue. How far can one go before it does become an issue? Where do you draw the line? Everyone gets upset when you draw a lineyet, no one would deny that wearing a dress is definitely going over the line. So if there is a line, where is it?

I'm not the one calling the shots in my pack (setting this particular policy), but I agree with it. At the risk of sounding cold-heartedfrom my perspective (suburbs of DC in a middle class neighborhood), everyone I've come across in Scouting has had to struggle with the same basic issues (worries at home, demands at work, other clubs and organizations seeking their help, short on time, short on energy, etc.). We're all on the same roller coaster that we call "life". Some folks are riding the "Kiddy Land Express" while others are on "Satan's Ride of Death" , but we're all being tossed around. While I sympathize with a boy who may have a "lazy" parent, I can't be there for everyone. In the long run, our pack has grown. We've lost a few families that weren't willing to contribute. However, we've gained a lot more boys and their families because we are an efficiently run, well staffed pack and troop. Okay, here's the really selfish part - I'm involved in BSA more for my sons' sake than anyone else. I'm sure there are some who will cringe at that thought, but it's the truth. I'm just saying - if the leadership of a troop wants to pursue that noble road of "leaving no child behind", regardless of the price they or the other boys have to pay, more power to them. I don't have the energy to be that noble. I help the troop, but so does everybody else. Because everyone contributes, as a group of leaders, no one is getting burnt out. No one is feeling over burdened. We have made exceptions, but the parents had to provide a very good excuse. As to the boys who lost out because the parents weren't willing, I do feel for them. Yet, I never saw them as "needing" Scouts. BSA has a great program, but it's not the only game in town and it ain't Boys Town. There are plenty of other opportunities to pursue.