Trevorum

As always, you pose excellent and thought provoking questions. Like yourself, I dont have all the answers either. With regards to your first question, I pick #2. The first is regrettable to be sure, but perhaps understandable given the passions of the situation and the evident lack of on-site leadership. As far as the second, yes, I believe our government has discredited all Americans by refusing to forswear torture. We dont believe it is right and we should say so for all the world to witness. That would be the moral thing to do. With regards you your series of scenarios, you hammer home the brutality of the modern world. I honestly dont know what I would do in any of those circumstances. Sophies Choice. I do know that an accepted policy of the end justifies the means is one step away from barbarism. Id like to think that we are more civilized than the terrorists who use violence to further their political ends. But of course, no war is civilized.

WELCOME from Austin! I followed the same path, rejoining when my 1st son was a Wolf. He's now planning his Eagle project. It has been a terrific ride as an adult Scouter, and I know I have many more years in front of me! One word of advice: Wood Badge! (OK, that's two words. But do it!)

FS, You might well be right on both of those points, but, with respect, you'ld be wrong to walk away from this boy.

We have lost the moral high ground, thats for sure. I really dont think Americans are concerned about humiliating anyone. You loose your rights to personal dignity when you commit violence against another person. The torture we have refused to forswear is far worse than inflicting simple emotional turmoil. The fact that other people act as barbarians does not give us the right to do the same. Torture is repugnant to (most) Americans and we should let the world know it.

Eamonn, that's an excellent analogy. Permit me, if you would, to refine it a bit (the way I see the issue). There would be a big difference between a dedicated adult alcoholic going to a temperance meeting with a can of beer, and a 16 year old going to the same meeting with a can of beer. The 16 year old is still developing his identity as a person, and the good folks having the meeting might well see the kid's appearance at their meeting as a golden opportunity to help turn around his life.

Kramr1, I apologize that my post wasn't clearer! I did not mean to imply that this is a problem which we we should ignore. What I tried to say was that this is not unique to Cub Scouting, that it is not a result of the Scouting program itself: rather, this type of problem can be found in just about all organizations for grade school youth which are run by the parents. You are 100% right that the quality of the program is directly tied to the adult volunteers. And you are right - the boys deserve a good DL. It sounds like you are a pro-active Scouter. I sincerely wish you good luck with your den!

This is a long-winded thread, even for Issues & Politics. I know! Let's change the subject! (again...) How about our government's refusal (just this week) to promise we won't torture people? I consider that to be a moral nadir, even worse than our refusal to promise we won't use land mines, or our refusal to take the lead in combating global warming. Whatever happened to the moral high ground? No? OK, back to immigration.

wow, I sure find myself agreeing with Ed a lot lately! There is indeed a very big difference. Now, whether or not the youth understands this distinction is up to the SM to discover. A heavy-handed SM may be offended by the Scout's doubts, by his uncertainties. A more nimble and sensitive SM, as Semper points out, has an opportunity to assist this young man along his spiritual journey, without pointing in any particular sectarian direction.

I am so sorry this is occurring in your pack, Unfortunately, this is not a Cub Scouting issue, it is a petty conflict between parents - which is altogether common in parents of in this age group, be it youth soccer, dance recitals, whatever. The very sad part is that the kids suffer. I mightily wish those 10 kids who dropped from your den would have had a chance to earn their Arrow of Light and go on to reap the benefits of Boy Scouting. I agree with Semper. If your son likes Cub Scouts, my recommendation would be to bend over backwards to find a way to keep him in the program. This might mean finding another, less explosive, pack. It might mean swallowing hard and backing off. Good luck.

FS is right: neither the CC nor the SM nor the CO has the authority to modify any advancement requirements. They are what is printed, period. The only grey area is the SM's assessment of "Scout Spirit", which from what I can tell, varies tremendously from troop to troop. (The CO can set unit membership requirements which are stricter than the BSA national requirements)

Good thoughts from Hunt, Kahuna, and KC. Indeed, there are lots of different troops to choose from (at least in most places) and that's precisely why Webelos are encouraged to shop around. I recall seeing one troop with everyone in campaign hats. That's a big ticket uniform expense to require for membership. Some guys undoutedly went elsewhere because they thought that uniform requirement was excessive; but I'll bet the guys who joined had great espirit de corps!

Agnosticism is not the same as active atheism. There is a subtle but important difference, which may be key in how you handle this case. Regardless, religious beliefs often change and grow with time and the teen age years are when many people begin their search for spiritual meaning. What this boy believes today is evidently not the same as what he believed several years ago, and likely is not the same as what he may believe several years from now. This boy might simply be reacting against the established dogma of his parents or peers. Scouting can be a spiritually healthy experience for such boys, exposing them to a wide variety of beliefs and ways of being spiritual. Be aware though that some parents, who insist that their children follow their own religious beliefs, see this as a liability and not a benefit of Scouting. And Ed is absolutely right: "Scouting does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion" (BSA position statement, June 2002). This is left to the individual Scout and his family. Good luck.

An interesting idea, but I think I agree with TheScout on this one. We'd have to consult a military historian or perhaps a philologist to discover what the word "arms" meant to late 18th century landowners, but I suspect it meant something akin to "personal weapons" - muskets and flintlocks and the like. I suspect that cannons, mortars and other siege weapons were collectively referred to using a different word, not "arms". Thus, in my opinion, outlawing personal posession of flame-thowers, RPG, etc. is not unconstitutional.

I'm completely with Ed on this one. We make all sorts of exceptions for youth who have trouble with other methods. Boys who have trouble with standard advancement requirements (for medical reasons) are given options. Boys who can not belong to a patrol (for family or locational reasons) are given options (ie, Lone Scouts). Boys who inherently shy away from leadership (yes, there are those!) are given other POR options (eg., librarian, historian, etc.). These are all fairly rare situations, but we make allowances for the unfortunate fellows who are thus affected because we know they will ultimately benefit from Scouting (the Aims). I think it should be the same for those rare cases of Scouts who can not wear the uniform for religious or other bona fide family reasons (fashion sense is not a valid reason). Ed is right, we want to encourage all Scouts to make full use of the uniform as a method for achieving the Aims of Scouting, but lets remember that methods are not aims themselves

The medical issue notwithstanding, the immediate problem seems to be a conflict between the father and the SM about whether an apology is deserved. Not having been there and lacking other details, I would say that, yes, this 'unscoutlike' behavior deserves an apology. I also think that you may be correct in that some of your brother's behavior may simply be teen-age rebellion. From what I know of Aspergers, many of those with this syndrome are pretty darn intelligent; your brother may have figured out a way to 'game the system' (and especially your father) by having any of his 'non-acceptable' behaviors blamed on the medical condition - which is beyond his control. That said, Aspergers is probably more common than many people realize. We've had two scouts in our unit recently who have been diagnosed. One struggled for several years to achieve 1st Class and then quit, the other is now Life rank and is planning his project. I think Scouting helped both boys tremendously in learning to interact with their peers in social situations.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

It's really fairly simple: 1. Before the war, the administration knew al-Libi was a liar and knew his statements linking Al-Queda to Iraq were false. 2. Even knowing this, Bush called al-Libi's statements "credible evidence" and cited them as justifications for the invasion. Therefore, Bush lied to the American public about his reasons for wanting to invade Iraq. (Do you really not see this??) Now Bush is not a Scout and I suppose we can't expect him to be Trustworthy. However, if I am going to be lied to by the most powerful political leader in the world, I think I'd rather be lied to about a personal sexual encounter rather than about the reasons for taking the country to war. But again, that is just me. I guess Republicans see Bill cheating on Hillary as a bigger sin than being responsible for the needless deaths of 2,000 Americans.

I find it facinating the way some people cling to cherished beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. At some point it becomes a farce (case in point: intelligent design -- but that's another issue ...) Reported today by the New York Times: "A high al Qaeda official in U.S. custody [ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi] was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained al Queda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document." (emphasis added) Paraphrasing the rest of the investigative report: administration officials, including President Bush, repeatedly cited Libi's information as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training al Qaeda in the use of illicit weapons. I don't expect that Bush's Republican Guard defenders will care abut this newly released evidence of his crime. They have already made up their minds that the invasion of Iraq was "Dulce et Decorum".

I think "the right to bare arms" is being discussed under another thread - the one about wearing long sleeve shirts underneath the uniform...

"How can anyone NOT see the moral differences in the parties?? heh, heh, heh. Thanks for the set-up. Well now, the way I see it, Clinton got a blow job in the White House and then lied about it under oath to the American public. Bush used intelligence about WMD which he knew to be faulty as an excuse to illegally invade a sovreign country, thus causing the deaths of more than 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of foriegn nationals. Which is more morally repugnant? Well, I guess it depends on your own views of sex and violence. I see Clinton as a sleaze ball. Bush on the other hand is a criminal. Like I said, that's the way I see it. I suspect that most members of Bush's political party will defend his actions on some pretext or another.

Wearing the unform is not required to be a Scout. Uniforming is a method and not an aim of Scouting. The SM should take the parent's word at face value and should not expect this young man to wear a uniform. Period. It is a strange situation, I admit, but the families beliefs must be respected in this regard.

ASM, This scenario is far from unusual, but it will probably take some careful counseling from you to motivate him to complete the requirements. It would be easy for a young man in this situation to walk away from the "hurdles that are being thrown up" (as he might see it) and never complete his Eagle. That is not the point of course - the point is to teach him persistence and patience in persuing a worthwhile goal, as well as care in "reading the fine print" of written obligations/requirements, and thoroughness in follow-through. I agree that the 6 months in a POR need not be continuous. As a rule of thumb, I allow ONE break in POR tenure, for any reason. Defining ACTIVE participation is slippery. What is considered active in one troop is not in another. We have written guidelines in our troop handbook that spell out active as attending 75% of meetings and activities. However, active need not be continuous since his last rank, just for a minimum of six months. Often a scout will be very active for 6-12 months after earning Life, and then we might see rather less of him for a while (especially for those guys who are in high school) until he has completed all other requirements (project, etc.). I don't have a problem with this, but I know of other SMs who are more insistent on continuous participation between Life and Eagle.

ASM, This scenario is far from unusual, but it will probably take some careful counseling from you to motivate him to complete the requirements. It would be easy for a young man in this situation to walk away from the "hurdles that are being thrown up" (as he might see it) and never complete his Eagle. That is not the point of course - the point is to teach him persistence and patience in persuing a worthwhile goal, as well as care in "reading the fine print" of written obligations/requirements, and thoroughness in follow-through. I agree that the 6 months in a POR need not be continuous. As a rule of thumb, I allow ONE break in POR tenure, for any reason. Defining ACTIVE participation is slippery. What is considered active in one troop is not in another. We have written guidelines in our troop handbook that spell out active as attending 75% of meetings and activities. However, active need not be continuous since his last rank, just for a minimum of six months. Often a scout will be very active for 6-12 months after earning Life, and then we might see rather less of him for a while (especially for those guys who are in high school) until he has completed all other requirements (project, etc.). I don't have a problem with this, but I know of other SMs who are more insistent on continuous participation between Life and Eagle.

Prairie, I get so weary of shrill partisan bickering. The problem I think is that the two sides ('two' sides being itself an artificial contruct) have very different world views and, as a result, tend to argue past each other. As you have alluded, conservatives tend to see the world in absolutes - black and white - while liberals tend to see the world in 'shades of gray'. Of course, you may disagree ...

A long time ago, in a troop far, far away ... ... I was a Boy Scout just like you. Now, I know that a lot of you guys have trouble picturing your parents, your teachers, your Scoutmaster as kids, but we were teen-agers, too, just like you. Sometime it seems that things are NEVER going to change. You're always going to be struggling through math class, or that big zit on your nose will always be there, or that pretty girl will never notice you. But little by little, things do change. You get through high school and then go to college, and then find a job, and get married, and have kids, and one day - wham! - you realize that things have changed a LOT! And you realize that all along that path, you have made choices. Should I go to this college or that one? Should I pick this major or that one? Should I take this job offer or that one? Sometimes I wonder what things would have been like if I had gone to a different college. And, I probably could have made more money if I had picked a different career. And, sometimes I miss living in southern California. But you know one thing that I have never, ever, regretted? Not once in my life have I ever regretted becoming an Eagle Scout. Think about it.