well-up-in-his-60s-guy

OldGreyEagle -

"To me the real issue is how did this guy, having major maturity issues and believing that as long as you don't get caught it's okay ever get in a position to be awarded Eagle in the first place?

Someone who isn't a good role model for other boys in the Troop is an Eagle? We may need to dump the gay talk and talk about how a program founded in charactor and honor can have one as described reach this top honor"

Why would that be of any consequence to the majority of posters on this forum? It seems to me that the majority of them cheered when the young man referenced in "Eagle Problems.....Big" was awarded the rank of Eagle by National over the protests of his troop, district and council who were concerned with issues of character and honor. Lying, or being untrustworthy, is apparently not something that should be held against today's scout. A "good role model" sounds like something that you would have to be subjective about and I don't think that fits in with the big picture on what we are allowed to decide in today's scouting program.

Old Gray Eagle -

"To me the real issue is how did this guy, having major maturity issues and believing that as long as you don't get caught it's okay ever get in a position to be awarded Eagle in the first place?

Someone who isn't a good role model for other boys in the Troop is an Eagle? We may need to dump the gay talk and talk about how a program founded in charactor and honor can have one as described reach this top honor"

Why would that be of any consequence to the majority of posters on this forum? It seems to me that the majority of them cheered when the young man referenced in "Eagle Problems.....Big" was awarded the rank of Eagle by National over the protests of his troop, district and council who were concerned with issues of character and honor. Lying, or being untrustworthy, is apparently not something that should be held against today's scout. A "good role model" sounds like something that you would have to be subjective about and I don't think that fits in with the big picture on what we are allowed to decide in today's scouting program.

Perhaps National is just that slow in rendering a final opinion on this appeal! I know, I know, it doesn't take SCOTUS that long! But SCOTUS is paid help, not volunteer!

With all of their current inter-turmoil, have you seen anything else happen on a timely basis at National (i.e. Historic Merit Badge program introduction delayed almost three months for no apparent reason!)?

I'm sorry Ed. That sentence wasn't phrased very well. I was referring to the rude comments that WAKWIB and cricket were referencing.

Mea culpa!

You might be right, Ed.

Maybe her telling of the story was a little biased since it was her son? We've been led to believe that the Scoutmaster, the Troop Committee, the District Advancement Committee and the Council Advancement Committee all had it in for her son and couldn't recognize his truly being deserving of the Eagle Scout rank.

There is the possibility that the others were right and that this Scout did things that didn't exemplify living the Scout Oath and Law in his daily life. Remember, going back to the beginning, not satisfactorily completing the Scout Spirit requirement was the original reason given by the Scoutmaster for denying this Scout the advancement.

Yes, Ed, ignoring all of the other rude comments that have been made, you just might be right.

It seems that the original denial was based on the Scout not completing the Eagle requirements because it was felt that he was deficient in living the Oath and Law in his daily life, thus he did not fulfill the "Scout Spirit" requirement. That decision was made by his Scoutmaster, the person charged by BSA to make that determination. There is nothing in those statements that shows anyone adding to the Eagle requirements. What it says, simply, is that this Scout didn't complete the requirements and was turned down based on that fact.

I don't think that the boy was denied membership, his alternative like-style parents were denied the privilege of signing on as leaders.