Zahnada

Fred,

Your purpose for posting this article is truly misled. I don't see how this offers any insight into BSA's opponents. I could go to a dozen hate sites, find articles that scream that all gays should be rounded up and executed because they defy God's plan. These sites would also offer up as evidence that AIDS is a biblical plague sent down to cleanse the Earth of the gay infection. But should I post such articles and say, "This is to remind us what the supporters of BSA's membership policy think"? Of course not. And anyone who does try to post such trash will be ripped apart by this forum.

Are you really paranoid that people out there will start believing God has chosen to smite scouting?

I think there's still general confusion as to why this ridiculous article was deemed relevant.

About the "Banana/Bandana" skit, I don't know how it's performed where you are, but it was also banned in my parts. The reason being that the skit relies on a misunderstanding about whether the "magician" is talking about a banana or bandana. How was this misunderstanding created? Well, often, the boys made the "audience participant" into basically a retarded child who keeps messing up. I can see how the skit is offensive when it's performed in such a way.

As for hungry scouts, I can't believe that's actually the rationale.

Depending on the ad, some companies can get their spot listed as a Public Service Announcement (PSA). Those are generally spots that are about a non profit (such as scouts), but they end with a "This message was brought to you by __________."

If your council wants more TV advertising, I would suggest going the sponsored PSA route. It's great because your council gets an ad, the TV station gets money from the sponsor, the TV station also gets to help meet their requirement for showing PSAs, and the sponsor gets to attach their name to scouting while getting an ad and a tax break for donating to a charitable cause. Wins all around.

Of course, the executives at your council will know better how to legally do this in accordance with any National policy.

Anyway, for anyone who wants to see more BSA advertising on TV, this is the route to go.

I get it! I get it! I've been trying to twist my head around what answer is actually being sought after, but now I get it!

This isn't about rules or laws or civil disobedience. This is about hypocrisy. It's a hypocrisy that's inherent to the Boy Scouts because, try as we might, it's impossible to live fully by the Oath and Law. As humans, we are flawed and we will occasionally stray from the path. Scouts are held up as the pinnacle of moral integrity in our society. That's why the public finds it so fascinating when a scout does something atrocious.

So let's return to the actual question as stated by BW: "The question at hand which nearly everyone avoided except for eamonn and FScouter was about how YOU personally expect scouts to follow your troop rules when you admittedly do not follow the rules of the BSA or those of your community."

This is tough because all troops I've been affiliated with do not have "rules." There are requirements (ie. you are required to have proper clothing to go on the snow outing. You are required to wear full uniform to participate in a flag ceremony). Maybe this counts as a rule: In one troop, it was a rule that boys had to attend the chapel service on Sunday during outings. Also, it isn't me who would deal with these situations, but the SPL and PLs.

So, what do I do if a scout uses my own hypocrisy as rationalization for not obeying a rule? First, I would apologize. If I broke a rule or law and it's coming back in this form, then I obviously have not been setting a good example and have failed as an adult leader. I would apologize for the action. The best way to deal with these situations is honesty.

Next, I would talk with the boy about why he doesn't want to follow this rule. Maybe he doesn't want to attend the nondenominational chapel service because he feels he can be reverent more effectively in solitude. I would tell him that this can be addressed at the PLC. I would also tell him that chapel is also about fellowship as well as duty to God.

I guess, without dragging you through the dialogue, I would use honest communication in this situation.

But remember, we're all hypocrits. We will all make mistakes.

I used to play basketball quite a bit. I also coached a youth boy's team for several years and even refereed as a paying job for awhile. I officiated boys and girls grades 6-12.

Moving without dribbling the ball while it is in your possession is against the rules. It is called travelling. If you break that rule and are caught, the ball is awarded to the other team (or, for those half-empty types, you are punished by losing the ball).

Basketball is a confusing and challenging game to officiate because it's so fast paced (much like life if you want the analogy spelled out for you). Not every travel is called. In fact, quite a few go unnoticed.

Have I ever travelled with the basketball? Yes. But have I ever told the kids I work with that it's okay to travel? No. Have I ever instructed a kid to intentionally foul an opponent? No. Not all the rules make sense (especially at the younger ages where they add supplementary rules), but that doesn't matter. Following the rules is the price you pay for playing the game and having fun with it. If you don't follow the rules, sooner or later you'll foul out.

Now, traveling is a rather small infraction of the rules with a minimal consequence (compared to fouls or punching your opponent). It doesn't matter. I still wouldn't teach a kid how to travel because it won't improve their game or their experience. If they see me or an NBA player travel (just watch 5 seconds of a game for that), I'll explain to them how that's breaking the rules and why it's really not worth the risk.

Do I believe analogies make a foolproof statement when applied to real life? No. Do I like this writing style of asking rhetorical questions followed by a one-word answer? No. But am I in that kind of mood? Yes.

If we're talking about people who didn't wear the correct uniform, we must not forget Five Star General Douglas MacArthur. I'd say there were probably sentimental reasons that he liked to wear his trademarked outfit.

And he wasn't much one for following the rules either. Well, I don't know if it was a rule that he wasn't suppose to bomb bridges on the Yalu river border between North Korea and China. Or if there was an actual rule that he wasn't suppose to antagonize the Chinese by marching towards their border with an army of UN troops. If not rules, he certainly wasn't one to follow orders.

And my point? None really. Except now North Korea is run by a mad man with nukes. And MacArthur will always have a black spot on a stellar record.

Now, you want a great general? Let's talk about General Matthew Ridgway!

I think Bob is dead-on with this issue.

I would like to add a word of caution when resolving the situation. As a new scout, the last thing your son needs is for the other boys to have the impression that he's "ratted them out" or something. It's a tough and awkward age to survive in and if your SM decides to yell or lecture, it may only make life in the troop tougher for your son.

I think the real lesson here is for your son. This is one of those issues that is best dealt with when it happens instead of after the fact. I actually think this will be a very important life lesson for him. Be sure that the learning opportunity isn't lost for him.

Bob and Ed,

Here's how I interpret both of your positions in regards to the recent "be prepared" posts. Please correct me if I'm wrong (as I know both of you will

Ed, I believe you're saying that as adult leaders, we must always be prepared for a variety of situations. Not only does it set a good example, but it's what any responsible scout or scouter would do. So, having some extra food and some spare matches or a large trash bag that can be converted to a poncho is helping keeping the boys safe. Just an extra precaution.

Bob, I believe you're saying that we're not teaching the boys how to be prepared if we don't hold them accountable. If adults are always there to bail them out (because we're so darned prepared) then when or why will the boys learn how to be prepared on their own?

Am I getting this right? I think there's plenty of gray area between these two points that most in this forum will agree with. They're both valid stances, but I also think they can coexist. I feel adult leaders can be prepared and offer a hand to the boys while still holding them accountable and teaching responsibility.

Wait a minute. I'm all for learning experiences, but where's the line drawn between a "learning experience" and just "letting them fail?" We don't want the boys to fail. We want them to learn. Sure, we learn by our failure, but we also become upset, disinterested, and turned off to scouting by our failure. One outing of bad food and bad weather can make an 11 year old say, "Forget this! Video games are much more fun!"

Now, am I advocating holding their hands? No. Do I expect that life should work out perfectly and everyone will be happy and content the whole time? No.

But these comments of, "They will know better next time," don't require them to go through a whole weekend of failure (not that I think/ hope that many in this thread are advocating failure, but it sure sounds that way).

If a boy forgets or doesn't wear raingear, it becomes a safety concern because he can get sick. It might be a good time to instruct the patrol on how to make rain gear from trash bags. Perhaps the patrol leader or SPL can dig up more rain gear in the troop. Thus a learning experience is created instead of the attitude "He'll be wet and miserable, but he'll be better for it." If I had extra rain gear, I'd loan it to the boy.

Anyway, if nothing else, terminology is important. Search for the learning experiences, but don't just hope they'll come out of their failures as better people.

You're killing me, Packsaddle. You're killing me.

Very well, I shall relent. I was wrong to use the term "thought experiment" because such an experiment lacks the usual criteria for being a "good experiment" (lack of control group, testable results, hypothesis, etc). I do apologize for any confusion wrought by such careless use of wording. Perhaps "thought game" or "thought experience" would be a better choice of semantics. I must say, I am surprised that you are the one getting into a war of wording with me. I just expected it from other people on this forum, but not you necessarily.

So we shall not have a thought experiment. However, I hope the use use of the word "experiment" did not discount my post in the eyes of everyone.

Now, as for the triangle, I just wanted to first state that triangles on astronomical scales do have angles that add up to sums other than 180 degrees. Actually, I was hoping nobody would bring up this point to dispute my arguments, but instead I was disputed on whether or not the Bible claims that God can create such triangles. Unfortunately, I do lack the Biblical evidence that God would engage in such a practice as creating strangely angled triangles to prove the validity of my thread. That's another point for you, Pack.

And then there's the color thing. Now, although I asked the question in a communal atmosphere, I meant for the thought process to be individually based. Sorry for the confusion. I didn't intend for people to start comparing the colors they were imagining, so your argument that this is all perception is a little off the point. The question was to see if anyone can imagine a color they haven't encountered before. It doesn't matter if I personally see colors that you can't. Can you see colors that you haven't?

But overall, I think you've missed the point, Packsaddle. This isn't a "God test" I'm administering. It's a "how different are humans than God" series of questions. It's not about whether God would do the things I've said but about whether we humans could do it or not.

The fact that these questions are either impossible to measure or impossible to do (like change mathematical truths) are just meant to show how we cannot even approach the level of God. We cannot imagine a triangle with 200 degrees or a new primary color. I was trying to show the boundaries of human mental capabilities. You have actually helped argue my point that these questions are impossible for humans. But for God?

Anyway, my main argument is not about triangles and colors. I'm arguing that we cannot compare to God and therefore, our logic cannot hold up against such perfection. God exists on a level that we cannot comprehend. Perhaps it's a world of triangles with angles equaling 175 degrees.

Dug,

The problem with using logic to understand God is that God is not obligated to conform to our logic. Let's just take the belief that God is perfect. Meanwhile Man is not perfect. In fact, Man is so far from perfect that we cannot even begin to comprehend the state of perfection let alone the thought process of something that is perfect. It is beyond our mental capacity to interpret what God wants or does not want or what God is or isn't.

A brief thought experiment to help my point.

Try to imagine a new primary color. Just sit down and visualize a color that does not currently exist and is not the combination of existing colors. Can you do it? It's beyond our mind powers (of course, people on certain drugs say they see new colors, but I've never experienced that so I'll leave it aside). But can God conjur up a new primary color? Of course he can.

Logic and mathematics will also tell us that the angles in a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees. Can God create a triangle where the angles add up to 200 degrees? Would it still be a triangle in that it's three straight lines converging at three distinct points? I personally feel that God can create this triangle, but we are unable to imagine it.

So why should God be forced to oblige to our human logic? Since humans are flawed, our logic must also be flawed on a Devine scale.

I do understand the logic of the incompatibility of a perfect God and free will. It's something I've been grappling with for years of my life. If God knows what everyone will do, then our path has been laid out before we were born. Some were born to eventually be saved and some weren't. So why try? I can't make a decision that hasn't been already written down.

But although it's something I struggle with, it's still confined to its roots in human logic. I believe in a loving God and a fair God and a perfect God. I have to also believe that he's worked out this little problem.

I know this kind of answers the question and doesn't answer the question. It's just how I feel about the situation.

I would also like to point out that while it is possible that during the expansion into the Red Giant phase, the Sun will consume the Earth, many physicists feels that instead, the physical changes brought onto the Solar System by such a transformation will actually jar the Earth from its orbit, thus causing it to skim off the edge of the Red Giant Sun and thus enter deeper into space as a frozen, burned crisp of a planet. Luckily for humanity, during the Red Giant phase, some of Saturn's moons will be raised to a temperature that should be suitable for human life. This will only last for a few million years though.

What scouting's policy on gays will be on that particular moon is anybody's guess.

"Do you think a gay rights group that had a member who didn't support their values would allow that member to become their leader?"

Bob,

I guess that's the question that some of the posters have been asking. Is engaging in sexual, same sex acts against BSA values or is being homosexual against BSA values?

This distinction becomes an issue when dealing with teenage boys who question their sexuality. If they tell you (or someone else in scouting) that they are gay, even if they have done nothing morally wrong except be physically attracted to another man, then the rules say they cannot be members of scouting.

Bob,

I can think of many interactions where a person can admit their sexuality. To harp on this point is to neglect the purpose of acco's post.

But I shall answer your question so you can move on to discuss the validity or nonvalidity of what acco said.

Certainly, a BSA official will (hopefully) never walk up to a scout or scouter and ask "Are you gay?" Nor will this (hopefully) ever find its way onto a form for joining.

Now, what can happen is honest conversation. "Do you have a girlfriend?" "Mr. ____, are you married?" etc. Certainly, the person is free to answer a simple no to either question. But what if he chooses to take an even more honest approach and explain that there is no girlfriend because he's gay? Then he has become avowed.

What if there's a boy who's active in his high school's Gay-Straight Alliance as a gay member? If you found this out, wouldn't you consider it being "avowed" even if you knew nothing of his actual sexual history.

There are many people whom I know are gay. Not because I asked and not because they felt the need to advertise it to me. Just circumstance led to the realization that this person is gay. It happens.

I would like to venture a hypothesis about shrinking Cub Scout enrollment.

I feel the issue is mostly indirectly related to the Boy Scout's stance on gays. Ever since the Supreme Court decision, the BSA has been bombarded with lawsuits and bad press. The information reaching parents of prospective youth isn't "Eagle Scout saves brother's life" or "Boy Scouts reconstruct trail" or "Scouting collects cans for donation." Now, it seems that a large percentage of media coverage consist of the headlines that Merlyn posts here. This is the image of boy scouts (stemming from the gay controversy) that the public is being fed so it's no surprise that people are turned off.

With that said, I don't feel excluding gays will directly damage enrollment anymore than including gays will. These are my personal feelings (and anyone who reads my post will know that I don't agree with the policy anyway). But with the Catholic Church and the LDS Church being such strong supporters of BSA and so strongly opposed to homosexuality, if the BSA had taken a different approach, it would have really been damaging. At least for now.

Anyway, I feel membership next year will be even worse. But this is because headlines are now about faulty number reporting (very hurtful in a post-Enron USA), and a BSA official who looks at child pornography. During the attacks on BSA for being "segregating" and "exclusive" they could always claim the moral high ground. Suddenly, that ground has begun to shake and will be damaging in the near future.

Bob,

I think the point that some are trying to make is that there will be some sort of fallout against BSA for this incident. And this is regardless of any sort of culpability on BSA's part. As for lawsuits, I doubt anything will come of them, but I'll never underestimate people's desires to get rich quick through the court system. I'll leave it at that.

But you can't deny that this reflects poorly on BSA even if the organization had absolutely nothing to do with it. This man was a representative of scouting.

Let's look at your analogies. You use Clinton and Ted Kennedy. But didn't their actions lead some people to form opinions about the Democratic Party? Maybe these actions just contributed to opinions already formed. In any case, as representatives of the party (and perhaps liberals in general), their actions reflected poorly on their "employers." And as a result, some people developed a distrust for the party as a whole.

As for OJ Simpson, you got me there.

But my point still stands. This type of action from someone so high ranking, who helped initiate the youth protection program, will have negative consequences for scouting. BSA cannot disassociate themself from this guy no matter how innocent the organization is.

The headlines speak for themselves: BOY SCOUT OFFICIAL charged with CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Personally, I believe the whole thing will blow over, but this seed of doubt towards the scouting program has been planted in the minds of many. And this is on top of all the bad press we've been getting lately. This does make Boy Scouts look bad.

But I do agree with you that unless there is some evidence to the contrary, BSA is not legally accountable.

Whether it's logical or not, this type of bad press will come back to haunt BSA. It doesn't matter that BSA has nothing to do with this. The headlines already read to the tune, "Boy Scout Executive Found with Child Porn." It doesn't say, "Man With Child Porn."

However, I don't feel the danger here is with lawsuits or the ACLU. What is taking a beating is the public perception of BSA. Some parents will see this as proof that scouting is not a safe environment. For others, it will be the latest in a string of controversial coverage. I believe fotoscout said that this will cause diminished donations at least in the short term. I think this is correct.

Bob White once (long ago) commented that we are judged by our associations with others (not a direct quote, but it was to that general theme). And many parents may take this opportunity to judge Boy Scouts. However, these are all short-term consequences and I feel they will have no bearing on the long-term future of boy scouts.

I'm still confused on what the problem is. Wasn't Hunt's original post a simple explanation of where one can go to make suggestions for uniform changes?

A lot of people are pointing the finger at National for not having a strong advertising campaign. This topic was somewhat covered in:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=84963#id_86114

I'll reiterate some of my major points from that thread. I have worked on a television advertising campaign for Boy Scouts and discovered just how difficult it is.

To put it simply, there just isn't the money for a major television advertising campaign. Remember, every extra dollar that goes into marketing must be taken out of summer camp maintainence, camp staffing, administrative staff, program funding, etc. Basically, this is money taken away from the program and the boys who are already in it. With many councils undergoing massive budget cuts from loss of United Way funding, the money is hardly there to maintain the current properties.

But, what about Public Service Announcements (PSAs) which are free to non-profits (ie BSA) and required by television stations? Well, now we have the paid-PSA. These are the special messages "brought to you by Zahnada Ford!" Any station will play a PSA that has a sponsor over one that brings the station no money. So just producing a spot and giving it to stations won't work. Also, because it's a business, don't expect the premium times for the spot to air.

So, those were my learnings during my career in television advertising. Options?

1. Find corporations who want to sponsor an ad. This is getting more difficult because of the political image of scouting in the country now.

2. Grassroots campaigns.

3. Something besides television advertising (which I know nearly nothing about).

4. Other?

By the way, for the low, low budget of $0, my station (the local FOX station) did produce a 30 second spot. I wrote, directed, produced and edited it. But it did get made and it has seen some limited airtime. So it's not impossible.

I think we all have to come to grips with the fact that times are changing. It appears the ACLU is on a decent winning streak and I believe they will continue to win these battles over the relationship between public entities and the Boy Scouts. Do we want to waste money battling these decisions in court? Do we want to waste time complaining about how the ACLU is out to get us? Do we want media coverage of scouts to center around court rooms instead of service projects?

So instead of fighting the losing battle, lets find a battle we can win. Start by delivering the best program you can. Make it a fun learning experience in a young mans life. Then, if theres a dearth of CO, find some more. There are plenty of churches, synagogs, or other private organizations that will sponsor a troop.

I think the best fight we can give is to remain positive and continue to do what we do best.

I agree with all of you that betting with chips is an innocuous activity. But the question I was trying to ask with the bacon comment is what do you do if a parent doesn't want their child engaging in this activity? I've known some parents that would probably take such a position (either for religious of personal reasons).

So what do we do if a parent directly says, "I don't want my son gambling even if it's just with chips"? Where's the line? Do we not let any of the boys play? Seems harsh. Do we not let this particular boy play? Seems exclusive. Do we turn a blind eye to the activity? Seems to be dishonoring the parent's wishes.

I think this is the real issue we need to face as scouters. Where is the line between responsibility to the parent and duty to the scouts?

Although it's easy for us to euphemistically title such an activity as, "simply keeping score while using valueless plastic chips as tally markers", the boys will see it differently. If you ask them, they will say, "We're gambling."

Does that make a difference?

It's also important to consider that while many of us have been to Vegas or a dining room poker game with friends, there are also many familys and religions who view gambling as a horrible sin. This kind of brings up the question of where is the line between parent and boy responsibility? (ie. Should you let the Jewish boy in your troop eat pork bacon if you know his parents don't want him to, but he doesn't care?)

Anyway, I'm really not decided on this issue. It's something that would make me uncomfortable to see, but not necessarily uncomfortable enough to enact some artificial ruling. And I recognize that poker is mostly about the betting and the boys will do it in their tents in private if they want to.

To play devil's advocate, it's one thing to advertise so a child forces his mom to buy an unhealthy cereal because a cartoon bird said so. It's another thing to advertise so a mom forces her son to join an organization that promotes morals, mental strength and good fitness. It seems like that's the easier sell. Otherwise, BSA advertising needs to 1) Convince the child that scouting is cool. 2)Convince the child that scouting is an activity worth nagging a parent about and 3) Convince the parent that scouting is a worthwhile investment of hundreds of dollars.

So enough of the advocate.

I do agree that scouting has a really unique image these days. And BSA doesn't do very much advertising to counter the negative sides of that image. However, I just don't know if the funding for this is available.

I think they've run the numbers and determined that they get the most bang for their buck by targeting mothers of boys entering Cub Scout age.

I actually worked in commercial production. I once had the assignment of producing a public service announcement (PSA) which is basically a 30 second spot that stations donate to nonprofits. Stations are required to show a certain amount of PSAs each quarter. Now, the problem here is that so many of the PSAs you see today are sponsored by a larger corporation. "This message was brought to you by Glaxosmithkline."

To pay for television advertising at desirable times is outside the budgets for many councils. Right now, so many councils are struggling to find funding to offer a quality program for the boys they have. So that leaves PSAs as the primary form of television advertising. But if companies sponsor other PSAs to be shown, the station will broadcast their message and make a buck in the process.

The point of all of this is that to get Boy Scout advertising on the air, I think the first step is to find sponsors who will promote the message. We can't foot the bill ourselves.

Now, despite these funding restrictions, I still managed to produce a Public Service Announcement for our local council. Before working on the script, I had a conversation with the local Chief Scout Executive and I learned some interesting things about their advertising strategy.

First of all, the choice for a boy to enter scouts is usually made by Mom when the boy is near the Cub Scout age. Therefore, most if not all television advertising is geared towards the mother instead of the youth. So the emphasis isn't so much on "scouting is cool" as "scouting will make your son into a man."

Also, the thinking is that once the boy is roped into Cub Scouts, they can bombard them with "Join Boy Scouts" messages. Therefore, advertising is usually directed towards getting boys to join Cubs. Personally, I don't agree with this because so many boys drop out of boy scouts in middle school because of the "coolness" factor.

So these were all the factors that went into the design of our spot. Unfortunately, the spot is only seen at very off hours because we didn't have a sponsor. The television station paid for all the production so, as you can imagine, we weren't operating on a very high budget. Live sets, no professional actors, and shot on Beta instead of film.

So a lot goes into a television advertising campaign and I really don't know if scouting can afford to perform it with quality. There is a national series of professional spots, but those haven't seen much light of day except at fundraisers.

If you're curious (and if you're still reading after this long post) my script finally settled on a teenager preparing his college resume. He flashes back to memorable moments from scouting (played by cute Cubs) where he remarks how he now has community service, leadership, honors, and values and ethics. All thanks to scouting. The spot turned out great, considering what we had to work with. Unfortunately, it will rarely be seen.

The first movie takes place only five years after the last episode? Wow, Scotty sure didn't age well.

And by the way (I only say this because we're in the Issues and Politics forum) the first movie was HORRIBLE!! Meanwhile, the Wrath of Khan is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's great! And who ever suspected that ending? It's very "Enemy Below" but in space.