gumbymaster

Fair enough. As was partially my point - the definition of God, Supreme/Superior being, and Creator varries widely. The "who created the creator conundrum" works both ways (i.e. what started the Big Bang) at least until Science's understanding evolves some more.

I have a few problems with the position that a dictionary of the "Western" world chooses to define "God" as the prevelant God of the western religeons. I expect that a dictionary written elsewhere, once traslated, may have a different take. A little toungue and cheek, I hope, but also give some thought... As my child, as a part of his Duty to God, studied the religeons of the world (over time), he became very enamored with the Greek Gods. Now, I expect most of us have relligated the Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Norse gods to relics of our past. Fairy tales. And it would surpise some of us that there is still an active Helenistic religeon (the Greek Gods). I believe their response might be "my God(s) came first". In more seriousness though, My concern is, that it seems as if it would be difficult, under the Abrahamic definition of God, to repsect any other religeon that chose to call their god God. Tolerate maybe, but respect? Likewise, while much has been said on the subject of the Buddist religeon allowing a non-belief in a (personified) god; there are also sects of the religeon seeking to discover the name of God; and I don't think that their defintion will match the Abrahamic one - at least not until they succeed and get the answer from the source.

This is actually one of my major problems with the New Cub Scout Program, in the original drafts, the religious requirements were "faith" which is much more inclusive than the final versions which are "God". The UU had, what I consider to be a pretty good (re)interpretation of God ... http://www.uua.org/beliefs/welcome/higherpower/151278.shtml or specifically as it relates to Scouting (and the Pledge of Alliegance) http://www.uua.org/re/children/scouting/169563.shtml And the BSA position (which unsurprisingly really didn't seem to answer the question of how, just reaffirmed the notion of "some kind of"). http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/10/03/belief-in-god-scouting/ So while I will not challenge either the Dictionary nor another's choice to interpret God as a "divine being" or some other personification of intelligence; I also will not challenge a philosophy of "god is in all things" part of all the universe around us; or some other embodiment of life force and spirit that has no personification. My favorite thought exercise to the Athiest, particularly one versed in science, is ... As we speak, there are scientists trying to conduct experiments associated with the speed of light and the "resolution" of the universe. Their hypothesis is that the universe itself is a hologram or simulation (i.e. like the Matrix), with a limited resolution (i.e. some number of x-bit quality) [not to be confused with other hypotheses related to universe being a hologram which trying to show we really are two dimensional and that the 3rd dimension is a holographic projection - a mathematical construct]. In general, the Athiest will express interest, and indicate that that could be true within their "belief" structure. I then pose the next question, if we are a simulation, then someone had to program that simulation - buy our current (Dictionary) definition, wouldn't that person be God?

To a large degree, I think that's what was so wrong about the controversy about the "perversion files". The fact that we had them should not have been an issue, the BSA should be allowed to hold a list of acceptable and unacceptable members (the reason not withstanding). As a private group, outsiders should not be entitled to view them - that could libel individuals in the files. For better or worse, this was one method the BSA used to try and keep our youth safe, and should not have been demonized for having it (the list). Nor should the courts have allowed the release of those individuals on the list to the public - to law enforcement to follow up on unresolved accusations, sure, but the list as a whole ... since the BSA would generally err on the side of caution, there were probably many names there that really did not belong, and those should not have been made public unless further legal examination put some substance to the accusation. That said, the BSA should have, within the requirements of the law at the time at least made reports with the appropriate legal entity that an accusation has been brought to their attention, and then allow the legal process to proceed from there. Even if the legal process failed to achieve a conviction, that would not negate the BSA keeping the individual in the ineligible files - the BSA is a private organization. Ideally, there should have been some (more formal) process for those on the list to challenge that assertion - but in reality it is very hard to prove a negative.

While this does push the line of the BSA's policy. It is not up to us to critique how a Scout represents their spirituality or faith. Havey they embodied the Oath and Law in their actions. Have they been Reverent, and they done their Duty to God as they understand it as given to them by their Spiritual Leaders (parents, Church leaders, etc.). That said, it is probably wise to ensure that the Scouts undersand that when going for an Eagle BOR, those members, rightly or wrongly, may not interpret their doing their duty as boadly as you do. The BOR may ask how you can you fulfil a duty if you do not believe there is a duty to fulfil. That is a harder question. As others have said, having some belief structure other than being an explicit Athiest, and doing something to support that belief, is usually enough to satisfy the spirit of the requirement.

When those files were first created, there was no such thing as the sex offender registration lists, etc. Now admittdely, not everyone who should be on that list is (insufficient evidence, prosecutorial miscounduct, etc). Also, we have to also face that there are many people on that list who while making specific bad choices in their lives, are not a risk to others. The Ineligible Volunteer files expanded to include even unproven allagations ... As a parent, I agree that it is better to err on the side of safety, that the detriment of the relatively minor number of those on the lists who really should not be there is outweighed by the diminished risk to our children. As a civil libritarian, I oppose punishment without proof. Ashamadly, without a better system, being a parent wins for me. The downside, however, is too many of our parents think that that's enough. The background check is enough, the Sexual preditor lists are enough, etc., and they let down their guard against those that passed the test. Forgetting the many who have not been caught ... yet. In the end, it's things like the BSA's YPT policies, that no matter how inconvienent thay may be, help us to keep our kids safe. If there is a rift, and the organization slinters, It is my hope that all the surviving organizations at least keep YPT principles in mind. Particually as even the act of sharing Ineligible Files between the groups would probably be perceived as libel against the ineligble individual, crushing the groups under the weight of lawsuits.

These are really good questions. As for critical mass, I am not sure what the National number of scouts would be, but I expect with even as few as a couple hundred thousand or even less, there would be firms willing to produce the uniforms, patches, etc. Heck, I was a member of an explorer post in the 80's when they discontinued makeing the olive green shirts, we just started ordering green work shirts from either Sears or JC Pennys, other than the embroidered "Boy Scouts of America" it was hard to tell the difference. As for making books, requirements, etc.; the cost of printing has come down so much that that is not really the issue, and there are many would would probably even volunteer to be "section authors", so we'd really only have to pay for an editorial staff, typesetting and maybe illustrations or photography (or pay royalties to those providing such). Training becomes a bigger issue, at some point trying to put on a IOSL, Woodbadge, or University of Scouting is no longer worth the instructor's time, if there are too few people to train, or not worth the scouter's time to travel is they are too few and far between. Finally, Summer camps are probably the most at risk, the drop in attendance will force some camps to close, but those that remain may pick up the slack. This is not my greatest fear. While I was program director for a camp, due to poor support from our council (that really wanted to find a way to sell the camp), we actually feel from 3 weeks of campers (3-4 being typical for the prior decade), to two weeks, before we finally turned it around and got back to 3 ( I believe they were back up to 4 a couple years later, I'm not sure where they are now - the camp is still there, but the council merged.) The GSUSA model might also work, getting rid of the CO system; but that would probably increase costs as more professionals (and less volunteers) now have to do the jobs of recruiting, activities, financial management, leader vetting, etc.

My intent really wasn't to make a case against any of the Catholic, or anyone else's teachings, if you took it as such, my apology. It was simply to say that the Church's position in court would be strengthened, if the rules of disqualification are consistently applied, and not just to GLBT individuals. As for your later comment, about disqualification because he's not a member of the Church, again, fine if consistent; but disqualification because he was a "thorn in their side" would probably be viewed by the Court as reitaliation, which would hurt the Church's position, and open the case to actual damages.

In the end, at least partially, I don't think Gates or National BSA had a choice. The BSA itself is NOT a ministry and would not qualify for a ministry exemption to employment, therefore, they had no choice but to allow for employment at the National, Regional, Council level without discrimination. This includes summer camps, DEs, Scout Store employees. A prior employment requirement that the applicant be a member of the BSA (and thus restricted based on prior membership policies) would not stand a court challenge; and based on NY camp staff issues and others, it probably had to change now. Did the membership policy itself have to change? This is a harder question - it could probably have waited - they could have quietly let the employment issues pass and given the COs more time to prepare for the inevitable membership change - and it was inevitabe; the Dale case not withstanding, the Boy Scouts were too high profile, too visible a target to be left alone by those seeking to change our society as a whole; even if those same individuals had no interest in participating in the result. I (re)joined the Scouts for my Son to have a great experience, to be exposed to many new things and ideas that we as a family realistically would not have done. Even since I was a Scout, I was never comfortable with the BSA position; but then, as more recently, I decided that on the whole, the organization did more good that harm both for my child and for society as a whole. I never could find an adequate counter argument when publicly confronted about the organization's positions, and thankfully, as a leader, I was never forced to directly confront having to turn someone away over the issue - I do not know what I would have done. Professionally, I spend a lot of time thinking about worst case scenarios and preparing for them, so what is the worst case here ... I do not think that the Boy Scouts themselves go away. Think back to our origins, where each Communitty had their own boy scout troop; no Councils, no National, just Scouts and Leaders. What could happen ... Some churches leave, and without their support, the BSA gets MUCH smaller, but not to the point of disappearing. More council mergers, less national staff, districts might even disapper entirely for smaller councils. Lots of summer camp sales and closures - forcing the Troops to provide more of their own advancement programs. But I do not think that the size gets so small that a critical mass necessary to produce Scouts books, uniforms, and awards does not exist. Self Insuring may no longer be possible, and the cost per scout also goes up, further reducing membership. One possibility of some recovery is that the National Organization takes the Franchise model one step further and allows the Churches take full posession of their Scouting program, paying a single license fee for use of Books, awards, uniforms; but where the BSA is otherwise totally hands off on their operations. Maybe, like we briefly did with AHG, the leader training and/or camps are opened up and available for the new groups' use. In addtition, the remainder of the BSA can revisit Faith and Gender issues, possibly allowing a return to Military and School sponsorship and/or recruiting. Verses a worst case scenario without the change ... Congress revokes the BSA charter and the Councils and some religeous sponsors splinter, each taking their own version of the Boy Scout name, their own version of the program. Those outside your unit have no idea what "Scouting" their are getting, or what skills or leadership development were involved. Getting back to our roots in a way, some Scout groups form with no relationship to any overall structure. Unit leaders will be motivated, but lack an organized training structure. Again, Insurance becomes the issue, and groups get expensive, or finding leaders willing to risk personal responsibility really reduces the size of the program(s); but each unit becomes much more responsive to the needs of the Scouts in that unit. In the end, it might look much more like venturing units (with a broader age range) as units specilize to what their local population want to do - for some, camping may even disapper. It will be different, no matter how we look at the future - and maybe that it what frightens many of us the most, it won't be the program we grew up with. But Scouting in the United States will survive.

At least the article itself seemed to be a fair representation of the Church's side. The Church's statements were, in context, well reasoned and did a much better job of explaining the purpose of the local option than anything I have seen from BSA national. That said, it might have improved the response if the Church had explicitly reminded the prospective Leader that the decision applied only to the Church's unit, and that the prospective leader would likely be welcomed at other Scout units. It would also be to the Church's advantage if they were consistent in their rulings (i.e. none of the other Leaders should be "living in sin" outside of (1st) Marriage, etc.). I do not know if they are are aren't, but it would strengthen their case if any lawsuit did result.

Respectfully, I disagree. A leadership position is not a leadership position simply by holding the title, but how that position is used to further the needs of the Troop. I would, personally, be fine with any instrument which had the "reach" of a bugle to be heard across a fair distance so that assemblies could be held, or a revilie that could awaken (most of) the Scouts. It is this position of using their skill to help "herd" the Troop that makes the position a POR. While a flag call and several others can sound very nice done in other instruments - and I'm all in favor of doing so - that makes a nice ceremony, but not necessarily a POR. POR aspects to the bugler (regardless of the instrument) includes: 1. monitoring the schedule to know when to call assemblies, meals, taps, etc. - helping keep the Leadership Corps on time. 2. taking responsibility to get up early to be able to call revelie for the other scouts to get them up on time. 3. In the spirit of servant leadership, giving up on some of his own personal time to prepare and be ready to help everyone else be on time and maintain their schedules.

Interestingly, it is Labor law that may provide the best answer here. There are cases, I think against Macdonalds, that are trying to assert that the employees of a franchise (i.e. Bob's MacDonalds of St. Louis, Inc) really are employees of the Franchisee (i.e. MacDonalds corporate); and aside from all the labor related headaches that will create; that may essentially break a franchise system - there is no value in franchising (to reduce legal risks and administrative headaches), if the franchisee is held responsible for all the acts of the franchise holder. I believe that as long as they are held to be separate, then the Churches' Boy Scouts units can be fully considered to be part of the Chruch ministry and held to the standards that govern the Church, not to standards imposed or selected by BSA corporate.

Different or not, that does not mean, for better or for worse that they are allowed to be treated differently or have different opportunites in the current political environment. While the private sector still has more legal options, they are dwindling; but as a society we don't like to treat the genders separately, even when there is justification. For example, under Federal Funding guidelines for medical research; I could have a perfectly effective cancer treatment that worked on men, but it would not receive funding if it did not also work (maybe not as well, but at least to some significant degree) for women; unless the treatement was very specific to male and/or female only anatomy, and even then under limited circumstances. The problem with most of these arguments, is even asking to have the conversation about the issue (societially) will label you as being out of step. Someone to be shunned, villified, or someone who should be lynched (in the world of public opinion, and sometimes even literally). We have lost our ability to be civil about our disagreements; we have to punish the opposition (regardless of which side we were on). And until we figure out how to return from that ... well I guess I just don't know.

We did varriations of the Spanish Inquisition, the Dead Parrot and many other (no longer - probably never) appropirate novelty and comedy routines (I personally loved stuff from the Frantics).

I've been a Cubmaster for several years now (I decided not to bridge when my son did). As a matter of full disclosure, I do also have a daughter of Cub Scout age. Now, all that said, I'll respecfully partially disagree. Other than a few changes to some of the skits, I honestly don't see any reason why elementary School aged girls could not be Cub Scouts. Programatically, there is nothing they couldn't do, and the only even close challenge would be Webelos Camping (and at that age, even that would not really be an issue with proper, YPT, adult supervision). The reality is that families are alreadly allowed to fully participate, so the only real difference would be uniforms and advancement. My daughter's Girl Scout Troop is very outdoor oriented, and expect most would drop the GSA program in favor of the Cub Scouts (other than GSA fund raising is much easier). I expect all of them will be easily encouraged to Venturing when they turn 14. Boy Scouts, on the other hand, I am honestly much more apprehensive about - not because the girls couldn't do It. I know girls in one of my Explorer (at the time) units, that would put Eagle Scouts to shame with their skills (go Post 122!). As politically incorrect as it is to say so, but there is a point where the boys need to be boys without the girls. (I expect girls have a similar need, but I haven't gotten there yet with my family experience). Between puberty, discovering girls, and just generally trying to find their place - the boys should be allowed to have something of their own. I could not abide Scouting if, like the schools, they effectvely require us to medicate our boys so they can be more attentive like the girls of that age. I honestly don't know how to resolve that with my own feelings that disrimination, even justifiable gender discrimination, is generally unacceptable. It is also not as fair that the Girl Scout award (Gold?!) does not seem to carry the same communitty awe that an Eagle award does. Could separate troops work - probably; maybe even separate patrols - not sure about Troop Leadership then. I guess my opinions here are more maliable; but if we did let them do Cub Scouts and we do let them Venture, we have to give them something to do imbetween. As for when, Probably more than 5 years; social opinons on GLBT issues moved very fast in the last decade and we could not keep up; Gender issuse seem largely settled (i.e. discrimination is wrong); however, youth programs in general seem to get a pass, understanding the different needs of boys and girls in those age ranges. I expect that the bigger challenge in the next 5 years will be religion. Here too, the social opinions are moving faster than the Boys Scouts can. Clearly the more liberal elements of politics and media are not happy that even the "local option" exists. They do not understand the structure of the Boy Scouts, where some units are in fact extensions' of a Church's ministry and not open communitty groups. BSAs public relations people have been competely unable to get on top of this, and at this point I don't think they ever will. I'm not sure where the tipping point was, when it became discrimination against GLBT (moving to unacceptable) and switching to discrimination against religeous beliefs (or beliefs at all) becomming acceptable. Nationwide, we lost the ability to find common ground, there might have been a point once - Scouts are just one of the many battle grounds, along with bakers, flourists, photographers, B&B owners, etc. For the Scouts, how fast this occurs will depend on the Religeous Chartering Organizations, if they leave en mass as a result of the local option, those left behind will be less attached to strict adherence in the interpretation of a Duty to God, and it will be easier (or possilbly even necessary for survival) for the program to drop or amend that requirement, and it will happen sooner rather than later. If they stay with the Scouts it will be a longer fight, and the results may be that like many of the small business pressed on GLBT issues, that it may choose to shut down, or become exclusively attached to religeous ministries, rather than adhere to what will be required. It will start with the tax exempt status, based on the 1983 Bob Jones' University decision, the Scouts, and maybe even Churches themselves will lose their tax exempt status on the basis that holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a [religious university] whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination. Replace religeous university with institution or organization and racial discrimination with any discrimination. On the positive side, inspite of the Court's recent rulling on Marriage Equality, in general, this court has been inclined to protect the objections of Religeous Institutions to intrusive government policies, but I can't honestly expect that will last indefinately. It this a bad thing? Is there a middle ground? We had better find it before the courts do. On this issue, I have said before, and will reiterate, that at the Boy Scout age through early college, many youth question their religeous upbringing as they question other aspects of their life, and their role in the world. This enevitably leads many to self describe as agnostic or atheistic, even if not fully understanding either the terms or their own "spirituality" and beliefs. I personally view that Scouts could help in this regard, without evangelizing a particular faith structure, but by being good role models who do have a belief structure, we help the Scouts to find that there is value in having one of their own. By being welcoming we engage those searching for answers ranther than drive them further away. As a result, I personally believe that the membership should not be restrictive, that atheists and agnostics be allowed in, as long as they understand that the organization does not shy away from a spirituality component. They can be members, but maybe advancement might require something more.

In many ways, this is the point of the board of review, but not, I think, in the way you assert. My interpretation of the latest guide to advancement (2015), specifically Chapter 8, give the function of the board of review two primary functions to the Scouts' development. 1. The interaction with adults in the manner prepares the Scout for job and school interviews. It gives them the skills, confidence, and practice for this necessary life skill, skills such as being properly attired and prepared. 2. It provides the troop committee a forum to REVIEW the TROOP program and how the SM and ASMs are running the program. This is part of the reason why troop leadership is discouraged from being present. I think this is also why (in part), many years past, even the Tenderfoot, 2nd and 1st class BORs were moved from the PLC (as it was in my days) to the Troop Committee. Is it appropriate to ask the scout to tie a bowline? Sure, but as said above, the purpose is to learn how well the troop program is teaching that skill. For the concern about "learn and forget", again, the BOR can ask to see or ask about Scout skills learned for earlier ranks, but the purpose should be to assess how successful the troop program is at helping the Scouts maintain those skills, either through mentoring and teaching them to younger scouts, or constantly challenging the scouts to use and improve on those skills (or the lack thereof). I have no love for "Paper Eagles", and and I am not sure what the best way would be to make sure Scouts know the skills. If the expectation is established (in the GTA) that Scouts CAN be retested to ensure an understaning of the materials, I would generally support that, but I would also be concerened of the potential for the committee to intentially or unknowingly abuse or discourage the Scout from further progress. Cramming for a test (or BOR) is not the answer - we need programs that truly encourage the Scouts to constantly use the skill. For now, however, I think the point is moot. The BOR is explicitly not there to retest the Scout and their knowledge of the skills, and are not permitted to decline advancement to the Scout for that reason. We cannot (or at least should not - a Scout is Obedient) disregard these rules because they challenge or notions or insult our sensibilities. We should work within the program to change the rules to fit our program needs. Circling all the way back to the original question ... I think that in the Scout's view, he did demonstrate leadership in teaching the skill - why he had to teach the skill not not withstanding. When you complimented him on his initiative in taking on that task, he failed to enlighten you on the circumstances. Here I can see many paths: (1) maybe he was knowling committing a lie of omission, or (2) you already mentioned that this was surprising to you and thus the Scout may have been blinded by the enexpected compliment that he did not have it within him to correct you. From here there are also different paths: (1) He may feel that he got away with it - rewarded for poor Scout behavior, which I think is partially your concern, or (2) He may take this as an opportunity to recognize that in the future, if he did take initative of his own accord, more praise would result. In either case, I'd share your concerns with the SM, and let him discuss it with the Scout. If you are inclined, you could make it an issue of how did the Scout use this as an opportunity for personal growth at his next BOR.

According to the Merit Badge counselor training I took in February, a Scout Master's signature on the Blue Card is NOT required for the scout to begin work on the Merit Badge, and that the Scout Master, Troop Committee, etc. do NOT have the authority to refuse to allow the scout to work on a Merit Badge nor to question him further on how well he learned the material once the Blue Card is signed.

I do not believe that there are any prohibitions against it. Our CO (a local branch of a national community service club) charters two cub scout packs and a boy scout troop, (and the COR is actually an ASM in a different Troop).

I expect that my perspective may be a little different, as I am predominantly a cub scout leader these days. That said ... My understanding is that officially, the rank badge should be replaced with the square knot at when you turn 18. In practice, I think the spirit of that rule would probably permit youth members of Venture units (or Explorers as we were known when I was young) would allow you to wear the award up to 21 years old. Personally, I'm not sure where to draw the line. Even most scouts and scouters probably don't realize that that knot is the Eagle Scout award (or Arrow of Light). Certianly the parents of my Cub aged youth don't know. While I made the decision to remove the eagle badge and use the square knot, we had a den leader who chose to still have his eagle award rank on his uniform, and I would not have even considered correcting him on it. For our parents coming in, there is instant comfort in seeing that well known badge of achievement. When I started dusting off my old uniforms to take on my new role, two of my four uniforms (two different explorer units - green uniforms 1&1, and two tan uniforms 1&1) had the Eagle badge, and two had the square knot. Most were last worn when I was 23, and a Summer Camp Program Director. While the Eagle badge is a recognition of personal achievement, it is also a fantastic motivator (which is why I kept it on some of my summer camp uniforms), and and excellent recruiting tool - something the square knot just can't compete with (unless you have a full admirals' worth of them).

With respect to SM Bob, I'd like to take the exact opposite tact. While I will state that the belt loops are a large expense to the unit (maybe even higher than the pinewood derby cars for us), and for that reason alone, I could support dropping the program; I believe that the belt loops (and pins), like most of the boy scout merit badges, has the value of exposing (or at least encouraging being exposed) to things and activities they might not otherwise do. I concede that many of the loops' requirements are satisfied by doing things they would do otherwise, but at the very least, because it's not sitting right there in their scout book, it make the scouts (and/or their families) take some extra effort to find the award, and learn the requirements. A lot can be said in both directions about the value of too much bling for the cub scouts, but the reality is that at that age, that is a good motivator. My daughter is a girl scout, and while she does not do activities just to get a patch, she is proud of all the patches she has earned when they are displayed on her vest. The cub scouts are the same way, and the belt loops are far less intrusive a reward that a patch vest or a cub scout (merit badge) sash would be. The rank awards are too far apart, the belt loops help the scouts stay motivated and interested. As a cub master, I also re-iterate what Chuck said, Although my pack is much larger, it is too difficult to develop good pack-level programatics and activities that reach the requirements of each rank level (although I do try when they can match the theme/core value). A belt loop earned as a part of a pack activity brings a sense of belonging to the pack to the scouts. It also splits the middle ground of extra activity - things the scouts can do on their own. We just really haven't adopted the "fun for the family" program, nor have we been able to get into the STEM program. While I am a big STEM supporter, it may be a little too distracting to the focus of the scout program. The belt loops encourage sports and fitness, showmanship and citizenship, responsibility and family. These are the core values of scouting. I do not know what will replace the program yet - But I expect that it will be something. The real question is how will that replacement fit into the program? Will it be part of the "journeys" of the planned den activities, or will it be a recognition of the extra effort a cub scout can put in on their own for some individual achievement?

I apologize that I cannot find the reference at the moment, but I do remember looking this up on one of the "official" sites, and that it said up to three interpreter strips. In practice, I don't know too many people who know more than three languages, however, I did have an instructor at University of Scouting that had 4 on his uniform, and two of them were the "over-sized" Asian character strips. That said, I think I agree with Bando. If you qualify for more than one, I think you should wear them. Personally, I'm trying (although not very hard) to add Spanish and ASL (both are more practical for my area) to the German I already have. I've debated the Morse strip, with a little work, I'd probably qualify, and it is kind of fun, but it misses what I believe is the purpose of the strip being on the uniform which is to identify the wearer as someone who would be able to assist a foreign speaker. If it were just for bragging rights, all the strips would probably be in English (or at least the English character translation of the language), just so others know what languages you know, even if they don't. However, given this philosophy, with the purpose to speak and assist others who speak other languages, or even to simply bond with someone new over your common knowledge, I don't have any issues with the unofficial strips for Klingon, elvish, etc. as long as someone really can speak and read/write the language.

For my cub scouts, I challenged them to learn some knots. If they succeeded, (4 knots for tiger, 8 for Webelos - knots generally recommended for their age level from their scout books) according to their level, I would replace their neckerchief slide with a woggle (turkshead) colored (dyed 1/'8" cotton cord) for their level (orange, yellow, lt. blue, dk. blue, for tiger, wolf, bear, Webelos, etc.) As the neckerchief slide is a "negotiable" part of the uniform, this had the advantage of customization and recognition without adding something new (and the woggles are usually harder to lose while playing games anyway).

Is there a place where that letter would be available? I can think of a few roundtable discussions on the challenges on working with such youth members that could use a really good dose of why we make that effort.

I'm no longer in California, but I have set up several business in several states, including non-profit corporations. Churches receive their no-tax status because they are non-profit organizations; However, there in nothing in the Constitution which would prevent a State from taxing all non-profit corporation just like they tax any other corporation. It is a courtesy the State extends to all non-profit organizations (meeting the IRS definition, but that could be changed to a State specific definition if they so desired) that they do not tax the non-profit in the belief that the non-profit organization brings more community benefit that would otherwise be raised by tax revenues. The State would, as a matter of the Constitution, be required to treat all such organizations equally (i.e. they could not elect to Tax just Churches just because they are Churches); but I do not know if a "non-discrimination" litmus test would pass (but probably not with the current Supreme Court).

While not quite the same magnitude as the Eagle CoH, in our Cub Pack, for the Arrow of Light / Bridging ceremony; when the Cubmaster's son(s) are recipients/graduates, the CM becomes another parent and the MC and presentation duties pass along to other pack leaders.