Agnostic parent

[Greg Nelson 10]

There's what you CAN do, and what you SHOULD do.

 

So the mom won't let you confer with the boy about religion, which means that you can't sign the boy off on this. You CAN deny this boy his Webelos. You SHOULD designate someone else, perhaps your assistant den leader (who, coincidentally, is also the boy's dad) to cover this requirement. This is probably the easiest way to edit mom out of this loop, without making the son pay for the shortcomings of the mother.

 

 

[Bob White 20]

Wingnut

 

The measure in Cub Scouting is for the cub to do his best in completing the requirement. Not to do his best to do the requirement.

The scout still has to complete the requirement.

 

If for instance if the scout has to make a bird house using wood tools and it ends up looking like a key rack thats OK, the scout did his best. But if his mom says she doesn't want him to use tools, and he is not to build anything, then the scout has not completed the requirement.

 

You can't just give him the advancement because his mom has an unusual view toward the requirements. He has to do what the requirement states.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Greg, your suggestion would work but I think it is an issue that Mom and Dad need to reconcile. If they take your suggestion for now, it sidesteps the issue and as noted earlier, he could face it with even less equivocation later as a scout.

 

NWscouter, a HUGE amount of wiggle room. I'm wondering how many leaders out there are qualified to interrogate a boy about his religious beliefs in a meaningful, non-superficial way.

Edited part: Oops, got the name wrong.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Scoutndad 10]

Wow...you log off for a few hours and come back to some great responses...

 

Great insight from wingnut and Greg...I especially like the SHOULD vs. CAN question which originally prompted my dilemma...

 

SMA-You are on the mark with me earlier postings about the requirements needed WITHOUT a leader being involved... however 8b is there and must be done.

 

To all...I thank you for some truly inspirational responses and look forward to more creative forums in the future and while I can't exactly subscribe to a black and white approach as scouts, I do believe that setting up a cub scout for failure in boy scouts by not doing the right thing now, WILL be my responsibility...

 

Wish me luck..I am speaking with the parents tonight after our monthly parent meeting.

[Bob White 20]

Just so that there are no misunserstandings, there is no interrogation involved on the leader's part, there is only listening.

 

The handbook asks the question in the requirement, the scout explains his answer, the den leader listens. Thats' all there is to it.

 

 

[Scoutndad 10]

I agree with BW...

 

I think this may just have been a poor choice of words.

 

I use the term "interview" since I need to ask about the requirements and we discuss their responses...this way I can determine if the scout or parent fulfilled the requirements and what might be needed to help bridge that gap.

Often times, young boys have a difficult time trying to explain themselves and once they have done it and explained it...you never forget how proud they were that they did it by themselves.

 

Problem for me is just getting to the interview with ONE boy on ONE topic!

[packsaddle 753]

The question is there nevertheless. If a leader merely listens and that's all there is to it, then no problem. Consider the statement:

"if he cannot give evidence that he has met the advancement requirements regarding duty to God obligations he will not be allowed to advance."

Under the 'listening' standard, I understand that any response except a statement of atheism would be accepted as such evidence. Or am I mistaken?

 

My concern is that a leader who took a more active role may JUDGE the evidence that the boy submitted to meet the obligations.

I also note that if there is no such judgement, and nearly any response passes (except for being an atheist, perhaps), the requirement seems pointless. The question of belief in God was asked and answered in the application process...if anything else is acceptable why keep asking?

[Scoutndad 10]

Not sure of your point packsaddle...

 

As a leader, we need to make informed decisions regarding the scouts we advance. Being judgemental is human nature and that is the reason that having the parents attend our participate in the interviews should be part of the advancement. The parents should not answer for the scout, but it allows the leader to become more aware of their duty to the scout, pack and council.

 

Understanding the application has the necessary nomenclature for all to read, I hardly think that it is the best tool to use as a general approval on faith issues.

 

I do agree that an interview needs to be done to listen to the scout - but a requirement can not be completed unless the scout answers the question, not the parent or guardian.

Without the interview or question, the requirement is not completed. (at least that was my conclusion after many members of the forum chimed in)

[Bob White 20]

Scoutndad you seem to have an excellent understanding of the process and the purpose. I think if you just expain it to the parents as clearly as you have here and then allow them the chance to make their decison then you will have done both what you could do and what you should do as the Den Leader.

 

BW

 

 

[Scoutndad 10]

Thanks BW -

 

Let's see if the parents agree with your observation...

[Greg Nelson 10]

Scoutndad:

 

Before you go off and do something that might chase a boy and his family away from Scouting, think through the effects of your choices.

 

In particular, in what scenario is the boy more likely to experience spiritual growth - in Scouts, or out of Scouts? 10-year-olds are far from fully-formed people.

[Scoutndad 10]

Point taken Greg and if you read through all of my replies, I think that you will come to the assumption that I am a spiritual person and struggled with the point you are making.

 

Now take in to account that the mother is agnostic, the father was raised christian - the spiritual awareness of the scout is not up to a cub scout leader but to the parents/guardian.

 

It was made apparent to me that the most harm that would have been caused, was the lack of action on my part to uphold the requirements of the badge.

 

Something new...I offered my assistance to this family mid 2004 in efforts to stave off this very problem. I reminded them at the first of the year that we would need to look at this. Dad was accepting of it but mom is a firm believer in her view points and she has a right to be.

 

I needed a little "hand holding" from the forum to reassert my original belief that regardless of their spiritual beliefs, I needed to "listen" to the scout and how HE fulfilled the requirements of the badge. My problem was "how" to get the scout to the interview...

 

Thanks for the reply...

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Greg, to support your point I know of a boy whose views were agnostic during most of his scouting days. At the very end just before completing his Eagle project, something changed and he began to embrace one faith very strongly. If someone had judged him harshly early on, it could have ended quite differently, and I believe badly, for him.

 

Scoutndad, if the interview is for the purpose of knowing the boy, that is just fine. However, what you view as an interview could be viewed by the boy (or the parent) as an interrogation. It is a matter of perspective as well as method.

My point was an exercise in logic, nothing more. If the application settles the question of atheism, and if nearly any answer satisfies the advancement requirement, then there may be little meaning to the exercise. Except perhaps checking off one more requirement. As for judgement, this varies greatly but at one extreme, judgement and prejudice (also, it seems sadly, part of human nature) become related. Something I think it is important to avoid. I guess my 'interviews' might be viewed as lenient.

[FScouter 24]

I believe someone already pointed this out but it bears repeating. Scoutndad, as the DL, is NOT denying the advancement, and will NOT be responsible if the boy does not advance and will NOT be chasing the boy away from Scouting. The DL is merely stating that the requirements must be completed, and is ready willing and able to help the boy complete them. It is the the boy's family that has total control here, and the responsibility is totally theirs.

[Scoutndad 10]

The horse aint gettin any deader by beatin it...

 

As the full thread of comments and opinion shows, it is absolutely a lenient process where the interview is not an interrogation. Advancing my boys for the past 4 years has been "trial under fire" however as has been stated and restated, the DL is the guide (as Fscouter mentioned) but is also obligated to their post regardless of circumstances. Any deviation from those responsibilities is not only a liability to the leader, but to the scout, the den, the pack, the council, the bsa and Powell himself.

 

My struggle was predicated on how lenient I should be if I was unable to understand if the scout fulfilled his requirement. The answer was clear...if the book requires a den leader to sign off, then the scout needs to explain the requirement to the leader regardless of the "quality" of the requirement. In Cub Scouts, "do your best" means just that. In this case, there was no way I was able to determine the validity of the requirement completion.

 

The faith issue, as I see it, is not mine to teach but support throughout my group (you can bet your bippy I am going to get my purple knot now). The requirement in question was about faith, but not about the scout's faith. If the boy should have a divine intervention or a leap of faith, then I would be there to support and encourage, but never to lead. Faith takes many forms and shapes and my question boiled down to how to uphold the obligation I have as a trained DL.

 

And for the record, there was no play on words throughout this forum. There are strict definitions of agnostic and atheism that the BSA upholds. Not mine to advocate or condone unless challenged to do so. My problem was the admission that a parent, and not the scout, was agnostic. My ultimate goal was to try and get the scout to an interview so I had a reason to advance him.

 

After a discussion with mom and dad last night, my interview with the boy is this Sunday.