Duty to God requirement in 2016

[scoutldr]

Found this via Facebook:

 

December 1, 2015

Beginning Jan. 1, 2016, Scouts will fulfill the â€œduty to God†requirement to advance to any rank, from Tenderfoot to Eagle Scout.

When a Scout is ready to move to the next rank he will be asked to reflect on his personal beliefs and tell his Scout leader how he is fulfilling his own duty to God.

Bryan on Scouting recently shared an article clarifying just what the requirement entails and what sharing your duty to God does and does not mean. Bryan explains, “This is a monologue by the Scout. Not a dialogue between a Scout and his leader.â€

Scouts will not be measured by a specific belief standard. The Scout leader’s role is to listen to the Scout, independently of any personal beliefs or convictions.

A Scout’s “duty to God†has been addressed by the BSA since the first Handbook for Boys was published in 1911 and continues to be an important aspect of Scouting today.

Be sure to read Bryan’s article to get all the details for this update, as well as a helpful list of FAQs!

 

[CalicoPenn]

We already cover this in discussions about living the Scout Oath so we won't be spending any more time on it than we already do - this new requirement is wholly unneccesary.  Our current Scoutmaster is considering handing the lads a laminated index card at the start of every Scoutmaster Conference for rank, which is where this requirement will be signed of on, with instructions to read the card when he asks "How have you done your Duty to God" with the answer being "I lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law". 

 

The whinging adults who insisted on this requirement will ignore Byan on Scouting's FAQ and will use it to try to weed out Scouts they don't like (ie gay scouts and non-churchgoers) while the rest of us wil just go on as before wondering just how stupid those advancement people think we are.

[Krampus]

This sounds like a bone to the religious right who was against the last two membership changes. BSA again attempting to appease people and getting it all wrong.

[DadScouts]

Our Troop is looking for an "opportunity" here.  Chaplain Aide in our Troop, right or wrong, has been an underutilized POR that traditionally exhibits a low level of leadership.  We're using these new DTG requirements to change that.  Each Scout will sit and have a brief chat w/the Chaplain Aide and a short half-sheet will be completed that the requirement was discussed and met.  Scout then takes the sheet to the SM for the SMC.

The Chaplain Aide will be trained by the SM and Chaplain to make sure this does not turn into more than it should.  At the very least the Chaplain Aide will learn more interpersonal skills.  The Scout, either Tenderfoot or Life, will learn to enunciate to a peer level Scout the particulars of the requirement and what Duty to God means to him.  It'll most likely happen at his Life or Eagle BORs so might as well prepare for it.  

Another step?  Yes, of course; it's a new requirement after all.  It won't be a burden and hopefully will be a useful exercise for all.  

[Stosh]

Did you fill out an application?  Yes.

Can you tie a square knot?  Yes.

Do you have a problem with being physically fit?  Nope.

....

....

Have you done your duty to your (G/g)od? Yes.

 

Well then, welcome to the troop, your're now a First Class Scout.

 

Sounds like everyone's pump now is sufficiently primed to pencil whip this requirement right out of existence.  And who said counting membership bodies was a the sole jurisdiction of the DE's. 

[SSScout]

Gee , it's nice to see the topic covered in the Faith and Chaplaincy forum.  Oh, wait....

 

Seriously, it can be a good thing or a bad thing , depending on how one views our  Constitutionally guaranteed freedom to believe (or not) as we are led . 

There is, in this new (or not so new) requirement, no requirement for the Scout to justify or defend whatever his faith requires of him/her or how he/she has fulfilled that faith.   He/she only need to voice some connection between his/her faith and her/his actions.

I like the previous "I follow the Scout promise/oath and Law"  response.  Very appropriate.

[NJCubScouter]

If it's supposed to be a monologue, not a dialogue, that's probably a good idea, but I wish they had made that clearer in the requirement do you don't have to read some blog that probably 5 percent of Scouters read. Yes, the requirement says "tell", but I don't see how you stop a SM and a Scout from discussing anything in an SMC that they want to discuss, and now they have called attention to this particular aspect of the Oath over all others. What about having the Scout tell how he does his duty to his Country? Himself? Others? IOf course all of those can be discussed in an SMC, but only one is mentioned in the new requirement.

 

My issue with this requirement, as I discussed in the previous thread where we discussed this (which I think ended up in the dreaded Issues and Politics), is what is an SM supposed to do when he hears an answer that makes him wonder whether the Scout... how shall I put this... whether the Scout has raised a "membership issue"? Is there going to be any training for this. If you have a SM who believes as Calico says, that a Scout does his Duty to God by living the Oath and Law, then everything is fine. I just wonder about the SM who hasn't thought this through as much as a lot of us here have, and hears an answer he wished he didn't hear.

 

And if anybody thinks I've just pushed this thread into I&P-land, sorry about that... the bright side is that I can move it myself, if it comes to that.

Edited December 8, 2015 by NJCubScouter

[Stosh]

Once one makes it a useless Scout Law, then it pretty much invalidates the rest as well.  No matter how much effort is put into the living the Oath and Law, we all fall short at some time or another.  But what we're suggesting now with the 12th Law is to pretty much let it slide with whatever the boy thinks is okay.  What if the boy's interpretation of Trustworthy means trustworthy to only certain people?  What if the boy's interpretation of Obedience is Constitutional freedom to do what he wants?  

 

Once one starts jacking these Laws around they become nothing more than a philosophical parlor game.  The Laws used to be chiseled in stone, now they are merely written in the sand.

[cyclops]

I could argue that the POINTS of the Law such as 'friendly' or 'helpful' have long been loosely interpreted with regard to race (in the past) and sexual orientation up until recently. If that invalidates the whole thing then it was invalidated decades ago. 'Chiseled in stone' was probably what those racists thought they had back then as well.

Edited December 8, 2015 by cyclops

[qwazse]

Dispel any illusions that an Leader's biases won't bleed through.

The crew was putting final plans in on their upcoming survival weekend in the mountains. And I told them a friend in a nearby Christian commune invited me to their community caroling night. They all thought it would be a neat side trip once the finished their shelters and had dinner.

Then the President asked, "How did you come to have a friend in a Christian commune?"

"Talking to strangers." I replied.

"I shouldn't have asked, and don't want to know more!" He concluded.

[Stosh]

I remember the day when Religion, Politics and Women were forbidden topics in polite company.  I seemed to coinside hand-in-hand with a higher level of tolerance as well.  In today's world all those topics are open for debate and the polarizing affect has gone a long way to support our zero-tolerance levels in all aspects of modern society.

 

I'm hoping this comment doesn't push this thread into the I&P, but once one waters down the requirements, the Oath and the Law, it really doesn't leave much room for character development as has been the historical foundation of Scouting in prior years.