I note, @The Black Eagle (welcome by the way), that you seem to hold a great deal of resentment towards this issue, and that you seem especially zealous to make your point - lots of capital letters and exclamation points, etc. I am clear on the fact that you are against this policy (which is not as new as you seem to imply). but my question to you is -
Forgive me if I come off as somewhat didactic, but are we really so concerned with the recognition, the attention, or the prestige of the Eagle rank that we are allowing the desire to be seen as an Eagle Scout trump the need to behave like an Eagle Scout? Why exactly is it so terrible that these 17 year-olds only get to wear the big flashy patch for a short time, and then have to transition to the (Heaven forbid) small, inconspicuous square knot? Does it diminish the labor and effort they put into achieving that rank? Does it deprive them of the character they built in so doing, or lessen somehow the significance of what they have done? Or are we upset because they are being deprived of the attention for having done those things?
I tell you now, that is not the road we want any new Eagle to travel. If a man is to be recognized as being an Eagle Scout, he should do it the real way - by being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent - and, I will add, modest. He is a good citizen, a good father and husband and worker. He helps others because it is the right thing to do, not to be seen of others. One of the most beautiful details about the story of the unknown scout (the veracity of the story being, frankly, irrelevant) is that we have no idea who he was. He never got recognized for his small good turn, helping William D. Boyce find his way through London, but it is because of him that any of us can earn the rank of Eagle in the first place.
I think that if a boy turns 18 and cannot be satisfied with a little square knot to honor his achievement, he still has a lot of growing up to do, regardless of the fact that, legally, he is considered an "adult." If he still needs the attention and recognition which the big colorful youth patch brings (which, all things considered, is hardly more than that of the square knot outside of the Scouting world), then maybe he still needs to learn what it means to truly be an Eagle Scout, despite the fact that he has met the requirements.
Finally, you seem to point out a lot of what you perceive as hypocrisy by bringing in other, unrelated issues and by making overly dramatic comparisons (treason, homosexual issues, etc.), as though somehow they might distract us from your real concern because of how big and controversial they are, and that by comparison your position might seem like a small and reasonable thing. Unfortunately, that kind of rhetoric only makes your position seem more extreme, and your terse and shouting replies aren't likely to help your point much. I understand that you feel strongly about this, and that is your privilege, but let's not try to tear down the whole moral fabric of the organization in our efforts to shed some light on a small issue like this.
You think an Eagle Scout should be allowed to wear the youth rank patch even when he is grown, though you haven't fully and gently explained your reasoning. I feel that it's both unnecessary and unwise, and I hope I have been clear as to why. Can't we continue the discussion in cool, collected language, and learn from each other, rather than resort to acerbity or angry rhetoric? By keeping to the subject at hand, we can help to understand each other's points of view, rather than intensify the hostility that can too easily mount in a discussion such as this one.
Edited by The Latin Scot, 17 June 2017 - 10:17 AM.