Eagledad

But Stosh, you never have a full buy in with all the scouts in the troop. It's rare to have a full buy in at the patrol level because boys of this age have different things going on in their lives. And you do have a PL that represents their patrol if a patrol wants to bail out. So that doesn't make it adult run, which is the reason you gave. In fact, if the adult poo poos the PLC's idea, isn't that adult run? As for MBs being an individual activity, sure. But the scout still has to contact and work with the counselor to show his understanding of the requirements. OR NOT. A scout just may want to participate because the activities are interesting and fun, but not get the badge. In fact, for boy run troops, that is usually what happens. The activities at the meeting is just a learning experience for the skills, it is not working the badge with the counselor. MBs are OK by me for meetings so long as there is growth in the experience. The problem comes when the scouts lean on MB themes because they are lazy and unimaginative to be creative and plan. That usually leads to boring meetings. I say that knowing our PLC never planned a meeting with the intention to earn MBs. But I wouldn't have any problem with it if they did. I'm a character and leadership guy, if the scouts are growing and having fun, all is good to me. Barry

I'm perplexed by your comment Stosh, if the boys decide to do a troop MB, how is that adult run? Our PLCs rarely plan a troop MB course for a meeting. But they often use MB course books as a source to help them plan activities for the theme like First-aid, pioneering and cooking. A Scout could not pass all the MB or First Class requirements from the meetings because that is not the objective, but they could get a few out of the way if they want. And many times scouts choose not to get signed off even though they completed a requirement during a troop meeting. Some are lazy, some just don't care because they aren't interested in that MB at that time. What I'm saying is that it would be unsusual for all the scouts to come back if they are given total independence to controlling their scout experience. It would not be a waste of your time if one scout completed all the requirements. In fact allowing the scouts the freedom to pick and choose when they wanted to complete their requirements would be indicative of a truly boy run program. Barry

First of all, don't belittle the challenges of scout skills in a BOR because they aren't challenging to you, the smartest guy in the room. They are the perfect comparison because even the simplest of skills can be a challenge to both the adults and scouts. Second, stick with your point that these changes are going to give all adults permission to challeng a scout in his faith. You have a personal grudge against god in scouting and use every extreme example to imply its harm. Adults have always had the permission to ask the scout a question in his reverence through living the oath and law, this is not some new boogy man that will change the program. The real problem for you is as long as the BSA keeps god in the program AT ALL, adults have permission to use spiritualality in each scouts experience, just like the last 80 or so years. You consistently try to paint scout leaders and the program as a whole under the worst possible situations to push your bias, but my experience is the vast majority of scout leaders have nothing but the scouts best interest as a priority. They will handle this requirement same. This is much ado about nothing and will not have an effect one way or another. It's that simple. I don't see National taking god out of scouting before your great grand kids are of age, so you have some tough choices a head. Barry

Yep, and I think I've said something to that over and over. Barry

Sure, just about every troop uses them to prep the BOR committee. Just take a look on the web. This is more realistic; "Johnny, what knot would be best to pull a log out of the road? Umm, I'm not sure, I never heard of that." "Ok, we'll tell us about the meal you planned and and prepared to sign off the requirement? Umm, well a bunch of us planned and prepared that meal. I don't remember specifically my part, but it was good." See, pack, we can also make this stuff up to based on real experiences. Only my examples are more realistic to everyday scouting. For some reason you think reverence is the hard part and that all scout leaders are looking to "ambush?" Innocent young scouts. I you tell that reverence is easy and the other requirements are hard. Oh, now the requirement forces adults to ask the question. And I say it only encourages those adults who dodge the responsibility in the first place to think about how to approach the question just like they have to think about the others. In fact, maybe now they will try to understand how reverence benefits a boys personal Scoutlike experience instead ignoring it out of ignorance. And, I really don't think those adults are the predators you fear anyway. As for the adults looking to trap a scout, not about knots, cooking, first-aid and so on, but on reverence, you have already shown us that those adults didn't need the requirement in the first place to behave badly. So as I stated, very little is changing except for more paperwork on the unit, which I think is a much more practical and levelheaded reason to challenge National. In fact I propose we make a deal with National to trade the "bring a guest to a meeting" requirement for this requirement because that one really is stupid in the context of developing men of character. Barry

Who measured those actions (or lack there of) and what were they measure against? Barry

Is that is all about, you want to allow families who believe god is a rock? Shesh, sure bring him in and move on. Unlike the atheist, I can see the oath and law working for him, I think. That being said, I would have a lot of concern for the mental stability of a scout who had such a belief and I might consider it abuse by the parent who encouraged him. But then, I had experience with very thing while I was a SM, so maybe it's just me. Barry

Hi Fred. Trying to understand where you are going, are you just wanting to allow atheist scouts to be Eagles? Barry

The program struggles. It also drives the unit to be less boy run because how can the blind lead the blind? Growth is difficult without role models, so the adults have to step in to fill the gap. This is just an example of the unforeseen consequences of change. Can we put the Jeannie back in the bottle? Barry

Sadly I think this is true. The First Class First Year program (FCFY) started in the early 90's drove scouts to get their leadership requirement out of the way as soon as possible. All my Patrol Leaders when I was a scout had their drivers license and I grew a lot from their maturity. I did strive for older Patrol Leaders while I was SM and succeeded to some degree that we had many 15 year old patrol leaders, but it was tough getting the families to have the patience. Well done. Barry

Well as I said at the beginning, these proposed requirements is just a numbers thing for National to shore up their conservative base. Self-serving leaders who push their personal beliefs on scouts are going to do it anyways, this requirement isn't going to change that fear very much. I live in a very conservative and religious part of the country and most of the scouters here take respecting a scouts personal religion experience very seriously. If you know of a situation of an adult behaving badly, that is anomaly to the general trend of scouters. I don't understand the attempt to pigean hole National in to committing themselves to the Judeo-Christian God, that is a leap. While I think National is trying to hold support with the conservative, it would be silly and really bad business to burn all the other bridges. They are not that shallow minded. However, for those who want to go on that rabbit trail, I'm curious to what you are going to do about it. Barry

A Jewish mother approached me during my first year as a Cub master and told me her family felt left out of our the unit prayers because they typically ended with In Jesus Name We Pray. So to be respectful we asked the persons saying the prayer leave that part out. When I was SM, the Scouts did all the praying and I reminded them of that experience, so they also tried to be respectful. But from experience, it is hard to change a habit, so it slips out now and then. It is up to you, but who knows, maybe the response will be what you would consider reverent. Barry

Agreed, that is why scouts should be pointed to their parent's for guidance. And if the parents don't have a direction, the scout should be asked to be open minded during his experiences in scouts. Yes, I am a Christian. Barry

I agree and I think it is a wrong unscout-like behavior that can verge on bullying. I expect adults should be capable of carrying on an honest mature discussion without insinuation and derogatory dialog. Long term influence of a mind should be a result of logical processing of facts or reason, not intimidation or knee-jerk expressions of emotion. I also believe these techniques are why this forum has such a low active membership the last few years. Barry

All good points, thank you. Still I am curious, would you please ask you friend his opinion of god in scouting and if he has ever referenced the subject to a scout. Around here religion is part of life and not a scary thing. Not even to atheist parents, of which we have had several. I have worked with scouts of many religions including Wicca, but again it wasn't a problem because it is personal to the scout and his family. We only need to mention that spirituality is part of the oath and law and let them figure it out. Barry

Some here have a different agenda than having a reasonable discussion on the different subjects. It seems popular lately to make up analogies or use rare examples for the purpose of categorizing whole groups in a negative light to make their own point look strong. If it were really that strong or valid, it would stand on it's own without having to demonize others. I realize that many times we react to quickly our emotions instead of patiently thinking out a more plausible response that doesn't attack others. But if we can't live by the guidelines of the law here, how can we set the example in front of the scouts? Barry

Of course, but should advice or policy be given to the rare extreme actions, or the common scenario. For every one bad example, there are a thousand good ones. So it's not fair to categorize the general population from the example of one. Even worse is to categorize from fantastic made up analogies. I have seen a lot of EBORs, I have never once seen a EBOR where a scout wasn't given the highest respect even when he was marginal in his answers. These board members go into every review thinking they will pass the scout and have zero intention to push him in a corner. They do a good job with honor and should be respected as such. Barry

Are you sure about that? Ask him and report back to us to how he advises duty to God. Matt, part of the question depends on age, maturity and life experiences. Ask a 11 or 12 year old if he understands duty God and reverence. Their general answer is something to the tune of "I don't know". Depending on the answer, a good suggestion is refer to ask his parents. Then ask him what they said at your next conference. God is a personal thing instilled and/or supported by the families, so families are the place for him to ask questions. For the older scouts, ask them how they view the spiritual part of the oath and law to their scouting experience. They usually have pretty good answers once they have time to think about. As for scouts who aren't sure, be careful not to confuse "I never thought about it" with "I'm not sure there is a god". Even kids of atheist parents haven't really thought about it. Again refer them to their parents or maybe even the scout law if you know parents aren't available. If you ever run into that one scout who doesn't believe in any higher power or whatever, don't be the one to remove him because these things change in us as we experience life. I don't really think anyone would, I have yet to meet a SM who said they would kick a scout out for not believing in god, That is the real world. Still, their is that requirment, so instead meet with the whole family together and explain that some kind of acknowlegement of spirituality is a requirement for Eagle. At some point the "scout and his parenst" must make a choice to how they want to deal with that. The naysayers here color this issue as a scary monster waiting to jump a scout and make him cry, but in reality it's one of the easiest subjects for adults because you aren't looking for any specific answer. We just are guides toward reflecting to their experience of the oath and law. However, don't ignore the subject completely because he would feel ambushed at the EBOR. It is strange to me that folks take this to the dark extreme, but I take comfort in that many of the forum participants here are not typical of the real world scouters. Still, from my experience demonstrating Scouting Spirit is the number one cause of families deferring to Council and National for their son's Eagle when the unit refuses to approve the scout. Scout Spirit is pretty important, but I found that usually the blame of these differences are caused by the SM because they neglected guiding the scout on the subject. That is why it is important for the SM to be thorough in reviewing a scout over the years along with the BOR. They are a check on each other and can save a lot of hassle from the scout who doesn't appear worthy and shows up at the SM's door with a lawyer. Scouts should get a review of all the points of the law and oath sometime in his scouting career. Barry

With all due respect Morzart, I can't read your stuff. Anyone who goes off ranting about scout leaders looking to "ambush" scouts is not quite right to me. I've been around this scouting stuff a long enough to know what is real and what is made up. I admit my weakness of lacking patience, so you'll have to forgive me that I am not giving any credence to your ridiculous hypothetical analogies which contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion. I enjoy intellectual discussions, but I'm a bit pragmatic and rather start from a practical starting place of common reason. Not far out extreme what-ifs intended more to get attention. Have you ever been to an EBOR? Have a great scouting day Barry

Sexual orientation (as you suggest it here) has little to do with living the oath and law? God is not a specific requirement, but living the Oath and Law are. A good Scoutmaster reviews and guides the scouts in how they are living the Scout Spirit. If the scout isn't guided during his experience, then you end up in the situation just mentioned where the scout risk not meeting minimum expectations. Now you may personally not like those parts of the law and oath that refer to spirituality, but it behooves all scoutmasters to listen and guide the scouts in their personal experiences. That is not to say the scoutmaster is prying into how the scout is reverent or his duty to god. It is inquiring to the scout's expectation and his personal thoughts toward his expectations. Many times a scouts expectation is doing nothing more than being open minded, which is fine. But it is better for the scouts to know where they stand early in his life so that they have a chance to ponder that part of the scout spirit attributes and relating his thoughts in front several adults in a board of review. Barry

Well I can't see the problem. A SM was always supposed to check on a scouts progress in his rank requirements as well as his scouting experience, so how does this change it? How does it change the question? And, if a SM is of mind to take this a step to far, they will do it anyways for the reason I just stated. There is no change for the leaders that I can see. Barry

Very common really. In the normal world, 95% of the population is passive and doesn't want to rock the boat. That makes it easy for an overly dominating person to take the reins of the program. What follows is that families that don't like the leadership leave while the rest find their quiet place in the program. I am sure most units on this forum are the same because to some degree just about all organizations follow this rule of nature. In most cases the dominating leaders use all the resources to units best advantage, so they don't appear dominant. It is when a unit gets that dominating personality with a more self-serving agenda that units have problems. I was asked to help several of these types of units when I was on the district committee. It is very difficult for a unit to follow a leader who lacks some kind of leadership head characteristics because they by nature will step back when a person of stronger character steps up. That is why I asked about the SM. If it is not in him to step up, nature will push the CC to lead. I've seen this happen with ASMs, CORs, and even unit commissioners. The problem isn't so much these personalities stepping on toes, the problem is the unit lacks the personalities in the right positions to hold aggressive personalities back. Barry

Truth of the matter is that most units are led by the dominant adult. It doesn't matter what their position title is, their personality will drive or intimidate the adults to follow. The best way to get the CC to back off is for the SM to tell them to do it. If they need help, contact the DE and ask for advice and help. It's hard to say how they will answer the request because DE's are human too, some are wise, some are strong, and the rest aren't. Tell us about the SM. Barry

Lots of speculation, lots of hand wringing, I believe it is only about numbers. The gay issue painted scouting as a conservative god support program. The populous let the liberal culture draw the line and the result is there is less tolerance for tolerance and mixing of ideals, especially quantifying moral behavior (which is the purpose of scouting). The BSA found itself not satisfying anybody, so it has to pick one side or the other to survive. You only have to look at history of scouting to see where siding away from God will take the program. National is in survival mode now. Personally I don't see the new directive changing anything, at all. It's just written words being more blatant in the program's support of god. It's marketing. Barry