Engineer61

"The troop's adult leadership has not responded very forcefully in many past incidents (much to my annoyance)." I think this is the fundamental problem in may Scout Troops. The concept of "Boy Led" equating to "Boy Governed" or "Boy Controlled". IMO...that should clearly not be the case...there must be clear boundaries where the Adults take over.

I'm curious MikeMayer, which form of God/god do you think applies to Scouting. Every BSA reference I can find refers to God, not god. Let's rework this a bit....from the BSA Website... http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/scoutparents/scouting%20basics/what%20scouting%20is/scout%20oath%20and%20law.aspx Scout Oath (or Promise) On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country

I've made some interesting observations between my boy's CS and BS groups. In CS, there was a fairly balanced mix of boys from all races and religions, matching closely to the demographics of the local school. In BS, it's no even close, out of 50 boys at any given meeting, there is maybe 1 non-Caucasian individual. It's not even close to the local demographic. Is this typical?

While the KKK is (not was) racist in it's motivations, the KKK frequently uses twisted views and interpretations Christianity as the justification for their actions.

I'd have to agree with most of DeanRx's reasons.... ...although I would add a #6, that there is much more to become involved with in school at 6th grade and beyond. Music, Sports, Clubs...etc. In thinking about it some more, I also think there is a different personality needed between CS and BS. In CS there are Leader, Follower and Independent Worker personalities. CS appeared to work for all three. In BS, it seems to me that if you don't have the Leader personality, you're not going to stay. Some people don't want to be leaders (in fact the vast majority aren't)...so if you are in a group where EVERYONE is required to be a leader to advance, and the advancement process is competitive, that means you can't just be involved for the enjoyment of it.

Oh, having lived in several locales in the country, I can say for certain that there are many different views on Scouts. I haven't heard the Gay one though. Most of the views have to do with BSA's perceived discrimination against others. Anti-Gay Anti-Semitic/Islamic/etc. White Supremacists In my current location, the schools will use Cub Scouts as helpers for functions and provide facilities for them, but no the BSA. This due to the religious affiliations of BSA Troops. There are those who view BSA to be a paramilitary organization...

The badges will also come off in the dryer if you have the heat too high by accident... ...yeah I know this from experience...had to use GOOF OFF to get it out, then had to find something to neutralize that... ...my white car towel after washing them with bleach worked ok.

I observed two interesting trends my my boy move from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts. 1) 1/2 of the boys that went through AOL did not move on to a Troop. Mostly they wanted to other activities within the school environment. 2) 1/4 of the boys that moved on to a Troop, left within one month.

Let's try this from the KISS Method.. Let's Start with the BSA Statement...(from the Website) "A Scout is reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion." And from Dictionary.com we have... Atheist noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. And finally from Dictionary.com ... God noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. 3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7. (lowercase) any deified person or object. 8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. (a).the upper balcony in a theater. (b).the spectators in this part of the balcony. So, using basic boolean logic.... BSA requires that a Scout believe in God, God is by definition the one Supreme Being, Atheists do not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being. Therefore, an Atheist cannot be a Scout. It's really a pretty simple rule. Logically, there's not any wiggle room. It complicated when you put a specific religion in the mix, i.e Christianity...the question becomes "which Christianity" and what about the non-Christian faiths that believe in one Supreme Being. At some point we have to face to the fact that BSA, like it or not, was founded as a Christian-Only organization. If you want to make the wiggle room, then BSA should remove the requirement. Of course the LDS, Catholics and other religious sponsors would never permit it. QED

The promoters of this activity can justify it to themselves however they chose. You can hide behind whatever twist of the BSA manual you like. You can even justify it by citing the necessities of the food chain. But what you have done *is* morally questionable at best. BSA is NOT survival school. And in the mainstream, where 99.99% of these boys live, BSA *must* teach values that the rest of society demands. I'll also guarantee that if my SM allows that to happen with my Troop, it will be his last day of involvement with that Troop, because the parents in my Troop would not stand for it.

Wasn't the crux of the OP's question whether or not his son could advance in Scouting if he was an atheist? If so, then I think the answer is, no...he can't. So at that point, I should think they should go ahead and leaving Scouting.

So, I think there are two different issues at play here. First, the notion that when someone posts here, the usual first response is a "flying suplex from the top rope" onto the SM based on the OP's depiction of the issue. OK...perhaps that is a bit unfair, but there's plenty of "way to go" SM positives here too...granted not as many as the other, but that what Forums are all about...the problems. Second, there is the iussue of the buck stopping at the SM. My response is ABSOLUTELY!!! IMO, (and regardless of anything in the Manuals) the SM (not the ASM's, Committee's, PL's) is ULTIMATELY (and I would say SOLELY) responsible for the correct and SAFE operation of the Troop at all times and in all places. If a boy gets injured on a Troop function, it is the SM's responsiblity (even if not present). Either the SM allowed an function what was beyond the capability of the Scouts, or did not ensure that the ASM's and Scouts had sufficient understanding or training to perform. So no, in most respects SM's do not get a break. Insert old adage about the intensity of heat and one's presence in the kitchen.(This message has been edited by Engineer61)

Huh? The opening of the Declaration of Independence states: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." I see no reference to Jesus, or an other hint of Christianity in this opening. In fact this is the only reference to God in the DoI. Moving to the Constitution of the US... The word God is not in the CoUS. Nor it is the 1st Amendment which guarantees the freedom of religious expression and the separation of Church and State. The US was founded by a collection of individuals and groups who suffered religious persecution throughout the Old World. The separation of Church (by definition the ruling Christian churches of the time) was obviously viewed as critical to the Framers. So some how extrapolate that the US is a Christian state because the Framers happened to be Christian is suspect at best. Now, if the BSA or any other organization in the US wants to have a exclusionary policy to limit membership or advancement in organization based upon a religious ground...I have no problem with that. But, I do have an issue with such organizations receiving any beneficial treatment from the government as long as they do so maintain such exclusions.

To answer the question... No, my boy(s) do not hunt at this age. Fishing (when we find time to do it) is limited to catch and release only. The issue is not the morality of killing for food. Humans are omnivores (although that is an elective condition) therefore killing is essential and therefore not the issue. (Unless you are killing more than you consume, which is immoral.) It is the understanding of what killing is by boys that do not comprehend the impact of killing that is the moral issue. Most (not all) adults understand the morality of killing. Few (if any) under the age of 18 (or even 25) comprehend the moral issue to a significant extent. It can (and does) place an insignificance to life that can (and does) cause abhorrent behavior in society. That is while children NEVER slaughtered animals on farms unless it was the only alternative to survival. Unless I have missed something, the PRIMARY goal of Scouting is to mold boys into men of good character that will perform above the norm in SOCIETY. The use of outdoor activities is used as a TOOL to that goal (to instill self confidence, a sense of values, etc.), and that ability is NOT the goal of Scouting in and of itself.(This message has been edited by Engineer61)

Ok....so maybe this boy is not leadership material, although he believes that (or is told that) he is. If he *is* leadership material, then be frank about his performance. Don't sugar coat it. He'll take it and work on the issues you present. If he *isn't*, well then he'll probably drop the idea of running again, or even drop Scouts. Contrary to popular belief, you cannot teach leadership. You either have the right proportions of knowledge, assertiveness, compassion and awareness, or you don't.

I did some more thought about this... Granted, the meat that we eat must be killed. (Having worked in a meat packing plant, I am well experienced in that fact). However with the exception of frontier days, and even then only when necessary, the killing of the animals is exclusively done by adults. Not because the strength or know how, but because of the moral aspects of it and how it impacts children. My Grandmother would go out and kill a chicken for dinner, but that aspect was never permitted to happen in from of children, it was not an event for children to watch or participate in. For your boys to think it was a great experience, can be somewhat disturbing. Did they learn that killing for need (food) is different than killing for fun (sport)? I don't know...but I'll bet there are some of those boys that do not have a clear line of distinction on that subtle point. I view Scouting as a means to train a boy to be a moral man, the outdoor activities should be geared to that primary focus, a means to an end, not the other way around. The more I am learning, the more I realize that I have to closely monitor my boy's Troop and the SM's in that Troop.

I did some more thought about this... Granted, the meat that we eat must be killed. (Having worked in a meat packing plant, I am well experienced in that fact). However with the exception of frontier days, and even then only when necessary, the killing of the animals is exclusively done by adults. Not because the strength or know how, but because of the moral aspects of it and how it impacts children. My Grandmother would go out and kill a chicken for dinner, but that aspect was never permitted to happen in from of children, it was not an event for children to watch or participate in. For your boys to think it was a great experience, can be somewhat disturbing. Did they learn that killing for need (food) is different than killing for fun (sport)? I don't know...but I'll bet there are some of those boys that do not have a clear line of distinction on that subtle point.

I dunno Mike, I don't buy the excuse... "To repeat, the rabbits were an idea which came totally from the PLC. When they floated the idea, I challenged them to figure out how to make it work." So, if the PLC suggests it, it's automatically accepted by the SM's?? Regardless of the activity? Regardless of the local public sentiment? Local law? Religious contradictions? So if your PLC suddenly decides they want to learn to modify semi-automatic weapons and make 1000's of rounds of ammo, it's OK with the SM's because the PLC came up with the idea? (Ok...this is an extreme hypothetical. Where exactly do we, as responsible adults, draw the line for those who are years and years away from fully understand the long term impact of their immediate actions?

So the impact is somehow lessened because there were multiple aggressors? Multiple aggressors = multiple expulsions.

Wife and I both agreed that we would not permit participation in this activity.

Wow....really? Not with my kid you don't. His teacher was nearly killed, now a paraplegic, after an ATV accident 2 years ago. Also, my health insurance does not cover accidents for "risky activities" of which off road vehicles and PWC's are named specifically.

Between the non-action taken by the \Troop in this thread, and the non-action taken by the Troop in the "Fighting" thread, I'm having problems identifying where the life lessons are for actions/personal responsibility lessons are in some of these Troops. Here's a what if: What if instead of an issue of illegal drugs or fighting, a teenage scout reports or is found to have pornographic photos of his under 18 girlfriend on his cell phone? What does a Troop do then?

I seem to recall a set of simple rules to define when a problem is a child's problem (and yes all Scouts are children) and when a problem is a parent's problem....I think it went something like this. 1. Does the problem involve an injury to other? If so, it is an adult problem. 2. Does the problem involve the loss of or damage to property. If so, is it an adult problem. 3. Does the child understand the full impact of the problem to himself/herself and other people. If not, it is an adult problem. This was an adult problem, it should have been handled by the adults in the Troop.

If the substance was indeed pot. 1. A crime has been committed...I don't know of ANY state in the US where possession of a controlled substance by a minor is NOT a crime. 2. Call the police and have the matter investigate. 3. If found factual, expel the Scout immediately. Scouts are NOT above the law and do not operate outside the law.

My point is that this case, the determination should not have been made by the PLC to begin with. It should have been done by the SM's who are in charge of the SAFETY of the boys. Here's the takeaways: 1) The boy who attacked learned that outrageous behavior yields no significant penalty. 2) The boy who was attacked learned that he has no real protection from the adults in charge when Scouting. 3) The PLC learned that it's okay to protect "one of your own". Three strikes! P.S. Had I been the attacked boys parent, I would have demanded the other Scout's expulsion from the troop...I hope that parent takes the lesson and leaves the troop before he really gets hurt. It's not the place of boy's to make these kinds of decisions.(This message has been edited by Engineer61)