evmori

Ed, you keep dancing around what Dale is supposed being "dishonest" about. He didn't consider being gay to be wrong or not morally straight, so he wasn't being dishonest. You're the one being dishonest here. Merlyn, How am I being dishonest? Dale not knowing the rules doesn't absolve him.

No Ed, YOUR opinion is not relevant to Dale's opinion. He doesn't even know you. And it is completely unreasonable for anyone to follow SECRET rules that they aren't told, as in Dale's case. I never knew honesty was a secret! Maybe that's the problem! Trustworthy, honest same thing. And the rules are not a secret. And just because Dale or anyone else doesn't know them doesn't make them null and void. Ignorance is no excuse. Not my opinion - fact.

No Ed, Dale didn't consider being gay to be "wrong," so in his opinion, he wasn't violating the oath & law. YOU might think Dale is in violation, but that's not Dale's standard. I love this argument! Just because I don't consider it isn't! !!!!! Horse Hockey !!!!! It makes no difference whether Dale "thought" he wasn't violating the Oath and Law! The fact is he was. Ignorance is not an excuse. Why not join a PETA website and say that they should eat a triple Angus cheeseburger smothered in gravy? Can I get one of these?

This has always been a sticking point. The term "serve actively" is associated with POR's. And if a Scout is in a POR, he should be setting the example for the rest of the unit. I don't think there is anything specifically stating you can't require a certain percentage but you will get the argument that this is adding to the requirements. I think the Scoutmaster and is ASM's need to come up with a better way to determine if the Scout is "serving actively" and not just holding the POR and doing nothing. Requiring he attend a certain percentage doesn't accomplish this. Why is this going to the Troop Committee? This is an advancements issue and the Scoutmaster is the gatekeeper.

Lied it the sense of stating the Scout Oath & Law for all those years and directly violation Trustworthy.

Exactly what I said Scoutfish. And the rest of your post was excellent!

Maybe, Merlyn, because they saw an Eagle Scout who more or less lied his way though the ranks.

What else does your unit require your Scouts to do that is adding to the requirements, Brent? Travel in uniform? Wear Scout hats? Requiring a Scout to bring his un-required handbook to anything is adding to the requirements. Keep puffing yourself up about how good they look, Brent.

Well, if Scout A was actually trying to sell marijuana and not oregano, he is guilty of a couple crimes. Possession and trafficking. Serious. I love the way Eagle732 handled this! Excellent!

Actually, Brent, it's sad. You are stating the policies and then stating something contradictory to those policies like " no handbook no BOR" or "no uniform no BO".

Well, Ed, to be our in Troop, a Scout needs a handbook. We use it to record his advancement, so without it, the Scout can't advance. Then you are adding to the requirements, Brent. If you Advancement Chair is worth their salt, the advancement records would be current and up to date. When I was at the Troop level, all the Scouts in my Troop had a handbook. When they crossed over from WEBELOS we gave them one. But we didn't require them to bring to meetings or BOR's. We taught our Scouts to be prepared, too. And if being prepared meant bringing their handbook, then they needed to bring it. Ya can't go spouting policy if you aren't going to follow it!

nldscout is right on the money! Let dad know as soon as it is possible for junior to ask, you will be more than willing to be of any assistance you can!

Brent, So when you posted In our Troop, you have to have your Handbook to be in uniform. that was incorrect? When I was involved at the unit level, if a Scout didn't have his handbook, we didn't send him packing. We had his advancement records in front of us and held the BOR. If the Scout passed, he was asked to bring his handbook to the next meeting so it could be signed. We never turned a Scout away from a BOR because he didn't have his handbook PLUS we never failed a Scout because he didn't have his handbook. And just as a friendly reminder, the handbook isn't required, either.

Right on the money NJ. The BSA was totally within their right to do what they did.

Brent, 1st you post Our SPL was ready for his SM conference and BOR last week. He was wearing his uniform, but didn't have his book. In our Troop, you have to have your Handbook to be in uniform. No book, no BOR. then SM HB, Chapter 15, The Uniform and Insignia, pg. 159: "No alterations of, or additions to, the official uniform may be made by any Scout, leader, or Scouting official without permission from the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America." and Interesting that the new text doesn't address those who are in only a partial uniform. The Rules and Regs say no alteration or additions may be made. and No where, not in a single BSA document, will you find any text giving Troops the option of wearing jeans or other pants with the official uniform. The BSA HB, the SM HB and the Rules and Regs make this so clear, even a blind man can see it! Your most tortured, twisted, illogical reading of the text can't even begin to authorize what you suggest. Guess what you criticize others for is OK for your Unit. Where in ANY BSA publication does it state the Boy Scout Handbook is an official uniform part?

Brent, I understand what you are saying but there is a contradiction between the Rules and Regs and other publications. And when there is a contradiction, I go with the Rules and Regs.

Not really Brent. The Rules & Regs state any BSA official. A SM isn't a BSA official. The Uniform & Insignia Guide is a guide. Chapter 15 of the SM Handbook also states Do not wear the uniform while selling a commercial product or service, even for Scout fundraising purposes. Now if the unit gets permission from their Council Executive Board, (see the Unit Money Earning Project form) the unit is permitted to wear the uniform while fundraising. Which is correct?

From the Rules and Regs. Clause 4. Prohibition of Alteration or Imitation. 1. No alteration of, or additions to, the official uniforms, as described in the official publications, or the rules and regulations covering the wearing of the uniform and the proper combinations thereof on official occasions, may be authorized by any Scouting official or local council or any local executive board or committee, except the Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America after consideration by the Program Group Committee. Are adult volunteers Scouting officials? I would say no. Based on that, if a SM of a Troop only wants the Scouts to wear the uniform shirt, I would say he has that option.

OK so since these 26 stellar Americans made their urgings public, has anything else been done?

And will we also eject the boy who jumped the special needs scout? Yup. He goes home, too. But he doesn't get suspended because he was defending his fellow Scouts. No one has suggested corporal punishment, Eamonn. There is no need for for that!

I'm with Oak Tree. The sports and band analogies are flawed. To be a member of a sports team or a band the participant MUST have a uniform. The BSA doesn't require a uniform to be a member.

The Insignia Guide isn't policy, it's a guide hence the name. The Scout Handbook isn't a uniform part. Never was never has been.

Summer camp??? This Scout should at least be suspended from the Troop for a period of time. Behavior like this is uncalled for and should not be tolerated. And I feel not suspending this Scout just sends the wrong message to the rest of the Scouts in the unit. Whomp on someone and your dad gets to go camping with you.

I say more pie!

There just isn't a concept of sin in my religion. Good and evil, yes - and free will choice to decide if one will follow a good or evil path - but sin just doesn't exist. At least for me. Evil, sin same thing different name. They are synonymous. So if evil exists so does sin. And if I'm not mistaken, we all have free will regardless of our beliefs.