jmenand

John, I take it by your bold type and stern language that you might be taking my posts more dead-seriously than I intended. I realize that the statement of religious principal gives wide latitude. In an ideal system, I feel that national should trim back on the universal guidelines and allow each troop to decide, with their CO, through what faith (if any) they would administer the scouting program. The statement alludes that this is how things are run, and in fact it is how things are run. But what is true on paper is not always the case when it comes to the intangible "tension" around certain topics. I am not witnessing, nor is my belief system currently 'in flux.' When I talked about my spiritual quest, I was referring to what I went through almost 10 years ago, not what I am going through currently. You suggest that I could find another vehicle for outdoor living that does not involve youth (or, presumably, the value system scouting represents). What part of my specific statements about loving Scouting lead you to believe I am only interested in the outdoor aspect? The bottom line is that I did not intend, as some "stir the pot" types might, to be controversial just for controversy's sake. I wanted to raise a concern over what I feel is a tension (which probably differs from unit to unit) I perceive that surrounds any and all forms of reasonable, respectful discussion about any variety of issues with national policy which might (key word, might) not be relevant to the program of scouting. I'm not looking to start a revolution or even make anyone mad here. I do worry, though, that I'm sensing an increasingly tense tone from your first post to the next. If I actually decided that I could not comply with BSA policy, I would indeed leave the program. I have said that I long ago decided to quiet my disagreements for the greater good, as some other posters have talked about. My greater curiosity is why the "climate of fear" I sense (not just within myself, but within many in the scouting community I know) seemimgly "has" to exist for BSA to operate a good scouting program. You say that just talking about controversial issues, even in a respectful manner with adults, can be counter-productive? I agree. The question is: can it be productive? If so, under what circumstances? (this has already been answered by Beavah, etc)? If not, why not- is doing so actually un-scout like, or just un-BSA like? I propose that any adult who can not have a civil discussion about the things they and their program stand for is not a mature, reasonable, nor scout-like individual. (Edited for clarification)(This message has been edited by jmenand)

Beavah- thank you, that is more or less how my heart would like me to approach the situation. John in KC- Yes, I realize that it is a private organization, and in fact that life is filled with private organizations like this. However, it is my perception that other private organizations do not have the same communication problems that the BSA has. My unit is not chartered by a church. This difference means that there are some rather flat out nonreligious people in our unit. Additionally, my fear is perhaps colored by my personal history. While a teenager (not long ago), and on my way to Eagle, I went through a personal religious crisis, and spent a period of time trying different churches in a soul searching journey of sorts. I tried to keep this private, but because my parents were involved with my unit, eventually things got around about what was going on with me. There was even a period where I denounced all churches of any kind as incompatible with my own personal faith. In retrospect, I realize that there are many COR/troops that would not have tolerated some of the things I felt, however briefly, on my spiritual quest. And in fact, even in the confines of a non-religious unit I get the impression that many scouts would be intolerant of me if I tried to put to words my complicated relationship with God. I do not question anyone's faith, but I personally spent a great deal of time developing my spirituality, and to read in the BSA policy that it is open to all denominations of faith but to experience mild, unspoken oppression because of the "way the BSA is" seems counterproductive to Scouting. ScoutNut- I am not concerned very much with changing my perception of fear. Until the climate is gone, I will carry that weight. Instead I just would like to openly wonder how many scouters operate in the BSA with this mentality? John, is it really so entrenched that non-LDS-compatible beliefs should feel persecution anywhere in the organization? In fact, I do think that a couple of my own disagreements with BSA are "deal breakers." But do I lack character just because I refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater? I have no where else to go to support Scouting (at least for boys). What am I to do, start my own personal Non-BSA scout troop? Because my love of Scouting is so deep, I tolerate more from the BSA than I normally would, just so I can be involved. I don't neccisarilly want to change things, and I know I probably can't. All I want is to get rid of the stigma I feel against talking about these things. I would like to know what my scouts really think about personal religion and free thought, because if they are anything like I was, then they are going through a rough time. I know that I should, and will, let sleeping dogs lie when it comes to these issues, because they do not confront me day-to-day in the unit. Does this mean I lack character? More importantly, does anyone think I really should leave the BSA? That seems like such a poor option to me that I don't even want to entertain the idea. To me that would be as preposterous as leaving the US over disagreements with the current administration. You don't have to point out how leaving a nation is different from leaving a private organization, because personally Scouting is so entrenched in who I am that I think it would actually be easier for me to leave the country than it would be to leave Scouting (or, heaven forbid, be kicked out if my internal conflicts were heard by the people in power!) I won't "do" anything, probably. I will continue to accept the things I cannot change. But I fear for the day when I do have to act as a member of the BSA in a way that contradicts my personal beliefs. It hasn't happened yet, but it probably will at some point.

Well, having received my Eagle recently enough for it to still be a vivid memory, I think I know what your son is feeling as far as dragging feet from Life to Eagle. And I think I also know what you will be feeling at the CoH- I don't think I've ever seen my parents so proud of me as when I saw them sitting in the parent's "seats of honor" beside me while most of my troop leadership took turns telling stories about me... sorry, I didn't mean to talk about myself! I certainly hope the Eagle CoH never dies as a tradition. As far as moments of recognition and reflection go, it's hard to beat. Congratulations to you and your son!

Dan, to clarify I wasn't advocating any sort of active disobedience, but I am raising a concern that I perceive that adults in BSA are trained to never even mention the issues they have with national policy. My fellow adults feel more or less free to joke and gossip as adults with each other when it comes to casual banter and current events, but when it comes to BSA policies I can cut the tension with a knife. I am wondering, is this "right?" For all I know, some of the people I've been working with for years could agree with my dissent, or maybe I'm the only one. But I wouldn't know because we all just deliver the program and keep our opinions about the 1 or 2 things we disagree with to ourselfs.(This message has been edited by jmenand)

Gern, I most certainly don't want to leave either. John, I understand that I should not complicate the program as it is delivered to the youth. Perhaps I may be an agent for change, but we are all only human. And even if I could change the program so that I am 100% comfortable with it, I anticipate that most people will always be able to find something to disagree with if they think long enough. My problem is that I fear retaliation for merely raising the issue of dissenting opinion. I'm not talking about rasing dissent with the youth. I understand completely why that is an inappropriate way to generate change. But I wonder if it is not healthy to have debate about disagreements with BSA policy within adult level circles? I admit that my interactions are unit based almost exclusively. Perhaps if I worked higher up in the organization I would find debate to be freer, as you suggest. But I definately feel that my fellow unit-level scouters share, to some degree, my fear of being excluded or "kicked out" if we rock the boat, even within adult-only conversation. This is my personal perception and it concerns me.

I realize that this topic may have been discussed in some form previously on this message board. I apologize if it is inappropriate. Another thread got me thinking... What do we as individuals in the BSA who believe in Scouting do if we disagree or feel uncomfortable with some aspect of BSA national policy? Now, I realize that the obvious targets are atheism and homosexuality. But I do not want to debate whether the BSA should/shouldn't allow atheists or homosexuals. What I am suggesting is that most serious minded adults in the BSA could, if they closely examined BSA policies long enough, find something in BSA policy that they disagree with. Maybe you agree that homosexuals and atheists have no place in scouts, but some other less hotly-debated policy goes against your personal morals/beliefs/etc? So, assuming that almost everyone could find something in national policy that they disagree with, and also assuming that we are in favor of MOST of BSA's policies, what is the appropriate way to deal with the the aspects we disagree with? Keep our mouth shut when the topics come up? Is it wrong to be supportive of the BSA, but responsibly, in the company of your fellow adults, criticize aspects of BSA policy? Is it against BSA policy to do that? To privately hold criticisms of certain policies while still maintaining support for the overall BSA program? How many Scouters would we lose if national had a device that could somehow tell if a volunteer didn't agree 100% with BSA policy? Surely we are not so naive as to think that many people could believe whole-heartedly in every tiny semantic detail? Any thoughts or expansions on this? I am absolutely devoted to Scouting and even 99% of BSA's program. But I have felt for a long time that if I even mention in a respectful manner my disagreement with that 1% I don't agree with, that I may be "kicked out" of Scouting. I don't feel this climate of fear is rational or appropriate for Scouting, but I don't know what to do about it. Is it un-scoutlike to feel that I am obeying the scout oath and law, and also feel that some parts of BSA policy go against their own ideals? How do us who love Scouting deal with this? Thank you in advance to anyone who can offer some insight. I don't necessarily intend to find any "answers," but a healthy discussion here is more than I feel comfortable discussing with my fellow scouters, unfortunately. I think this is the real problem.(This message has been edited by jmenand)

Thank you both for your input, this seems very reasonable (especially the part about contrasting with the other adult cub leader knots). Assuming that this is correct, I suppose my next question would be what the meaning of the red and green with webelos "stands for?" Maybe my old Webelos handbook holds the answer...(This message has been edited by jmenand)

Kudu, etc: I happen to agree as well, mostly. The real issue here is that I love what I see as the core philosophies of Scouting. Living in the US, my only real outlet to support Scouting is the BSA. In most ways, I feel that the BSA is the best, most efficient, and well organized "wing" of the scouting movement in the world. So it comes down to this: compromise a few of my personal beliefs so that I may pursue Scouting in a successful organization (the BSA), OR Not be involved in Scouting. I bite my tongue whenever issues/conversations are raised over the BSA policies I personally disagree with. I do not use these times as a way to further my own beliefs, but I would refuse to personally enforce, for example, "unauthorized badges/awards on uniforms" in such a situation as a youth wearing a religious emblem without BSA authorization. Maybe, as a Scoutmaster, I am supposed to force such an offending scout to get "with the program". But I would not. It is a personal dilemma, but unlike my disagreements with the government, I choose to passively accept BSA policies even if I feel they are "un-scoutlike" Kudu et al: What do you think I and others in our position should do? As I said, in most ways, I happen to agree with the policies of BSA. I understand that we all have things we are intolerant of. Most of us are intolerant of murder, for example. Obviously religious discrimination and murder are different, and as an organization the BSA has drawn it's line in the sand slightly farther to the "right" than many scouters I know are comfortable with. But the reality is that we all have our "line in the sand" We all recognize Scouting as great because it teaches morals- some of these morals are inevitably going to rub people wrong. I doubt there is any person involved in the BSA who, upon serious reflection, does not take issue with some part of national BSA policy. Whether it is trying to interpret or understand semantic aspects of the language national uses, or a more fundamental disagreement with their core program, everyone will have a personal conflict at some point. What should us, the independant-minded lovers of Scouting do when we are confronted with these issues? The rhetorical question at stake: Should I cut off my Scouting nose just to spite my BSA face?(This message has been edited by jmenand)

Hi, I searched in vain for an answer to this question: What is the significance of the colors in the Arrow of Light knot? Almost every other knot shares it's colors with it's associated medal/award. But the youth patch for the AoL is gold in the middle with a blue border, so why is the knot red and green?

Thank you for the welcome! What follows are my personal feelings on the role of teaching morality in Scouting. If you wish to understand moral relativism, there are many better authorities than I on the subject. I apologize for the length. I see moral relativism as being contradictory to Scouting because Scouting is built on the premise that there are moral truths. Strict moral relativism says that moral truths are an illusion created by culture, historical traditions, and personal references. By recognizing a spiritual existence of any kind ("God," if you wish), a person is able to reject strict moral relativism and begin to, as I have, slowly recognize a system of moral truths. I grew up in Scouting and personally attribute my morals to the guidance I received in Scouts. I recognize that this implies that the relativists are "right," (ironic) and that I was influenced by my Christian-American-Scouting culture; that the only reason I believe in moral truth is that I was somehow brainwashed. After much soul searching, I decided that I must trust my instincts about what is right and what is wrong, and also my instincts that the universe contains some kind of spiritual power that provides a foundation for that morality. On the other hand I also feel that many Scouting adults, especially those with narrowly defined systems of morality based on their specific religion's teachings, some times take this a bit too far and attempt to inject their own interpretations of morality into the Scouting program. I personally feel that this betrays what I see to be Scouting's goal of teaching a structure of broad morals (e.g. Trustworthy, Loyal, etc.) while allowing each Scout to discover and come to understand the importance of said morals on their own. The primary example of "injecting a personal interpretation of morality" is Scouting's position on homosexuality. The secondary example of this is what many people perceive to be an overly-Christian interpretation of "God" being used to describe "God" in most of BSA's materials. The second example is a result of the very real Christian influence in the historical development of the BSA. But since the BSA continues to specifically allow all types of spirituality as long as an individual is able to follow all of BSA's other guidelines, I think that most people who are uncomfortable with this Christian influence should simply recognize the historical role of Christianity and accept it as a part of BSA's history. Homosexuality is the primary example of a policy that, I feel, reflects an intrusion into a topic that Scouting should simply not be concerned with. Sexual preference is not an issue I concern myself with in my personal moral system, and I do not feel that it has a place in Scouting, either. The arguments against homosexuals in Scouting are in my opinion weak and thinly veiled attempts to conceal a conservative political interest injected into Scouting where no opinion is needed. To say that homosexual adult men are more likely to molest a boy is, based on the research I have read as well as my personal morals of "innocent until proven guilty" and "tolerance," a nonsense argument. I do not feel that installing and perpetuating a climate of ignorance and fear is in the spirit of Scouting. However, the bottom line is that the BSA already discriminates against girls on the basis of gender. I am morally opposed to this as well, but because of the simple reality of the biological difference between males and females, I am willing to partially accept the argument in favor of a program for boys only. Because of the history behind the program, I recognize the benefits of having a boys-only program. Sexual preference, on the other hand, is a relatively recently politicized issue for the BSA, and I feel it has no place in scouting. The problem is that homosexuality introduces a real problem for this traditional gender discrimination. One of the primary reasons boys are separated from girls in the BSA is, I imagine, to remove the sexual tension that adolescents experience. But if the boys might be sexually attracted to each other as well, it becomes a bit of a paradox. How ironic that by publicly rejecting homosexuals, the BSA made sexuality a major issue for the organization. In the end, I feel the moral thing to do would be to recognize that the historic impetus for gender separation was overly-simplistic and short sighted, and create a co-ed Scouting program with this new understanding of the complexity of sexuality in mind. A new Scouting program which would recognize that sexuality is not the concern of the Scouting program and that the only way to ensure that sexuality is completely eliminated from the program is to have only one single scout in each troop. Finally, I am attracted to Scouting because of it's history of building character in an environment that encourages each scout to have unique and nuanced explorations of the basic moral framework they are being taught. Each leader must use their best judgement as to when it is "the right time" to inject "guidance" into a youth's process of spiritual and moral discovery. Some adults may feel that it is only appropriate to keep a scout "headed in the right direction," other adults may feel that constant and narrow direction must be demanded of each scout over every point of the scout law. This is why a quality group of mature adults are needed in Scouting. It is an unfortunately slippery slope for some adults who have narrow definitions of morality and strict interpretations of the scout law. At some point we stop "building character" and we begin shoving character down their throats. In the end, I feel moderation and consistency is the best policy.

I did not follow for much of the discussion, since I feel much of it is semantic arguments about interpreting what constitutes a belief in God. One line caught my eye: Ed said: "An agnostic & an atheist are not the same. An agnostic believes in a higher power but isn't sure about it. An atheist doesn't believe in any type of higher power." I would agree that they are not the same. However, I do not think they are mutually exclusive. - Atheist/theist is an ontological position, agnostic/gnostic is an epistemological position. They aren't mutually exclusive, as they speak to different topics. You really need to specify both. - From its etymology, an atheist is simply one who lacks belief, while an antitheist would be one who believes in non-existence. If there are zero gods in which you have faith then you are an atheist, regardless of your feelings on the possibility of direct human spiritual knowledge. In this way, a person could have no god in which they believe and ALSO rationally conclude that there is no way a human can know for sure. - People who are way too smug about being "agnostics" really hate having this pointed out. I speak of the type of person who uses the term agnostic to describe themself mostly because it is currently en vogue in our society. Yes, common American usage mangles the terms in ways that violate their etymology, but you still end up having to make up strong/weak/positive/militant/etc labels in order to accurately describe your position, so it's a lot easier to just use the words properly, so we can all be as smart as the ancient Greeks. So, for example: Without going into too much detail, I am a theist in that I feel a spiritual connection to the universe much in the way that B-P has been described to have had in this and other threads. This is the motivation for my morals. I am also an agnostic. This is not contradictory to theism because the process of my rationality and the conclusions I draw about the nature of knowledge does not affect my spiritual connection to the universe and the moral life I live as a result of that connection. And in case anyone is wondering, I chose to interpret BSA's simplistic and incorrect assessment of agnosticism in a way that allows me to subscribe to what I feel their INTENT was: weeding out the nihilists and spirit-less individuals wishing to teach moral relativism to children. In this way I do not feel conflicted about "belonging" in the BSA. I do share the concerns about the influence of Christianity/LDS- but until the BSA guidelines are re-written to exclude non-christians, I think I'm safe. I hope this makes sense!(This message has been edited by jmenand)

Hello everyone, first time poster here! I have a question about patches. Is there any uniform rule or etiquette about using older versions of patches which were retired before I became a registered scout? For example, my local council has gone through a number of different shoulder patch designs. I would like to use a quite old design because it has a bit of a classic appeal. Similarly, I had my OA ordeal in the mid 1990s, but I found a lodge flap for my lodge from the 70's which is neat (and only cost $2 at a yard sale) which I'd like to use on my new uniform (my current one was damaged recently). Is it frowned upon to use something other than the lodge flap that was given to me when I went through my ordeal? How about shoulder patches? Currently in my unit apx. half of the membership has the current shoulder patch, and the other half has the older one which was used for many years through the late 90's. So it is not "uniform" even currently. However, no one is using the patch I would like to use, which is from the 70s or maybe the 80s (I'm not even sure, I've never seen anyone else wearing it) I understand that I should not wear patches which are incompatable with the new tan uniforms, but both of these patches look great on the tan. They are the same shape and contain the same information as the newer patches, the design is just different. I just think the look of a semi-retro patched uniform would be an interesting conversation topic for some of the region's history. But I don't want to step on any toes, official or otherwise. Thanks for your help in advance!