aquaticeagle

"Quote' the professionals work FOR the Volunteers not the other way around'." Not quite. Professionals do not work for the volunteers. Professionals work for the Scout Executive. A District Executive is the Executive Officer of the district and person who is responsible for its overall success. The District Executive works in support of, not for, his volunteers. If you have either a group of district volunteers who think they manage the DE or a DE who thinks he is the boss of his district and his word is law, everyone involved needs to sit down and receive a wake-up call from a successful TEAM of district leaders.

"Explain to me why I need a Unit commissioner....... When I want answers I just call or email my DE." Unit Commissioners exist so that units have what they need without having to call the DE every five minutes. DEs have an incredible amount of things to do without answering the phone for every question a unit might have. As a DE, I'm more than happy to help my units out when they need it. With 67 units though, I would never get anything productive done if I every unit called me once a week to ask a question.

Having been both a SPL and DC I think the DC job is more difficult. It can be hard to get peers to follow your lead since they are of similar age. Being an SPL means that you have several peers that are your assistants: ASPL, PL, APL. That makes the job easier because now you have an entire group of scouts that are taking charge of a troop. As DC you are the only scout that is taking any charge of a den or pack. The only fellow leaders you have are adults. Being the only youth that has any "authority" can be quite daunting. I remember it was for me. I had to work harder to get the Cubs to follow my lead. The position also requires a year of service which is longer than most scouts are in troop positions. SPL does not have several projects that have to be completed like the DC does for this award. I don't think that scouts will want the DC Service Award so that they can have the knot when their adults. They aren't thinking that far ahead. The people who will want it are those who are already adults and remember the service they provided and the work they put into their pack or den. I don't see why those people can't receive a little recognition for what they've done as a youth.

Okay. Since you aren't going to discuss the topic at hand, I guess this conversation is over. It's getting very tiresome repeating my statements over and over.

I looked it up about a year ago and could only find where the Boy Scouts had stopped their affiliation with UU. I just verified what you stated on the BSA website though so I guess my source was bad. Thanks!

"You seem to want to focus on why smokers & drinkers are still allowed to be Scouters & homosexuals aren't. To me that's pushing a personal agenda since you are ignoring the fact that big fat slobs are allowed to be Scouters yet that doesn't fit the definition of 'physically fit' either." Amazingly, you are still completely missing the point. This entire thread is based on how the BSA defines "physically strong". The BSA doesn't include "big fat slobs" in their definition so that is why I'm not talking about that. Get it? I really don't know any other way to explain my point. I don't think I've ever had to restate something so many times in one thread.

I agree OldGreyEagle. I have been very persistent on this thread but at least I am paying attention to what the thread is about. When I say "talking to a brick wall" I mean talking to someone who refuses to discuss the actual topic and keeps throwing up points that are not relevant to this discussion.

"You just can't pick & chose what factors you want to consider! And just because they aren't specifically defined in the oath doesn't lessen their importance. An overweight slob is just as physically unfit as a two-pack a day smoker! This whole thread is someone pushing an agenda, not a debate on what physically strong is." I agree that obesity and all of those other things are not examples of being "physically strong". I never said that any of those things that you mentioned are less important in a discussion of what it is to be "physically strong". I never said that once. The reason I never said it is because THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT. Again, if you'd like to start a discussion about what it is to be physically fit, go start one. This discussion is about the BSA's definition as it is stated in the Boy Scout handbook. " Would a moderator consider please putting the pig out of its misery? The squealing is tiresome." I would not argue with that actually. Talking to a brick wall has become very tiresome. A discussion is no longer a discussion when only one of the participants is paying attention.

"I'm not going to tell you anything like that, aquaticeagle! You seem to be stuck on the BSA not enforcing one point of the Scout Oath yet being physically strong is also effected by other factors besides smoking & drinking but you don't seem to want to take those into consideration. And my point is if you are gonna make that type of stand, ya better be ready to apply the same logic to the entire Oath. If not, you are pushing nothing more than you own personal agenda." evmori I agree that "physically strong" is affected by the other factors that you mentioned. I never said they weren't. I'm not taking those into consideration in this discussion because they aren't defined by the Oath and the entire focus of this discussion is what the BSA includes specifically in its definition. Since none of those other things that you listed are in that definition, they have no place in this conversation. I AM applying the same logic to the entire Oath. That's the whole point of this thread that I started. Have you been reading? The BSA defines the parts of the Oath in the Boy Scout handbook. This whole discussion is about enforcing all of that definition instead of just parts of it. If you would like to start a discussion about whether or not the BSA should expand its definition of "physically strong" to include those things you mentioned, that's fine but that is not the topic of this discussion and it was never meant to be.

"Does the BSA kick out overweight people? Do they boot those who have had premarital sex? Have they booted leaders who are adulterers? To they kick out very low IQ people or those who are mentally deficient? My father-in-law is 89 years old & has had both knees, shoulders & a hip replaced! He quit smoking 50 years ago & only had an occasional beer! His body isn't serving him well & his life isn't over! What exactly is your point? Do you want homosexuals to be Scout leaders?" I'm not sure of your point in writing any of the above except the last sentence. Why would I have a problem with a homosexual scout leader? Why do you? Are you going to tell me now how homosexuals are leading the country in child molestation cases? I hope not because there is absolutely no research to support that claim. It is something spouted by bigots and has nothing to back it up.

Okay once again, it doesn't matter what "physically strong" means to me because the discussion is not about that. The discussion is partly about why the BSA ignores its own definition of "physically strong". Here it is...again: ". . . To keep myself physically strong, . . . Take care of your body so that it will serve you well for an entire lifetime. That means eating nutritious foods, getting enough sleep, and exercising regularly to build strength and endurance. it also means avoiding harmful drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and anything else that can harm your health." - Boy Scout Handbook How do they ignore it? Have they kicked anyone out for smoking or drinking? It clearly states here in the definition of the Oath that scouts should avoid smoking and drinking. Since it's spelled out clearly here and being gay is NOT spelled out clearly in "morally straight", shouldn't smokers and drinkers be more heavily punished? Once again, I don't personally believe that smokers and drinkers should be removed anymore than I believe that gays should. I just believe that if the BSA is going to use the Oath to remove people from membership, they should honor the entire Oath and not just the parts that they like.

I agree that to be scouts should avoid smoking, drinking and illegal drugs as the BSA definition states but I also understand that it would be very unrealistic to expect that of every member. Again, the discussion of this thread is not what "physically strong" means but why the BSA chooses to ignore that very specific part of the Oath while enforcing the part that is very ambiguous and not specific. Yes, I understand the purpose of the PM system but I wonder why you wouldn't want everyone in the discussion to see the "extremely immoral and corrupt" part about homosexuals in society. This is a discussion that everyone on this thread is involved in so when answering a question asked on the thread, it should be answered on the thread.

evmori, please don't do what people were doing at the beginning of this thread and put words in my mouth. I never defined "physically strong" I simply provided the definition that the BSA has written in every Boy Scout handbook and asked why they don't enforce that part of the Oath. Also, in regards to your PM, why would we be destined for an extremely corrupt and immoral society if homosexuality became normal? Can you back that up?

What's your point?

"Shoulda been more specific. Homosexual couples can't procreate without outside help where traditional couples can. And yeah I know not all traditional couples can & need outside help but not 100% of the time." Why does it matter? The fact is that some straight couples can't conceive either so if you're going to say that homosexuals shouldn't be together for that reason then you might as well say that sterile men and women should remain single and anyone else who has no chance of conception. You gonna try to tackle that?