packsaddle

While the bias of the report is obvious, I think Pitts is in error in his associations. There is no question that the events he described happened, but I am very doubtful that religion was a culprit in any of them. I also note that while there are Christians (and Jews and Buddhists, etc.) who are Unitarian Universalists, Unitarian Universalism is NOT a Christian faith. The association of something bad with a certain view or belief can be a chicken and egg situation. In one sense, to credit 'religion' with the ability to influence people to great evil associates it with great power over people. It is equally logical (and I think more probable) that people disposed to great evil would seek a rationale for their predisposition and to conveniently employ religion as a result. In this sense I can more easily explain the Jim Bakkers and Jim Joneses of the world as having exploited religious faith rather than having been influenced by it. Same thing for 'jailhouse conversions' for people who have committed unspeakably bad crimes. I remain skeptical.

"...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." If you suddenly feel uncomfortably warm, this could be the explanation. Or maybe swine flu.

I have been trying to compare the changes I've seen over the years beginning in the '60s when I was a boy scout. At that time, the options were limited compared to today. And I admit that my observations probably don't apply to many other areas of the country. So with that in mind have observed some patterns. Today's troop gets scouts primarily from feeder cub scout packs. Yes, a few mavericks stray in from time to time but the main cohort crosses over together and moves into a troop. The boys that go into cub scouts are greatly influenced by their parents and I'm guessing that in our area there are about 30-50% single parents. Their motives vary but there is little question in my mind that marketing by National has almost nothing to do with their decision. Almost 100% of the decision is based on what they hear from other parents, on what they see in the community, and on local sources of information. I think that out of this entire unit, maybe 4 boys subscribe to Boys Life. Most of them are firmly embedded, for better or worse, in the internet and they might go to the library to log on but little else. But that's not why they're in the unit. They are there because they started in a good cub scout pack, enjoyed it, created a social circle with other scouts, and stayed with it. For the most part. So we do our marketing the old fashioned way: we stay visible with our service projects, the parades, the fund-raisers, etc. And parents make their decisions by what they see and hear in the community. Therefore my answer to the question of how to bring in a broader base of the population...is first really to make the broader public feel like part of that shared community. Do that and everything else will take care of itself.

Thanks Neal, I was about to write the same thing. I can only add that in step 2 of the 12 steps on the last page, it again lists, "unit leader". Unit leader could also mean ASM, but that line, "scoutmaster/coach/advisor" is less equivocal. This council does accept ASM signatures for that line. I'm not sure if others do and I'm not going to push it here lest we get 'clarification'. Edited part: You guys are sure writing quickly. Mojo, when you write about finishing the journey it makes me a bit concerned. At age '14', Eagle or not, I hope you and your son do not consider yourselves as 'finished' with scouting. Assuming he does complete the rank in another unit, he will still have 4 years or so to continue to participate in various leadership capacities. I attained Eagle at age 15 and I stayed with the troop until I went to college because I really wanted to. I never considered myself 'finished' until I was booted at age 18, LOL. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Are you telling me now that he did the project already, without the approval signatures? I'm not clear on this point.

Merlyn, man that was just so beautiful I can hardly stand it. My short answer is 'yes', must be so.

Here are the facts as I understand them from you: 1) Your son is 13 and has been enthusiastic about scouting 2) He has advanced quickly to Life 3) He has identified an Eagle service project that the recipient organization has approved 4) The SM and one other leader met with your son and claimed that "he had not "given back to the troop enough" so they were not going to even look at his project." They have not examined the project proposal 5) The SM and the DAC are the same person. If the above are correct, both the scoutmaster AND the DAC have refused to look at Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project Workbook in which he proposes to demonstrate leadership by giving back to scouting and the community because....he hasn't given back enough. Do I have it right so far? I'm at a loss for how to proceed because this is so different from this unit. Our DAC is not allowed to act in that capacity for his own troop if he is also a Scoutmaster. Actually, considering the immense amount of work the DAC does, I can't see how he COULD also be a SM. Moreover, the council accepts any leader's signature on the approval page for the Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project Workbook. But even if you had an ASM to sign, the SM (aka DAC) could still stop it in its tracks. Unless someone else in the forums can come up with another approach, I suggest you investigate the idea of joining a Venture unit or perhaps becoming a Lone Scout. Maybe both. If it was my son, I'd do whatever I could to keep the flame from going out in his mind. One other thing. Write everything down and date it. Note every phone call, every meeting (who was there, what was said, how long did it last?). Jot down every thought and every statement. These things will serve as a way to remember details that you may forget in the future if you don't pursue the final alternative. The final (emphasis on 'final') alternative is...just quit. No threats, no warnings. Just announce to the Committee Chair that your son has decided not to be a member any longer. If they don't ask why, don't offer another word. If they do, inform them in detail. But if you decide to make this move, don't waver. Don't use this as a tactic in some passive aggressive game. Detail or not, go ahead and do it. Your son is 13 now and there will be time for him to reflect on his decision. He may decide that there are better things in life than scouting (and there ARE a lot of great things out there). He may decide, when the pressure and frustration of the moment have been removed, to pick it back up later and try again...maybe with another unit or who knows, maybe with that unit and other leaders. Either way, scouting is not life. If he is as precocious as you describe, he'll do fine in any direction he chooses and it will be scouting's loss. He'll be able to respond with the most devastating response there is...to live a great life without them. In that way he'll also serve as an role model to other boys of how leadership and success can be found outside the scouting experience.

Yeah, OneHour, that's a great idea. Just remember to cut the burrs off the inside edges of the pvc so it doesn't snag the fabric. I use something like that idea but I put real (dead) bugs on them. Don't last long though but the pvc is permanent and you can reglue almost anything. I'd say you can use anything that works as a slide. The quirkier the better.

Mojo, Welcome to the forums. Nice name by the way. Please remember and try to communicate this to your son as well, that those leaders who are stonewalling are well-meaning volunteers who THINK they are doing the right thing. Unfortunately the structure of your organization seems to have placed them where there is no way to appeal to good sense or another authority. I suggest you refer to this thread which has discussed the issues for which your son provides a textbook example: http://www.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=238986 If you read through that thread you'll see diverse opinions but I doubt that very many of the respondents would side with your son's leaders. That said, those leaders don't have to listen to anything other than their own opinions. They aren't likely give an inch if there is no other source of oversight. Which seems to be the case for your son. Therefore, I think you have done what you can do. If there IS another unit that does things correctly, I think it is time to send your message in the form of footsteps disappearing to the other unit. The unit I support has picked up several outstanding scouts over the years for precisely these kinds of things and we appreciate it. Those boys ALL made Eagle and have gone on to be fine citizens. And WE have their names on our plaque because someone else stood in their way in another unit. Their loss...our gain. If you decide to make the move, make sure your son communicates this clearly as the reason to the other scouts. Could be some of them are ready to send a message as well. But remember, don't do this unless it is clearly the best choice for your son...and not to 'get at' those leaders who are standing in the way. They are good people who see things differently and don't have to listen to alternatives. Let the market give them the message if they can't get it any other way.

You're right, it's on the old version, not the new one.

Here we go again. OK, on a slightly different direction, why is the SSN necessary for Eagle? Is there a background check on a boy applying for advancement?

Welcome! I have some good friends over there, some have been in scouting in the past so I know there are good programs in that area. I'll probably get over to V'burg later this summer to visit. Hope you have a great time with the boys.

Not that I disagree with the statement about "...whether the registrar at Harvard would accept the graduation requirements for Podunk, or even Yale. Answer: No.", but if you watch this video, you might wonder about the 'excellence' of Harvard. I show it to my students at the beginning of the course and then refer to every stumble thereafter as a 'Harvard moment'. http://www.learner.org/resources/series28.html

"My guess..." Wow, you really have no idea at all. Just some wild guess that didn't answer the question. "I'm ok with that. No you're not," And now you are a greater authority on what's in my mind than I am. Beavah, sorry fella, time to call this quits.

"In other words, the government should be permitted to force Catholic OB/GYNs to abandon their faith and convert to your way of thinking or lose their career and livelihood." That would be your spin on what I wrote and that's why you wrote, "In other words...", yours specifically. The consequences that I am thinking about have nothing to do with abandoning their faith or conversion. They have a simple choice. It might be a tough choice but that's something we all have to face in life. But since you mentioned it, and given the reality is that your fears are going to come to pass, you wrote that this would be "forcing large numbers of physicians and health care workers to make a choice between their livelihood and their faith..." Really? Do you have those numbers available? I'm interested. What percentage of physicians and health care workers do they represent? Edited part: Oh yeah, Sheldonsmom was not denied health care. She rejected the first practitioner, not the other way around. She made a choice based on HER personal needs. I'm ok with that.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Rather yeh use "what's the best choice for this boy and this group of boys to help 'em grow?"" DUH! You really don't get this do you? That's precisely the question these leaders think they've already answered. Thanks for all the help. It'll be six months and 17 years.

Yeah, when I was a kid we'd carry a sheath of sea-grape leaves and sometimes lay them ahead to step on in order to get to the shore in bare feet. I can't begin to fathom the perhaps thousands of those things I pulled out of my feet. The interesting thing is that in retrospect, it's a good memory. Wow. I'd like to ask you not to publicize that spreadsheet thing. Someone might be listening and think it's a good idea.

"You believe da government through regulation and economic discrimination should force people to renounce beliefs with which you disagree." I'd like to understand where it is that I said the above is what I believe. How is it that you know my beliefs so well? But I particularly noted the importance you place on psychosocial consequences. Nice. Because you mis-represented it, I will state my intent clearly. My intent is for everyone to have access to health care that isn't limited by someone else's personal beliefs. I am sympathetic to the idea of removing all government support for health care, including medicare, medicaid, indigent care by hospitals, etc. I have stated this in the past. Make health care totally private and available for whoever can afford it. Under that system doctors and hospitals can deny access on whatever basis they choose and the market will take care of things. Right? But that's not reality. We have decided that we are going to have some kinds of government assistance. I don't expect that to last once the dollar has completely collapsed but that's some time in the future. In the meantime, if a doctor wants to be paid with my tax dollars, he should be ready to take the consequences if he denies treatment. That's today's reality. Tomorrow may be yours.

Sandspur, nice name by the way, I have had the same changes of thought. And I agree with Beavah that simplistic clarity doesn't do it. I never mentioned 'simplistic', though that kind of thing seems to be one of his favorite tactics in an argument. I confronted this issue the first time when an SM who thought he knew better than anyone else what an Eagle Scout should be (he never made it himself) declared that he would not allow any boy to complete those requirements until after age 17. I note that his requirement was perfectly clear. What wasn't clear was his reasoning for it. Another SM requires a boy to start over on a MB if he doesn't finish within six months of starting it. Also clear. The reasoning is also clear. These rules are being applied as I write. Another wanted to require additional lashings and service projects for advancement from Scout to 1st Class. THAT, at least went away. One SM required a minimum total of 150 hours of labor for an Eagle project. I'm not sure of the current status. There are abundant examples like this. I find myself in disagreement with these leaders when I ask what the benefit to the boy is for each requirement. That is when their simplistic clarity becomes nebulous. They can't provide a convincing explanation for what benefit it is to boys to be limited in these ways. I ask them, for example, if a boy is highly motivated and precocious as he devours scoutcraft and responsibilities, how does that boy benefit from being held back? If a boy takes more than six months because he finds the subject difficult, what benefit is it to arbitrarily require him to start over on a MB. In this second case, I already know the answer because the clear justification that the SM states has nothing whatsoever to do with benefit to the boy. It merely has to do with someone having to keep track of advancement. Bean counting. I'm sorry Beavah. I'm simply not going to be able to agree. Either we follow the actual official requirements or else we're going to have nonsense like this.

"You've only demonstrated your willingness to confine people with religious beliefs different than your own to lower wage careers and reduced economic access." Not at all, there's always financial and legal services or perhaps televangelism. Plenty of money and those don't seem to have any ethical entanglements. You seem to be hung up on excommunications. The problem is that excommunication means NOTHING to me. I couldn't care less if someone is excommunicated, I challenge you to demonstrate actual physical harm from it. But excommunication is a red herring designed to distract from the principle being argued. I am arguing about a principle and I think you understand that but you're unable to interact on that level.

OGE, you might not have known it but around the Monteagle area there are dozens of great caves and camping spots. One park, Foster Falls, is a favorite of mine in the area. Not too far from there in Alabama is Russell Cave National Monument, a really nice under-appreciated NM where you can get one of the best demos of primitive survival skills I've ever seen and the boys get to try them as well. And they have a group camping area that's really nice. Something to put on the list for your troop perhaps.

Beavah, for me the merit of the military approach was its clarity. And I agree with you regarding bureaucracy, that's almost always inane from my perspective, I have little time for bean counters. But you ignored the main part of my response and focused on a peripheral point to spin a red herring argument. My main point was about clarity. My point can be applied to what you and PACK15NISSAN and others of similar thought seem to be promoting. I think it's a fair request that if you think a boy must do something more than what is spelled out in the written requirements, you ought to be clear about what that is. It shouldn't apply ONLY to that one boy. It should be understood the same way by everyone to whom it does apply. I would like to see it written. IF your communication skills don't allow you to clearly articulate your intent in written form (and so far, not a single such instance has been completed for this unit), then I suggest that it isn't as clear to you as you seem to think it is - unlikely to be any clearer to those to whom you attempt to communicate it. And you should rethink it until it IS clear. THEN you might be prepared to present it to someone else with sufficient clarity that there will be no confusion. My request is a modest one. It does not deny your ability to go beyond the written requirements. It merely requests clarity. Is this unreasonable?

"...da last time I checked one physician can't "deny" full access to legal medical care, eh?" We just need to keep it that way. "And that if they're a Christian and don't believe in providin' a particular service that they either have to give up their belief (aka "convert")..." weren't you just talking about spin? I'm in awe... No, they just have to provide the service. Nothing about that requires one iota of lost beliefs or so-called 'conversion'. It just requires providing to paying customers whatever medical care those customers choose. Otherwise, "...or give up that career..." if they can't choke down the idea of providing full access to legal medical care? Sure. That would be the physician's choice. If he chooses not to provide full access perhaps he SHOULD be doing something else. Perhaps the clergy.

I'm going to overlook that reference to thoughtless recitation. To me the problem with 'adding to the requirements' (thar she blows!) is the risk, indeed certainty, that unwritten things will change with the whims of whoever thinks they know something at the time. I have seen this. In each case I have not directly challenged the notion, whatever it is, that is being required. I ask for the idea to be explained clearly enough so that everyone can understand it. I also suggest that if it can be expressed with such clarity, it could and should be written so that everyone will be able to see it, same as everyone else. All part of a level playing field and sense of fairness. So far, not a single one of those notions has been up to the task. To me, 'adding to the requirements' is something that is applied without fairness, applied sometimes capriciously, perhaps even punitively. What some of us view as a healthy latitude within which we can nurture the best of each boy in uniquely optimal ways can, on the other extreme, be a punishingly inane and counterproductive waste of time. I guess I was influenced by the clarity of chain of command and the clarity of a well-written set of orders that I enjoyed working with the Army, but I saw that as something that usually worked well. Unwritten, nebulous, unclear, off-the-cuff rules that we make up on-the-fly don't work well. Worse, they can hurt young men needlessly.

Sheldonsmom, in your case no one was forcing some procedure on you. You always had the right to reject whatever option was presented. It was your choice to seek a different practitioner. Your example is one in which you wanted NOT to have a particular treatment. That is different from a case in which might want a medical treatment but because the doctor was opposed on his personal religious grounds, he chose not to tell you about that option. In your case you were fully informed and you did have the right to make the best choice for your life based on your personal needs and religious beliefs. Why would you deny that right to another patient?