Proud Eagle

If NO ONE is elected on the first vote, a second vote MAY be held. If no one is elected on the second vote, then no one from that unit is elected for the year. If one person is elected on the first vote, then the first vote stands. This is an issue that can best be solved by better preparation. Any OA members in the unit need to make certain that the election process is taken seriously by the other members. They should do this both by approaching the election with the correct attitude the night of the election, and by taking the opportunity to highlight the importance of OA throughout the year. However, the best thing Arrowmen can do is to live up to the Obligation and help fulfill the purpose of the OA in the unit. The OA Rep and his adviser need to be looking at ways to make certain this happens. Further, the PLC and the adult leaders need to look at ways to prepare the unit for the election in the weeks leading up to the election. The OA election team cannot do the entire job the night of the election if the ground work has not already been put in place. Also, simply talking about it the week before really won't cut it either. Now that this has happened, I would suggest incorporating something about the democratic process the responsibility given to voters in an SM minute. Or two or three...

Let us start by taking a look at the purpose of the OA. "Purpose of the Order To recognize those campers-Scouts and Scouters-who best exemplify the Scout Oath and Law in their daily lives and by such recognition cause other campers to conduct themselves in such manner as to warrant recognition. To develop and maintain camping traditions and spirit. To promote Scout camping, which reaches it greatest effectiveness as a part of the unit's camping program, both year-round and in the summer camp, as directed by the camping committee of the council. To crystallize the Scout habit of helpfulness into a life purpose of leadership in cheerful service to others." Order of the Arrow Handbook, 2004 edition I will break this into four parts to make it a bit easier to analyze. "To recognize those campers-Scouts and Scouters-who best exemplify the Scout Oath and Law in their daily lives and by such recognition cause other campers to conduct themselves in such manner as to warrant recognition." The first issue we come across is weather or not Venturers are Scouts and Scouters. Putting that aside for the moment, we come to the fact that they must exemplify the Scout Oath and Law. Venturers do not take the Scout Oath, nor do they strive to live up to the 12 points of the Law. The ideals of Venturing are expressed in the Venturing Oath and Code. These are not the same as the Scout Oath and Law, just as the Cub Scout Promise and the Law of the Pack are not the same. "To develop and maintain camping traditions and spirit." On this count Venturers would seem fully qualified, at least at first glance. However if we look at the methods of each program, we see that Boy Scouting has Outdoor Program, while Venturing's nearest equivalents are High Adventure and Group Activities. So, yes, on this section I will say the Venturers could fit. "To promote Scout camping, which reaches it greatest effectiveness as a part of the unit's camping program, both year-round and in the summer camp, as directed by the camping committee of the council." The first issue is "Scout camping". Do Venturers do any "Scout camping"? Does Venturing seek to put on the same type of Outdoor Program as Boy Scouting? I don't think so. The issue of summer camp is also quite important. OA started as a summer camp program. For Boy Scouting summer camp has always been one of the highlight activities. Yet for Venturing, it seems to me that in some ways the High Adventure method takes the place of summer camp. Consider also that this year the new camp standards indicate that Boy Scout units and Venturing units should not be attending the same camp at the same time. Could this be because someone thinks that to some extent the Venturing and Boy Scouting programs are not fully compatible? "To crystallize the Scout habit of helpfulness into a life purpose of leadership in cheerful service to others." While I would certainly hope that Venturers are helpful, you will not find the word helpful (or a synonym for it) any place in the Venturing Oath or Code. Now there are some other points I would like to make, but they are primarily rooted in the ceremonies. Therefore I will save them for a day when a similar discussion pops up in the safeguarded section. I think that the arguments I have made will help demonstrate why the Order does not hold elections in Venturing units. Consideration should also be made of the logistical, youth protection, and other such issues involved with allowing Venturers into OA. Clearly the BSA does not think that a BSA resident camp is capable of fulfilling the needs of both Boy Scouts and Venturers at the same time. If the staff of a summer camp is not considered to be up to that task, then I see no reason to think that the leadership of an OA lodge would be. Venturing does need to establish more firmly what its identity is. The fact that Venurers want to take part in Boy Scout programs and yet are nearly offended if you suggest they are Scouts indicates just how large the need for Venturing to establish its identity is. I do not think creating a "OA for Venturing" type honor society would be a good idea. I have just demonstrated why OA is not really compatible with Venturing. Venturing is a program with many different varied focuses. Some crews are somewhat eclectic, others very specialized. If Venturing is to have an honor society it must meet the needs of all Venturers and Venturing units. I personally think that the Venturing Officer Association would be a better starting point for helping to establish the identity of the Venturing program. Now as to the larger issue of co-ed Scouting, that is an entirely separate discussion.

This seems like a good idea to me. I know the Catholic Church offers two different adult awards. (Only one qualifies for the knot, the other doesn't) I think that one of them is more "earn-able" though not entirely so. The other, the one that is recognized for the knot, is very rare even among Catholic Scouters serving in Catholic chartered units. It is done through some sort of nomination and selection process. Perhaps two types of religious emblems would be appropriate. One could be more or less "earn-able" while the other could be given to selected individuals as an honor. Perhaps the one given as a special honor could even be classified as a community organization award. This would allow a knot to be issued for each. I am not suggesting that more knots or awards for adults is a good thing in and of itself. Rather, a program that encourages people to participate in the religious emblem program would be of value. My final suggestion is that more needs to be done to help Scouts and Scouters in units not affiliated with their own faith to receive information about the religious emblem program and gain access to Scouting materials and information relating to their faith. The use of more on line content would seem to be an easy first step in that. I know years ago I asked a priest at my church to look into the Catholic religious emblem program, but it never really happened. Since I was at a troop chartered to a Methodist church, there really weren't many opportunities for this. Also, the council held annual Catholic Scouting retreats, but I never knew anything about these until I became an adult. After all, why would a Methodist troop need to publicize a Catholic retreat? I don't have any sort of ill will over this, it is just one of those things that can easily happen, particularly when the religious programs are not being promoted.

I would certainly like to see the coarse offered in a one week format from time to time. I know that I can certainly do a week in the summer more easily than I can get off two days during the fall or spring terms. Pluss, I don't really like to make two trips for what could be done in one. That being said, for many people a week simply is impossible.

I have never had tea outside the US, except in Canada. In that case I made the mistake of asking for iced tea and got some chalky, cloudy stuff made from a powder. That was bad. Most American tea is pretty simple, basic stuff. Not real great, but palitable when you are thirsty. (Unlike that crud I had in Canada.) Most of it is probably really best if made into iced tea and served with lemon and sugar. For hot tea (I don't like coffee, but I do like tea) I discovered several rather good varieties a number of years ago. There are some good fruity herbal teas. Then I discovered some tea from a British company sold in a variety pack with some common British teas in it. Earl Grey and English breakfast tea are two that I found that I like. So, if I am buying tea, I usually look for Earl Grey. I noticed that what I have been drinking lately came from Sri Lanka. It is good for both hot and iced tea. It goes well with food or just as a drink. I do usually add some sugar (honey would be better), but I keep the lemon out of the hot tea. That is my take on tea. How you managed to switch from tea to coffee I will never know. That terrible stuff in Canada was only a bit worse than most coffee.

I too would rather talk about making Scouting a better place for the Scouts. However, the unfortunate truth is that we must from time to time have an airing of grievances to better things. After all, while we may need to do a better job for our own Scouts, what about the Scouts in paper units? or Scouts in a "lets start a new unit to meet the quality district" troop? They also deserve a chance to receive the benefits of Scouting. Until something is changed an it is recognized that more charters being issued does not make the program better and that more membership cards being sent out doesn't mean more kids are getting the benefits of Scouting, then I don't think we will see an end to these sort of problems. Scouting makes a promise to its members, their parents, and its supporters. Too often we have sacrificed quality for quantity. Is was for this reason that when I was lodge chief, I essentially swore off making Quality Lodge a real goal. I had seen drives for Brotherhood membership made just to make quality. I had seen people being kept on the roster just so we wouldn't lose members. I thought there had to be a better way. It turns out there is. Now as a Lodge Adviser, Quality Lodge is one of my goals. However, I am not willing to make Quality Lodge at all costs. Rather, I want Quality Lodge to be used as a guide for setting other goals and measuring performance. However, in the end, Quality Lodge should be like advancement, it should be a natural product of the program. If we put on a good program, Quality Lodge should happen without us ever having a special Brotherhood membership drive to make Quality Lodge. This is kind of like that whole argument about standardized testing and "teaching to the test". If people aren't careful they wind up with a bunch of students who know exactly how to take and pass the standard test but can't do much of anything else. We need tools to measure progress and quality levels. We just need to make sure the tools we have are the right ones for the job and that the tools are being used as intended, not in some other way.

Does he want to learn more about himself and his ability to serve others? Does he want to work with others in providing service? Does he want to learn about and promote camping traditions? Does he want to have a chance to get together with some of the best Scouts and Scouters in your entire council? Does he want a chance to make new friends and have some fun doing new things? Does he want to learn about and practice leadership outside the troop? Does he want to learn how to make himself a better Scout? If the answer to any of those question is yes, then he has a reason for being in the OA. If the answer to all of the above is a "no", then he should probably not be in the OA. OA is an honor society. Its purpose is to honor Scouts and Scouters who eximplify the Oath and Law in their daily lives, who are a friend to other Scouts, and who uphold camping traditions. It is for such people that OA exists. The OA isn't about slave labor for the Scout camp, it is about recognizing people who live up to the ideals of Scouting. Now, OA also offers many opportunities for service. Sometimes these are fun, sometimes they are not so fun. One of the great things about OA is it helps teach the value of that part that isn't so much fun. OA also gives youth additional chances to learn about and practice leadership. Finally, it offers a chance for members to have a lot of fun. I really mean that. The Ordeal isn't supposed to be all fun and games. It is, after all, and ordeal. There is much more to experience besides the Ordeal. There are fellowships, Conclaves, and high adventure opportunities. These events are focused on promoting the concept of Brotherhood between Arrowmen and are fun. There is also the opportunity to make some new friends.

I would suggest looking at the online Safety Afloat and Safe Swim Defense trainings. Also check out the Guide to Safe Scouting and the booklet on Tours and Expeditions. These have additional information. I think that for the 6th point of the safety afloat program the online training was suggesting some rather specific things. It said that for any trip on running water all participants must either pass a basic handling test for the type of boat to be used, or they must have a certain number of hours of supervised practice (3 seems to come to mind, but that may not be right) before venturing into running waters.

I feel certain I posted a message about almost the exact same thing sometime last year. In any case, I got this question on my Eagle BOR. This makes a good thread, and a good BOR question. I suggested thoughtful, as in a Scout thinks before he acts or speaks. Through the discussion that followed, we determined that really wasn't much of a help. After all, if a Scout is using the Oath and Law as a test for his actions, by the time he came to #13, thoughtful, he would have already done the required thinking. I think the vast majority of additions will wind up being covered in some way as is. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, but it is a pretty good set. Also, keep in mind that 12 is one of those numbers that carries a special significance for some reason. (as does 3 parts for the Oath, though one could argue it has 4 parts) [historicly 12, 3, 7, and 40 have been numbers of special significance for various reasons] After all, if a Scout is really doing their best, then persistance should already be part of the equation. I am not suggesting we try to make the Oath and Law seem like infalible things, nor should we pick apart a Scouts answer. Instead, I am suggesting we should prompt the Scout to consider their answer carefully and determine if it isn't at least implied by the current system. Also, I think by the time they get to the poin they could handle more than 12, they will already be able to start filling in the gaps on their own. After all, we are trying to give them the ability to make ethical decisions over a lifetime. If they can't do a bit of extrapolation, then we are probably wasting our time.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but... I thought Boxwell was the name of the Reservation and that there were several distinct camps within the reservation. The place seemed pretty nice when I was there for an OA conclave. I really can't say anything one way or the other about summer program quality. One note, the showers and bathrooms at this place are so nice it is obscene. Individual little rooms in a big block building. Give me a break. I mean really, what is wrong with the ye ole privy? The Mid-Ten people sure do know how to raise money. Everything at that camp has a bronze plaque attached with the name of some donor on it. I wouldn't drive 561 miles for it, but that is just me. I would gladly drive the distance from where I live to Boxwell, but not 561 miles. If you choose Boxwell, let us all know about it. Best of luck in selecting a camp and I hope your summer plans work out well.

Attempts at non-sectarian prayers are bound to not be meaningful to a significant number of people. There are those who believe that to be valid prayer must come in certain forms, or be made in certain ways, or be made to a certain specific higher power. Some only believe in silent prayer. Others think you need to shot to the heavens to make certain God hears you. Others will only pray on their knees. Some think they must stand while praying. Others think only certain particular prayers are valid. Then there is the simple fact that most people are really no good at coming up with a non-sectarian prayer in the first place. After all, a non-sectarian prayer is somewhat contrary to the general idea of religion. Religion is a series of practices and beliefs based on faith in some type of higher power. To make a prayer non-sectarian (meaning it doesn't respect any one or any group of sects) makes it in a way non-religious. It isn't a prayer based informed by the practices and beliefs of a faith group, instead it is a prayer based on no ones practices or beliefs, and grounded in a faith in nothing in particular. So, for some, meaningful non-sectarian prayer is not possilbe. For many more, the ability to create a decent non-sectarian prayer is a completely unfamiliar things. After all, to do so requires a temporary suspension of their own religious practices. Is it possible to create a good non-sectarian Scout's Own service? Yes. Is it easy? No. Will even the best Scout's Own service be meaningful to all people of faith? No. You simply can't please everyone at once. You may be able to please most people most of the time, but you can never please all people all of the time. Now, care should be taken not to bash someone over the head with your religion. Care should also be taken not to deny them the opportunity to practice their own faith. (Jewish kid and pork being a good example, though even then there is a possibility of it being impossible to accomadate someone. Some orthodox Jews maintain that you may not ever place meat in a container that has held milk, and vice-versa. If you are going to accomodate everyone, then that would mean to accomodate such a person their patrol would need to be given two new sets of cookware and utensils, and everyone in the patrol would need to learn kosher food preparation procedures, etc.) Like most everything else a balance point must be found. The needs wants of the many must be balanced against the needs of the few. How exactly to do this is too complicated to determine on a national level, hince the decleration on religious principles and the oath an law. It gives you a guide, but doesn't box you into an unrealistic position. So for a troop where everyone is Christian, they may decide to pray to God in the name of Jesus. For a troop that has people of every faith under the sun, they may decide that non-sectarian is a must. For another troop, they may decide that offering everyone a chance to contribute something from their own faith is the way to go.

This isn't surprising. I know of people who were paid to provide names and personal information on people that were of the appropriate ages to be listed as youth on charters. This was years ago and the DE behind it has long since moved on, but it was a matter that they could create a fake unit, pay someone to find people to be paper members, and pay all the fees out of pocket, and still come out ahead because it would ensure his continued employment and probably a raise. When you tie a persons continued employment to something like membership it leads to people taking the past of least resistance, particularly when they are in a bind and don't see a legitimate way of making the quota. Again, this goes into that area of holding people responsible for things they cannot control. It would be sort of like holding a meteorologist responsible for what kind of weather we get. He can't control it. All he can do is predict it, report on it, help people prepare for it, etc. Or, to use a historical example from involving someone from my home town, Admiral Kimmel being held responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor was a similar instance. It wasn't his fault that he didn't have adequate intelligence, or that the intelligence he did received indicated he needed to guard against sabotage, not air attack. Add to that the fact he was forced to actually stop certain measures such as long range patrols because they cost too much, and it really isn't fare that he was blamed for what happened. Yet, he was held responsible for the destruction of the fleet. In any case, those who did in this case do something wrong, should be drummed out. Someone must be held responsible for these acts, because someone had to actually go and report these fake members. That is a lie. If it is a professional, this should end their carreer. If it is a volunteer, then they are no longer needed. (Also, if a volunteer, someone needs to smack the registrar for not paying enough attention to notice this.) Finally, why did the volunteer who noticed the mistake not find a way to get this cleared up in house? Why is the FBI involved in this? The council should have cleaned up its act, found out what went wrong, and then reported the findings to the United Way and others.

The election team and SM should know the results. It is up to the SM if the results are to be kept secret until call-out or other notification is given. If the SM wishes it, the candidates can be informed of their election that very night be the election team. This is at the discretion of the SM if he want the results announced or kept under wraps. However, while the SM has the option of announcing the results, I don't know about sharing them with the OA rep. There is no rule against it, but there is no provision for it either (unless the OA rep is helping the election team, which he should probably do, but not to the extent of counting the ballots or anything like that). I think this is a case where the SM should have delivered the info to the OA Troop Rep, if that is what the SM chose to do. In any case, there was no harm done, but I do wonder why the SM wanted the OA rep told? Was he expecting him to make certain the candidates were at the call-out, or received information on the ordeals? I can only speculate. If he needed the information to perform his duties, then fine, if it was just being done as some kind of special privilege, then not so fine.

You are correct that we don't want that. However, it is what we had been doing for several years. Since the call out was between the two ordeals available, we had to notify the candidates in writing before the first ordeal. This wasn't exactly great, so we have changed our ordeal schedule to have them both be after the summer camp call-outs. The solution is found in the proper planning of the annual calendar, not in a kink in the rules. Perhaps to get through the current years the Lodge Executive Committee should vote to allow everyone to go through up to a year after notification (that special extension power it has). However, they should also commit to finding a better permanent solution at the same time.

Just to limit this list to those programs that are in some way official, there is quite a list of training sessions and activities a youth can participate in: Introduction to Leadership (conducted after taking a new position in the troop) Scoutmaster's Junior Leader Training (also called Troop JLT) council National Youth Leader Training (formerlly JLTC) NYLT Instructor Camp at Philmont Training Center National Leadership Seminar (OA) National Order of the Arrow Conference Section Conclave (OA) Lodge Leadership Developement Coarse (OA) Den Chief training Then there are other training opportunities available such as: Councilor in Training (CIT) programs at camp being a youth staffer for woodbadge (there is a section to be presented by youth) serving in any POR in the troop taking on a role on a committee in the OA American Red Cross training like CPR and First Aid certification The point is though, when it comes to learning leadership skills to apply at the unit level, there is already plenty if the leaders of the unit choose to run the program well. This is especially true since most youth leaders never complete all the leadership training now available before aging out. If you are looking to learn specific skills, then consider working with some really top notch merit badge councilors. That way, if you want to learn more about a subject than is required for a badge, you can get more info. Also, consider looking at the references mentioned in the MB books. There is much you can learn on your own by reading. You should also be learning new skills at summer camp. There are many knowledge people at camp that could help you out with a variety of things. Camporees should also help everyone hone their Scouting skills. Then there are the adults and other experienced youth in your own troop. These really should be the first source for information. They should be able to either teach you or help you find a source for just about any Scouting skill you can think of. Now, you may be thinking that none of this really equals National Camp School, or the many offerings at Philmont Training Center. However, a youth wouldn't really be able to apply many of those things. After all, a youth can't be an aquatics directer. I think if you look at all the training that is available for youth, you will see it compares favorably with that available to adults. After all, while there may be many adult training coarses, most of them are only for adults working in certain specific parts of the Scout program. This isn't to say there isn't room for improvement. There always is. However, if between taking the trainings mentioned here, working on MBs, working with the leaders of your unit, getting involved in being a part of the staff for training, taking on PORs, and other things that come along still aren't enough for you, then maybe you should slow down, take a deep breath, and consider what your goals and priorities are. If you still think you need to know more advanced techniques for rock climbing or something, perhaps you should consider joining a local climbing group. (Just don't forget about Scouts. Think of all the cool rock climbing stories you could tell around the campfire.)

There is no doubt that God created the world. That is quote I have heard many people say. Why do they say it? Because the have no doubts about that issue. Due to a combination of evidence, reason, and faith they have come to a very definitive conclusion. Now, when the President makes a statement in a similar way, I take it to mean he has no doubts. If you assume it means no one in the government has doubts, or no one any where has doubts, then you are an idiot. After all, you can find someone somewhere that believes anything. Chances are, the same applies to the government. For thousands of years, people have reached concrete, solid conclusions within their own minds about issues of religion with only a tiny shred of real hard evidence. People similarly form opinions and conclusions about many other things based on only small amounts of information. People also come to conclusions based on inaccurate information. It is not logical to think that on an issue informed by information, that is by its very nature prone to being incomplete and inaccurate, should be an issue on which there is no doubts expressed by someone in some place. The most critical bit of information that bursts the Bush saying "no doubts" as speaking for everyone is the fact that there were people in government who had access to current intelligence, and others who had been in government and once had access to intelligence, who expressed doubts and provided arguments behind their doubts. If you didn't notice this fact tough. The President never has, and never will, speak for every person in government service or for every American. So, when the President makes a statement such as those, it should be taken to indicate that he has no doubts. After all, if the President came out and said that there is no doubt that God created the Earch because he has seen credible evidence that supports that, you wouldn't be surprised to find someone at CIA, or NASA, or one of those places who did have some doubts.

As far as I know, the admonition is not found in the handbook. I could be wrong, but I have never seen it in the handbook.

Some other interesting thoughts. The various weapons reports that have come out since the invasion have provided some useful information. They have indicated that no significant WMD finds have taken place. They have indicated that further searching is not likely to turn up any significant finds. The going theory is that is because there are no giant stockpiles left in Iraq. As to weather or not that means Saddam didn't have as much as we thought, or he destroyed most of it, or sent most of it to other countries we don't really know. Is is possible he never had WMD? Well, no, we have hard evidence that at some point he did have some WMD. Is is possible that some place out in the middle of the sands, or under some parking lot, there are thousands of tons of weapons? Yes, it is possible. Also, the possibility that the weapons went to another country should not be overlooked. After all, we would have no way of finding the stuff if it is hidden outside of Iraq. We know that a great deal of the documentation relating to WMD and other military, weapons, and intelligence programs in Iraq were either destroyed or hidden before the war. Then some of the information that remained was destroyed by the fighting of the invasion. This makes it very difficult to find out exactly what was going on. We know there were multiple programs going on to deceive various elements of the government within Iraq, being carried out by other parts of the same government. Some projects would produce false progress reports stating they were doing better than they actually were, others were hiding their progress for various reasons. We know the UN inspectors were systematically mislead. We know the extent of the misinformation campaign against them was larger than ever previously thought. Why exactly would Iraq want to mislead the UN if it was complying with the UN's mandates? We know many members of the regime thought there were weapons, while many others thought there were no weapons. It appears there may have been a campaign to conceal the truth from even many of the highest government officials. As to what exactly the truth is or was, and why some were told something else remains a mystery. We know that the human rights and humanitarian situation were in fact far worse than had been believed. The people of Iraq were suffering greatly do to the actions and inactions of Iraq's leaders. We know that Iraq, being a major oil nation had elements of a major petro-chemical refining and production system. We know that much of this capacity could be turned into either conventional or unconventional weapons productions in a relatively short period of time. We know that Iraq had weapons scientist, research works, and past experience that would enable it to produce WMD without much trouble. We know that Iraq was working on delivery systems that would have been most useful had they been loaded with WMD. We know that Iraq supported terrorism against Israel. We know Iraq at least had contact with other terrorist groups. We know terrorists were in Iraq before the war (were they invited or did the sneak in? hard to know for certain, but Iraq was basically a police state, so there would have been easier countries to go to). We know terrorist training activities took place in Iraq. We know Saddam ruled by fear. We know he relied on the continued fear/respect of his neighbors to help secure his position. We know that a great deal of what we were told by the Iraqi government, by Iraq's neighbors, by the other world powers, by Iraqi defectors, by the UN, and by our own intelligence services was incorrect. Perhaps this was just a mistake, perhaps Iraq was intentionally putting on a ruse, perhaps there is one of those wacky global conspiracies underway involving people in tin foil hats. We know that the President presented information to the American people that now appears to most likely be false. We know much of this information was given to the President by our intelligence services, and that the leaders of those services presented a picture much like that of the President. (Were there voices of dissent? Yes. Were they the people personally advising the President, probably not. After all, recall what DCI Tennet said about Iraq and WMD.) So, did the President intentionally mislead people? I don't think so. Did he perhaps present a picture that was not necessarily the same as what he was presented? I don't know. Was the picture presented to the President purposefully distorted for some reason? Quite possibly, after all, Washington bureaucrats have been known to try to make the boss happy once or twice. My personal opinion on the matter: Saddam had WMD programs that were carefully concealed. Before the war any actual WMD or items that could not be passed off as civilian equipment were moved or hidden beyond all hope of being recovered. Saddam ordered a purge of the information related to these programs for the purpose of forcing the US to expend massive resources searching for and piecing back together the information on these programs. He also probably wished to decrease his chances of being shot/hung/etc if he was caught. Saddam probably had the intention of doing the following, had the war not taken place: 1. Carry on a deception program so no one could be totally certain of the truth. 2. Convince the UN he had finely become clean of WMD. 3. Continue his programs at a low level so that they would not be detected but WMD production could be started later. 4. Use pressure on the UN through human rights groups, friendly foreign powers (France, etc), and other means to force the sanctions and oil-for-food to be ended. 5. Increase his oil revenues. 6. Use the money to rebuild his war machine. If we had not gone to war the sanctions would have eventually been ended. Iraq would have risen back to a position of regional power. By the time we would have been able to gather information on this, and convince others of it, Saddam would have reconstituted at least part of his offensive systems and WMDs, making it riskier to take him on again. The President knew Saddam would rearm, if not today, then tomorrow. The President knew that this was the last chance to get the world to act before the world political opinion shifted in favor of letting Saddam off. The President also knew that there were only two choices, face conflict now, or face it later. The President chose to go now while the danger appeared less. Perhaps if he had waited a few years more would have joined us, but what could Saddam have done to strike out by then? What plans could he have laid in that time? How much better prepared would Saddam have been? How much harder would the eventual confrontation have been? There are many questions we may never know the answers to. Decisions of war and peace, life and death, are often made with incomplete and inaccurate information. In the end someone must make a judgment call. The President was willing to make the choice, and he chose action. Was it the right choice? None on this earth can know for certain. What is certain, is that was has been done is done. We must now forge ahead and make the best of things. Onward to victory, and God's speed to those who will carry us there.

Providing a complete and accurate medical record is the responsibility of every participant in a BSA activity. If you don't want to provide the information, then there is no need for your participation. This year I am finally getting my OA lodge on board with medical forms. I feel certain I will probably have to send someone home because they didn't provide us a medical form. Tough. Medical forms are necessary to protect myself, the other participants and leaders, and the council. Not to mention it is needed to protect you. Also, I would say retaining medical forms would be a very wise decision. The CYA factor for prior conditions is I think a legitimate issue. Finally discussing conditions around others can often be a near necessity. After all, what happens if the kid with the bee alergy is out on a hike at camp, and gets stung, and the only people that know what the condition is (medic and troop leaders) are 2 miles away back in the center of camp? The answer is that the need to protect peoples lives and health is far more important than the need to protect privacy. Despite all this, care should be taken to safeguard medical records and information, and only provide it on a need to know basis. Forms should be kept in secured locations and in the custody of some responisble adult. Medical information should only be given others to the extent needed to protect life and health of the individual participants, the group, and the group's leaders. Keep in mind that BSA requires certain people to know about the medical conditions of those participating in activities they supervise, such as a person supervising an aquatics activity. (Meaning not just the camp medic, but also the person supervising swimming should know about medical conditions for anyone that is swimming.) If you withold needed information, you put not only yourself, but others, at risk.

Again, I must agree with blade. He is spot on with the Guide for Officers and Advisers. Also, to prohibit a member of the unit from voting would violate one of the original tenets of the Order, that being that members be elected by the members of their troop, both members (of the OA) and non-members (of the OA) alike. Now, I suppose someone could suggest that new members may not be well enough informed and therefore should not vote, but it must be the choice of the individual Scout. In the end there should be no such interference with the election process. Everyone should be instructed on the nature and purpose of the OA, the qualifications to look for in a candidate, and the method of election. After this is done, and any related questions are answered, paper ballots should be distributed to all members of the unit under 21 to have an opportunity to vote. It is then the choice of the individual Scouts to decide who to vote for, or if they should vote at all. Any campaigning, or pressuring of Scouts to vote or not vote goes against the spirit of the election process.

I must, in the strongest possible terms, reinforce what Blade has just stated. It is a clear and direct violation of national policy to either explecitly exclude members of the unit from voting in an election, or to hold multiple elections in one year. A troop may only hold one election per year. (A year being a 12 month period of time. There is a tiny bit of flexibility, as you could consider this either a calendar or program year.) Please check the unit elections procedures found on the latest OA Guide for Officers and Advisers.

A very good story. I would even say it is publishable. You know, when I was in high school (not that long ago) there were many groups that were the object of scorn, ridicule, etc. Just about any group that wore a uniform was made fun of by someone (band, JROTC, cheerleaders, dance team, athletes). I don't know what reaction I would have gotten in my Scout uniform as I never wore it to school. A younger friend and Eagle in my troop tried to get a group of us to do it one year for a day during Scout week. He was the only one who was actually willing to go through with it. I would say he got a mixed reaction. I will say, all the places I have been in public I have received a positive or neutral reaction while in uniform.

In America, it has traditionally been held that all of the rights and privileges we enjoy come from a higher power. It has also been a traditional belief that religion does in fact play a role in shaping a person's character and that since character is a component of citizenship, a persons religious beliefs, or lack of them, is related to their quality as a citizen. There are several informative quotes from George Washington and others concerning the value of religion, morality, and faith both to the individual citizen and to the nation. Now, the BSA is not just the same as any other Scouting organization around the world. Scouting became an American institution. The Oath and Law were rewritten so as to be in keeping with the values, beliefs, and traditions of America. Let us look at the Mission and Vision of the BSA. It is quite clear that the values, ideas, and ideals of the Oath and Law are the central feature of both the mission and vision. Also clearly seen is the value placed on citizenship education. Now, it is certainly a traditional (though not politically correct) idea that to be the best kind of citizen you must have a firm sense of morality grounded in some type of faith or religion. Also, how does one do their duty to God if there is no God? How do you go about performing that duty? You claim you could do your duty to God by not interfering with the beliefs and practices of others. Yet, that is fundamentally impossible. You can not carry out your duty to God without believing in some type or form of God. Inherent in the idea of a duty to God is that such a duty is defined by the nature of God. We have a duty to God because of who and what God is. If you have no belief in God, then you have no duty to God. If you have no duty to God, then you can not fully live the Scout Oath. The Scout Law also requires that a person be Reverent. Now, it would be simple to agree to respect the beliefs of others. However, again, it would not be possible to perform your religious obligations and duties, because you have none. Atheism is the most intolerant of all beliefs. Atheism is the affirmative belief that there is not and can not be a God. It is a belief that all religion is false. If a person does not believe in God, they are not automatically an true and total atheist. To be a true atheist, it must be taken one step further to the point of rejecting the possibility of a God. If a person simply does not have enough data to support a God, then they would be better qualified as an agnostic. Now, on to the question of the possibility of an atheist living a moral life. The answer is that yes an atheist can live a moral life, but only to a point. The limits placed on their ability to live a moral life come from the fact that their morality is not grounded in faith. Without such faith the morality is not anchored to anything sacred or permanent. Instead it is floating on an ever changing sea of personal opinions. mhager implied in one posting the legal tradition and public opinion makes religious discrimination immoral. This is a clear example of how the morality of an atheist can became attached to the worldly, secular, passing things. The fact that most people believe something does not make it moral. The fact that the legal tradition supports one argument within the law does not make it moral. Things are either right or wrong, and have always been such. Something that was once right does not become wrong, and something that was once wrong does not become right. Now, on the other hand, there are things which are neither right nor wrong (or to be clearer, they are neither moral nor immoral acts). The permanence of right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral probably baffles an atheist. After all, it is a concept that challenges those of faith. I do not look to the constitution, the bill of rights, the declaration of independence, the latest court decision, or the last election results for such truths. I look for them in Divine revaluation (something I am not very skilled at seeing or reading). Such truth can be found in the Word of God and in God's Creation. I like to ground my belief in fundamental truths on something more reliable than the weak, self serving, fallible, and fallen mind of man. Perhaps an atheist may come across elements of morality and of truth without the benefits of faith or religion. After all, God does reveal much through the nature of his Creation. Yet, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could find all truth in that one source, since after all we can not observe, let alone know and understand all of Creation. In any case, mhager, I hope you find the truth. I also hope that until you find that truth you are able to live as ethical a life as possible based on the reason, philosophy, logic, and observations of the world you have available. I also hope that you will find a way to put your willingness to work with youth and your knowledge of the outdoors to work. There are, after all, a great many organizations dedicated to the education of youth in outdoorsmanship and other such things that would be glad to have you. However, the BSA, which is dedicated to character, ethics, citizenship, and values is not the place for you unless you have a change of heart. I hope that you find in your future calm seas, clear skies, and a fare wind. I will continue to believe and to search out an ever greater understanding of my beliefs. I will continue to support the values of Scouting. I will also support every Scouts right to their own belief system. Some may come to believe in some idea that is not compatible with Scouting. If so, I will wish them well on their journey beyond Scouting. Faith is a greater matter than Scouting, and I would not encourage any person to abandon their beliefs just for the benefits of Scouting. I hope that Scouting will continue to encourage Scouts in their search for a greater understanding of their faith. I also hope that in carrying out such a search, some will find their way to "believe in One God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth..." (Nicene Creed for anyone wondering, a thing that came to be as it is in part because the real St. Nick punched out a heretic during the council, or so the story goes.)

I have recently heard some new information based on the 2005 BSA resident camp standards. Apperently, BSA resident camps may not host Venturing Crews at the same time they are hosting Boy Scout Troops. This means that Venturers would either need to be dual registered and come with a troop (not an option for female youth), or they would need to find a camp that has a special Venturing week. The same camps can host Venturers and Boy Scouts on different weeks. Also, if a council opperates multiple seperate camps on one property or reservation, one could be hosting Boy Scouts while the other hosted Venturers. This is apperently something new for 2005. I don't have a copy of the camp standards, so you will need to inquire of your council or of any camp you are considering attending to find more detailed information.

This is a case of the people planning and running the event doing a really poor job. If it was really intended as just an introduction, then I don't really see the point in the event, and I don't think most Scouts or leaders would either. That is what makes me think that is just a bad excuse. What should have happened is that these blue cards and other materials should have either been given to the Scouts that day, or they should have been given to a unit leader, also that same day. It doesn't make sense to have blue cards and other documentation if you are not going to let the Scouts use them to pass the badge. Proper Planning Prevents Pitifully Poor Program. Someone needs to make a branding iron with 5 or 6 Ps on it and use it to stick that idea to people.