qwazse

From what I gather from the above, no secret regulations were used. I don't see the issue of "supreme being" relevant in the decision. P.S. Anyone else ever gotten this error message? I get that error a lot. I think it means that the website has timed out your session. To salvage what I've typed, I select the text and cut it. Then I refresh the window. It it shows that I'm logged out, I log back in, move to the "post reply" box, and paste the message I was typing. Then click post.

This sounds like one of those things you will want to bring in your DE (and maybe your council professional for venturing, if you have one) for guidance. Me, I would have some lifeguards available. Maybe a local swift water rescue group would mele emselves available. VFD's might see this as a chance to promote themselves. I would file a tour plan for this as a recruiting event. There are lot of people to talk to and clear this with, but it sounds like a very worthwhile opportunity.

No. But once you've had to have discussions with parents concerned over little Johnny being exposed to girls on scouting activities, you begin to realize that rationality doesn't always cut it. Anyway, the YPT is designed for accountability against worst case scenarios. For this, well-oiled groups like the one described above bear the brunt.

Just picked up Dale Carnegie's _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ (literally -- it was in the free bin outside the book collector's store -- that's how I roll). Opinions anyone?

Regardless of method (we use 2 tubs), washing and cooking should be patrol activities. Obviously if you are packing in, things are a little more complicated. Even if you use folding tubs, you have to haul the water. If we only have a large part, we wash in that, set soapy dishes out, dump the soapy water, add water+sanitab, and rinse. As mentioned in the other posts. Backpacking becomes a much different animal. (But I at least try to use soap and a washcloth.)

How significant are awards in your communities? I've known some Christians in whose faith tradition they are a really big deal. In mine, folks view them as quirky, if not a little arrogant. So, I never felt comfortable using the religious awards program as a selling point for scouting.

"Venturing would probably work well as an addon to the NFTY/USY programs. I've heard complaints that being involved as an officer in a youth group wasn't resume building ..." This is very true, but ... organizing a regional event while an officer in a youth group IS resume building. In my first encounter with a venturing officers' association, a young man (who happened to be Jewish) was organizing a council-wide shooting sports evening. Since then I've seen venturers pull together all manner of activities that pull together dozens to hundreds of youth throughout the area (that includes "regional dances," which really do add value to some kids' lives.) As usual, the patch on the sleeve translate into very little, but being able to say "You know those council ski days that attract thousands of youth every year? Well, that was me." That says loads about the caliber of the person writing the resume.

View from the goyim side: many decades ago, I began to get my head around Jewish culture once I left my small town to attend Pitt. I met folks who identified as conservatives, orthodox, reformed, etc... . One day, at lunch, I introduced a reformed young lady to a Christian Jew . I didn't bring up religion, but the last names kinda gave it away, so she asked about his story (which was mixed marriage parents, pretty devoted but never pushing their kids one way or the other, so in high school he came to the conclusion that he could be both). As soon as she found out, she lit into him (not in a mean way, but very sincerely): "You can be Buddhist and Jewish, you can be atheist and Jewish, but you're not allowed to be Christian and Jewish!" I nearly laughed myself off the cafeteria chair! So, the notion of a body of reformed Jews making sweeping recommendations against an organization that was veering too much into the conservative Christian camp is not too far fetched based on my encounters with some of the sect's more outspoken adherents. Although, to be honest, I never asked my friend what she thought of scouting. And have since met enough folks from each of the major sects to know that one size does not fit all! Anyway, it's the "boots on the ground" who will change anything. If there are enough adults and youth in your congregation who experienced Scouting and your Rabbi agrees,.you'll be able to charter a unit. If not, you'll bump into walls like these.

Don't knock yourself, DFS. There is no amount of polite that makes youth-led easier for folks with narrow gullets to swallow. They just have to shape up or ship out. When I started as a crew advisor, I made that very clear by not accepting a youth application if it looked like any part of it besides the signature was completed by a parent. (There were some folks who wanted me to just automatically enroll every eligible scout in the troop!) That was the "yank back" that some folks needed to realize that their meddling hands in the lives of my youth were gonna be slapped if they kept it up. Some left. Never missed them. Other folks who didn't like my approach, told me to my face, but sucked it up and got with the program. I was glad to have them. The same attitude trickled over to our troop, with the dissenters starting new units. I'm fine with that. They get to rule their roost. We're smaller, but our boys are starting to show it's worth it. Compare two recent Eagle Courts of Honor. Theirs, the committee chair MC'd and gave the SPL led the pledge. Ours, the ASPL reviewed our script, recruited and commanded the color guard for the opening and closing, asked the reverend to give the invocation and benediction, introduced four other scouts who had speaking parts, and offered me the floor to be M.C. He then reminded me to arrange a photo opportunity for the Eagle Scout and our state senator who was in attendance. The difference in who "owned" the troop couldn't have been more stark. Made it well worth any sparks that flew over the past few years. Do I wish there were a smoother way? Yes. But lacking that, I have no regrets about the "sanding" that folks may have had to endure on my account.

If you have a local paper, taking out an ad might be good. "The family of Eagle Scout would like to publicly thank the following for contributing to his successful project, : ." Some small papers would probably accept a letter to the editor from the boy. Keep in mind that donors sometimes want a little anonymity. You know your contributors better than any of us to make that judgement.

I think at some point you need to tell the Mom that advancement is only one method of scouting! The fact that he said "no" on his own does say something about the him. Now a lot of times I do get kids who are overly self-critical. They may make too many goals for themselves, or they may think that once they hold that patch their rough edges will magically disappear. But regardless, they were able to say something for themselves.

I can't answer for the cub program, but I have gone through the paperwork to apply for alternate requirements for a kid with a clear physical disability that prevented him from swimming and surviving. I am pretty sure that as a cub, he simply didn't earn aquanaut. For Aspergers, we generally take aquatic instruction slowly. We get other scouts to leave the swimmers area and spend time with the boy in non-swimmers area. Scouting is about overcoming psychological barriers. Generally scouts with this disability don't want special accommodation anymore. It makes their award seem "fake" to them. You will probably be better off telling the boy that his fear of water is preventing him from earning that pin. Then, go on to work on a different award until he tells you he's ready to try swimming again.

The definitive response against iconoclasm was written in the 8th century. You can find an excerpt of it on the wiki entry of that term. ... we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us. One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message. ... we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men. The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects.

Not sure why anyone would expect NYLT to be a slam-dunk qualification for SPL. I'm also not sure why it's a problem if all of your trained kids take non-SPL positions. If the non-SPLs truly have NYLT koolaid in their blood, they ought a be servant-leaders regardless of the patch on their sleave. They will help the SPL be successful. Maybe the one kid who was not NYLT trained was busy being a den chief, going to camp with the troop and the pack, and being a camp counselor at his church. Son #2 and a buddy wound up taking the VLST (yes, the adult leader course for venturers, long story) earlier this year. Then his buddy wound up being SPL and chose him for an assistant. Neiher had any other position-specific training and they really did a bang-up job at camp this week. At closing campfire, the SPL (last year with e troop) thanked me for steadily pushing him into leadership. None of our boys are NYLT trained because it is always held on our summer camp week. They just get it into their heads that the SM and I don't give a rodent's burro about patches on their sleeves. We expect them to lead at all times, and command respect of their peers. That way, any contingent leader can see their unit # and 1st class rank and know they are looking at the right stuff.

How sad. An aweful way to learn how important it is to spread out if you don't have a grounded structure to shelter in.

Definitely the primary way to configure the tent. Bugs fly in one way and fly out any of three others. Perfect shade and ventilation for siesta. Still enough open at your head to enjoy the evening stars. Only problem: when you lay down for the night and discover some over-zealous scouter left the latrine lantern on and it's shining in your eyes!

This is a topic covered at some point in most Christian education curricula that I've seen. (I've only worked with a small sample, so I don't know how pervasive it is, but I think the case that Merlyn sites was a motivation to make sure mainstream denomination members were prepared when the Jehovah's witnesses knocked at their door.) In a nutshell ... The pledge in its current revision calls for allegiance to the "one nation under God". That is, inasmuch as the nation is subservient to (and not a replacement for) God, a Christian's allegiance should not be torn. Jewish thought falls along similar lines. In fact the way the pledge is said emphasis this. Only non-religious civilian headgear is supposed to be removed. That phrase is not a litmus test for a Christian to use to declare fealty. St. Paul encouraged believers to view government to be a gift from God to order our lives. And certainly there was no reference to God in any test of loyalty in ancient times. Most of the 1st Century church didn't need to bother with oaths, but some were soldiers and servants of Rome. They all seemed to carry on their duties without much disruption. That changed with the edicts that all military officers (and other public figures) were to burn incense to Caesar. Even so, the record of folks martyred for the faith (as atheists, by they way, because they lived life without the pantheon of gods) included a broad swath of citizens, indicating that folks were still fulfilling their public duties in spite of the persecution. Of course, once Christianity became the imperial religion, things changed drastically and, in many unfortunate cases, to the opposite extreme (pogroms, Crusades, wars of reformation, counter reformation, etc...). Ultimately, it's not an oath or a flag that matters. Anything that declares itself as the sole authority above God is anathema. So each Christian is to determine in his/her every day life what lesser gods may be vying for supremacy. And from time to time, a nation with exactly an oath such as ours could be that lesser god. This line of thought renders the pledge itself as non-problematic, and directs a believer to be concerned about more immediate issues of social justice.

A couple of years ago, I met a troop from Michigan hiking the North Country Trail/Minister Creek loop in the Allegheny National Forest. They packed in 3 boys to a fly (maybe 2 older scouts) and seemed to be having a great time. My family, we get tents on sale (never spent more than $200), or at garage sales (Mrs. got me two pup tents for a dollar, I replaced the flimsy poles with cut-down scraps from a dining fly -- best pieces of nylon I ever had.) Keep in mind that I'm a tenting optional kinda guy.

Okay, maybe I'm biased. But, at a certain point you have to prepare a kid to count positives. Sure, he did precious little, but always bring him to what he DID accomplish. Who knows? That one troop tradition might outlast all of that management training we cherish so highly. Here's hoping at least one more "yes" is on the checklist in the next few weeks.

Then he contributed! (Can you guess my favorite scouting game?)

Those "conveniences" are not enough. It is the advent of home entertainment that is the key convenience. You can't lay blame at the foot of a program that boys did not even know existed or notice as different. I was a boy scout throughout the change in one direction and then the other. I did not see any difference in any of it. I still don't see anything signficant until the ODR uniform came about (an atrocity). What happened in the early 1970's was that TV exploded. It went from flickery, B&W lone ranger re-runs and test patterns at night to 19" color screens being in multiple rooms of the house. In the 1980's computers and video games came along and put more nails in the coffin. Today, video games and computers are such a massive world of adventure to explore, the scouts simply have nothing to offer to compete. Call of Duty is more interesting than scouting. It's better. It isn't real, which is a problem (is it?), but it is more fun for most kids. I stipulate your membership argument. I will also concede you could be right about the program. But having been a scout during the changes, and not noticing them, and having the handbooks from 1972 and 1980 on my shelf, I don't remember a thing changing. Which merit badges get you to eagle? Most boys didn't care. Because most boys don't even try to make eagle. I think that was mostly an annoyance for adults seeing boys earn Eagle without having to go outdoors. and videoI think it was TV anis video games. I could be wrong, but that's what I think it is. Every kid I know prefers video games to everything. Really, TJ? You don't know one kid who plays his guitar all day to the exclusion of video games? Video games have replaced watching sports in my household. Music got pushed aside. Maybe they have even crowded out some Bible reading. But they have not precluded scouting or sports.

FWIW, just came back from a week with boys who were having a great time. Even a senior scout who made it his point to "do nothing" the whole week, got sucked into a little service project I "volunteered" us for, got his fellow scouts involved in games, and genuinely had a good time trying to be obnoxious but failing miserably at it. This was not a kid swimming against culture, but he liked his scout buddies, and if it meant bunking in the woods, then so be it. On the other hand, some of the more rugged boys who went on a 5 mile hike after an evening meal came back with flowers in their hair. "prissy" would not apply to any of them. Let's just call it "Man enough to not be bothered."

The problem with the argument that modern conveniences keep boys at home, is that we know from membership numbers that at the same time that TV, air conditioning, suburban life and all its comforts were exploding, so was BSA membership. A/C, shag carpet, arcade halls, and TV didn't keep boys at home in 1965, we can't assume that's what keeps them home today. In fact, as Rush fans know all too well, it may be the case that suburban life actually pushes boys right into our arms (nerd time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4) because it denies their nature. But, perhaps the growth in membership had nothing to do with BSA's intrinsic qualities: historians of the US also know the 50s as a "culture of joining"--civic groups of all types, not just the BSA, saw their membership soar. So, we have a few reasons why there was so much growth: adventure, getting out of the home, getting out of the "mass production zone" suburbs, joining for joining's sake. Your point about patriotism doesn't much play, for me. Patriotism has never played a major role in my scouting experience as either a youth or adult. The fashion at this forum is to timestamp our modern problems 1972, tag them "Improved Scouting Program," and lay them all at the feet of national. And to be sure, drastically changing the program drastically changed what boys were getting, and they clearly didn't want the new menu. However, the program was corrected in 1979, but it hasn't stopped the bleeding. That's where we get to your best argument: Cultural change. There's no culture of joining, anymore, it's all about individualism. Mistrust of institutions is rampant. Mommy thinks Johnny will die if he's out of her sight. In the past, mom and dad wanted junior in the woods, out of the house, and to become a man as soon as possible, preferably before his first armpit hair; now they're scared to death to even consider that he will leave home by 30. There is also the proliferation of extra-curriculars. I didn't live it, so I will try not to overstate, but the after-school landscape was not as crowded in the past as it is today. Now, Johnny has a lot more options. Last, in terms of culture still, the baby boom is over. The decline coincided not just with Improved Scouting, but also with the aging-out of the boomers, and birth rates have continued to decline among BSA's core demographic (whitey). The answer, of course, is continued differentiation. The only traditional program that has seen membership growth between 1999 and 2012 is Venturing. Wow, BSA, what a surprise! The most freewheeling program is the only one that's growing. Yet BSA continues to dial back adventure and independence in Boy Scouting. The second thing is to keep reaching out to Spanish-speaking families; they have more kids than whitey, and they don't have the same access to other civic institutions. S99, hate to burst your bubble, but venturing membership has been trending downward since 2001.

Aw shucks, BD. Nice paraphrase. The line was from my introduction to the boys about the sandwich principle: "Safe scouting: bringing you as close to your creator as possible without making it a permanent stay."

Agreed that this is not in compliance with the policy. It seems that they are trying to skirt it using BD's reference which mentions housing, but they are using tents. Doesn't wash with me because in my mind campsite=house. However, this is where the policy shows its frayed edges. Are those boys or those adult females at any greater risk because they couldn't find a male leader? I don't think so. Would they be at less risk if an adult male were provided? Doubt it. As far as camp management is concerned, if possible, I would provide an adult male "site guide" to share the campfire with them and set up camp next to the boys' tents. As far as PSR is concerned, I would strongly encourage the crew to describe their situation to the head ranger, and leave it to them to resolve that leg of their journey.