qwazse

So (besides not letting a good post fade away prematurely), there are two suggestions that I will not follow ... 1. Pretend that the 11 year old boy in the original post must mean that he's simply "fed up" with the God of his parents and is fishing for an offering from a pantheon of options from our pluralistic society. Life is far too short to not take a boy at his word. 2. Swift and sure dismissal in the name of BSA policy. In spite of Merl's protestations, there is -- as with many policies -- room to be deliberative. There's also room for individual courses of action. I like OXE82's recap.

Eng, much as I'd like to agree, the ability to enforce will be nearly impossible. Sooner or later, there's going to be a campout where your guard is down and the fuel is smuggled in. I like the "incremental enhanced educational opportunities" approach. I wouldn't see it as punishing the troop. You're just "sharing the love". And if the boy needs to be suspended from a hike into a drought area because of your love for the outdoors, then so be it. Scoutfish -- The Firem'n Chit card is not a bad idea for younger scouts, for older scouts it probably won't have the desired effect. Unless: if this is the kind of boy that's gone around nagging younger scouts to show him their cards, TwoCub, you are almost obligated to turn the tables on the boy. The only fault I can see with the incident itself is that *too much* fuel was taken on the trip. Again, this is hard to regulate, but in my estimation if someone has a bottle to burn, someone didn't plan well. Just something to review with the PL. Oh, and the patrol owes the troop for wasted fuel. Like everything, your ability to lighten up depends on the boy's ability to own up and apologise to his fellow scouts.

I've been in situations like this and made exceptions. But it sounds like these guys want a routine. Also tent walls are thin. Boys will catch on. Did they have a designated driver? How many cold ones? Do they realize that there are troops who've lost drivers because of DUI? Do they know they could have an adults-only affair on their own time? If your COR does not have a zero-tolerance policy, it's up to the adults in the troop to decide how much is too much. Here may be a polite way to pull in the reigns: Does your troop try to do the patrol method? Require the boys (your chuckwagon patrol) to go resupply. The dads are along as drivers. The boys hold the money. They do the shopping. They schedule for precisely how long they will be away.

That's funny, qwazse, there are quite a few atheists who were forced to attend church when they were 10 years old, because they were 10 years old. ... How many 10-year-old atheists do you know, anyway? And there are quite a few believers who were denied church as children because their parents were athiests. And lots of folks in between. I agree with you that there's no point in mincing the kid's words (like scoutfish is). The OP is clear that his scout's statement was athiestic. And I've known several kids who made statements like that.** But, on the flip side I've known kids to make statements of religious faith but effectively lived their teen years as if God was nowhere to be found. Should I drum them out too because their actions speak to their true belief at the time? Or, should I give it time? Give the parents notice of what the kid is thinking. Give the kid a chance to self-select as he realizes that the ideals of scouting stand in increasingly stark contradiction to his belief. What my religious convictions tell me I should *not* do is offer a kid a reward for acting faithful. The worst action at this point: tell an 11 year old that he has to believe in God to be a scout and the scout say "Okay, I'll believe then..." Second worst is the boy say "okay, I'll leave" decide to believe the next week (or whenever he reads Mere Christianity or some convincing text from another faith) but miss out on scouts. ** It's not just kids. I met a young man at a coffee shop who first said he was an athiest, but he then said "I'm counting on when I die, that if any God worth worshiping will cut me some slack for coming to the wrong conclusion. At least I've tried to be a decent fellow."

Last check, M., no rules ignored. Most atheists I know don't go to church with their families. (Unless we're talking about 2nd century Christians who were burned at the stake for their "athiesim".) So the boy's actions aren't aligning with his words, better to give him time work that out on his own. On the bright side, this gives you leeway to assume that every boy who spouts off religious rhetoric before their "age of accountability" is just going through "a passing phase" on the road to cynicism.

Written apologies from a 10 year old are a waste of time. If the two kids won't settle the grievance then the agressor (or winner, if you really can't tell who started it) is out of the pack. Done. Tough part: convincing everyone else this is the right thing to do.

There's always a few who make rank while incarcerated.

The Orthodox will tell you he is very much real. The secular portrayal is a contrivance of Madison Avenue, but his passion for the impovrished was notworthy and inspiring. Chances are he'd enjoy a good slice of cured venison and port over sugar cookies and milk. I actually told my kids that every year. Never did get any deer jerky though.

Thanks for volunteering! Will you have a den chief from your troop helping your W2's? Use him for a foil. Every meeting have one open-ended question up your sleeve about the troop. (E.g., What is your favorite campout? What do you like about meetings? What's a cool merit badge to earn? Who's the best at fundraising? How did you manage to learn all these knots?) It's a little counter-intelligence on your part. But it may also get your boys excited about crossover. Also, today's den chief may be tomorrow's SPL!

My favorite line to Sunday school kids 3rd -5th: "You seem to be having a tough time with compliance today, I guess we'd better have you join your mom in her class." Fact is, I try very hard to avoid using the words "time out", I don't even call them "three warnings". At the beginning of the year I say, "If you're having a tough time being respectful in class there are three things that we will try to do to help you. 1. We'll let you know your being disrespectful, just in case you didn't notice. 2. We'll let you sit away from the class for a minute because sometimes you just need a moment to focus. 3. We'll find your parent so they can help you." Some years we have behavior disorder kids and I insist on having a co-teacher who can either take over the class or address the behavior in a moments notice. Again, in a place with walls, hallways and doors it's a little easier. At camp, the complexity increases. Plenty of space. No corners to sit in. Escalation comes too fast. And like jBlake said, sometimes safety is all that matters. I've seen the worst punishment being ending the game (or whatever was feeding the rage), the perpetrator feels responsible for ruining his friends' fun, he later apologizes. Tough on the rest of the boys, though.

Pack, I think the "first stone" thing was in reference to a G2SS violation (venturing age female found in the wrong tent). The log-in-the eye reference I made earlier is the closest fit to this context. There is a line of Christian thought that frowns on casual references to Satan as well (no "Ache Eee Double Hockey" sticks loosely either). When I was in Italy, vain references to Madonna (the virgin, not the pop star) were common -- and equally frowned upon. One's belief in virgin birth was irrelevant. My point is, unless you divulge your doubts to a scout (and I've only known 'em to even care to listen once they are 15 or older), judging his theology is never a level playing field. On the other hand, the chances a kid can call you on cussing (even from 300' away) as often as you may call him on it are high. If you've called him on it, he will return the favor given the chance. When he does (and there's very few of us where it will be "if") you can apologise and promise to do better next time. For the young ones, if you stick to working on reverence the action (not the state of mind) you'll both be better for it.

Great points. And, when I became "the first crew advisor I ever met", I wish I had read a couple of them. It's one thing to get it from one manual, but to hear it from a bunch of other folks ... While your boys are coloring their flag or whatever, you need to start coaching the adults. Explain ... - your vision for "boy led." - the troop's need for a pool of locations to practice "minimum impact camping". - that you will have other needs as the boys reflect on the activities they want to do and how they want to do them. - that you would eventually like to only explain things to adults once a month, so if thy wouldn't mind organizing their schedule's to form/join the troop committee, you would greatly appreciate it. In the field, I train my committee on how to "hang back and be available" for youth. This works best if you have only a four adults at a time on each activity.

What if the next day the scout performs CPR and revives his cell mate? Do you get the stamp back out?

FYI - Thats very different from how we do it. SM and any available ASM's meet with the boy for his Eagle SMC. Only committee members and the district representative sit on our EBORs. SM introduces the boy, then leaves the room and waits more or less patiently in the hallway.

I used time-out and whacking with my kids. Whacking was a quick way of sparing them the time-out. If they were acting violence on one another, it was a way of saying their actions were begetting violence, and we (mom and I) will firmly stand in that path and block their way with force if necessary. It immediately re-opened paths to them, but some paths they would tread with fear. Time-outs were an exquisite form of tourture because it forced them to comply to a behavior we wanted. (e.g. "Be still for as many minutes as your age. And, when you come out I expect you to apologize/do your chores/clean your mess/be kind.") It allowed them the opportunity to figure out the best path to follow to avoid this painful interruption. In parenting, you need both. But in both cases, we had to explain why we did what we did afterword. Sometimes with the warning that our negative reinforcement was sparing them harsher punishments as adults from strangers. Sometimes with apologies if in fact we over-reacted. Always with the promise that we love them. In scouts, we have more constraints. (Whacking is prohibited and time-outs are just silly.) But what is interesting is watching the older boys sort out how to treat the tough cases.

Anybody ever read an Arabic Bible? The word for God is "Allah", same as in the Koran. As far as the Semitic religions go, it is not a matter of "what" or "who" but "what He did." Most agree He called the universe into being ... beyond that, things start to diverge. So, yes, inasmuch as we reference the font of all creation, we worship the same God. If I believe niel_b is blonde and had a cup of coffee after his/her last post and you believe he/she had a glass of milk. If we both reply to niel_b's post we still are replying to neil_b. And, if a pre-teen is still going to church with his folks even though he's on the verge of saying the universe merely has its origins in chaos, I am constrained to believe God (his/mine/yours whatever) is still gaining the recognition He deserves. Actions speak louder than words. (Well, at least in my religion they do.)

It would be interesting to find out how well informed the Eagle scout who testified was during his youth. Was he shown "A Time to Tell"? Did someone challenge his thinking like BrentAllen suggested? Here's another harsh reality, folks. Even with the best education, it may take years for an abused youth to take a stand against what's happening (or happened). So educate, but don't expect it to be like a light bulb turning on and exposing the predator in the corner. A skilled perpetrator has learned to hide in plain sight making sure that those around him are unwilling or afraid to point him out. You can only hope that one of his couriers will reveal his compound. (Oops, mixed metaphor.)

Niel_b, Jesus was always getting accused of breaking rules like working on the Sabbath or eating with gentiles. I guess if he was a scout he might get his advancement denied for not being reverent enough. Jesus always asserted that he was acting in accordance with his own beliefs. As a youth he was, by all but the most partisan accounts, a good Jewish boy. He might get docked for not getting a parental release to hang back at Temple. (After all boy scouts love paperwork. ) But he's pass on Reverent. Not saying you shouldn't tell a boy that breaking the 3rd Commandment in your presence is offensive to you, and they are supposed to be sensitive to other people's beliefs. I just am not sure it is grounds for holding back their advancement. As I explained earlier, this has NOTHING to do with what's offensive to me. My preface: "If a boy says he believes in God, attends church twice as often as his religion requires, keeps fasts, prays, reads scripture, etc .." This means that THE BOYS OWN definition of duty (not mine) puts this requirement on him. My experience is that a boy who cusses effusively probably never grasped how offensive it is according their own stated belief system. Sometimes delaying rank advancement for a week is all a boy needs to start apologizing for -- and eventually ridding himself of -- this irreverent habit. But my real point is that I give a pass to a young boy who harbors serious doubts but still attends worship with his family and performs his religious duty without complaint while he sorts it all out. I don't consider doing so to be a "rubber stamp." BD, it is fun when the boys "get it".

NielB - There is no mention of not taking God's name in vain ... Scouting is non-sectarian, ... If the boy feels he is doing his best to satisfy his personal religious obligations and demonstrates that in tangible ways (like attending church) it is not for you to impose your personal religious beliefs on him as a Scouter. I was not referring to my own personal anything. I was referring to a practice common to young scouts where they violate the tenants of the religion they claim as their own. Is there a religion where the needless spouting the name of a deity (especially one that is not your own) is a required practice? I have not encountered one. If I do, I'll try to work a balance with the other boys in my unit so they don't get offended. Then when it comes to that 12th point, I'll ask, "Boy, have you cussed as much as your folks said you're supposed to today?" If he hasn't met his quota, I'll tell him to come back next week when he's managed to fulfill his duty or paid the appropriate pennance for "vanity inssufficiency." The higher the rank, the more tightly I'll hold him to it! Returning to the OP's question. Here's another "stamp stopper": When I cover the scout slogan, if I ask a boy "so what was your good turn for today?" and he comes up with nothing. That's a definite "see ya next week."

Minimize the drama. Focus on the one issue you're being asked to attest to: the project. Was it completed as planned? Did the boy show some leadership? Then sign. If not, don't sign. There's no need to resign. If there are issues that will come up at his board of review: make sure you yourself are focusing on the boy's tenure while at Life rank. If your concerns apply to that period, let the boy know which ones you will be bringing up at the board of review and expect him to have honest and thoughtful replies to each of them. If he is concerned that he may not, he should ask for some help at the SMC on how to reply to such things. Your goal as CC at this point is to listen to this kid and get him to reflect on his sense of apathy. Try to find out if there is something in the troop that drove it. What the dad, SM, or council think are superfluous.

I am reading from my fellow scouters that they ignore these when it comes to advancement. ... Not so. If a boy says he believes in God, attends church twice as often as his religion requires, keeps fasts, prays, reads scripture, etc ... But routinely takes the Lord's name (yours, mine, or his, it doesn't matter) in vain. He is irreverent. He does not advance until he can go a day without sputtering "OMGs."

You should define your regular meeting place to include the lake. Talk to your scout executive. Assuming that meetings always include adequate supervision, 20 plans for mostly paddling in a controlled area is excessive. The tour plans should be for the real trips 1+ miles.

I'm sure you can split hairs all the way down through every sect of every religion, but here are some broad pejorative categories that I've heard bantied about ... Clearly folks who have no religious life and mock everyone else who does are irreverent. Folks who promote their religion to the exclusion of others are overzealous. (Unless they're right, then they're just zealous.) By definition, folks who hold themselves up as religious yet live their life in opposition to their religion are hippocrites. Folks who think religion is above or beyond them, so they just stay home and muddle through are merely unchurched. Those who have profound doubts yet still subject themselves to religious teaching and practice? None of the above seem to fit. Some contemporary evangelists have used the word "seeker" (a term I personally find annoying). Regardless, at least in Christendom, some of the greatest writings in favor of faith ultimately came from such folks. I think that's why it's important to ask the boy, "what does it mean for you to be reverent?" Not a bad question to ask ourselves from time to time either.

BD: Should it be measured? How is it measured? As soon as I pull this log out of my eye, I'll let you know how to measure the speck in my young scout brother's! Is a scouter qualified to measure it? I think that misses the point. The goal is to get the boy, over time, to measure it. It may be that his theology will line up perfectly with yours. It may be not. A higher authority is, well, higher than that. But, we want our young men to reflect on this question early in their life. Because not reflecting on it until after you're guarding some enemy POW's and some crazy chick talks you into violating Geneva conventions can have dire consequences. remove Duty to god from the oath and remove Reverent from the scout law? Nope. There are plenty of other venues where that can happen. Interesting and valid questions But isn't that why so many churches charter BSA units.

BD - not to speak for CP, but ... This all hinges on what the SM's idea of duty to God is. Some people think if you don't have your "head in the game" the rest is all fluff. They accord a lot of respect to the kid who says "I pray in my own way." Others think that if you are showing due respect while harbouring profound doubts, you are at the very least giving God a chance to believe in you (even though the feeling's not mutual). There is no litmus test to hand to an SM and say these are "in" and those are "out". The best you can do is help a kid discover if he can be honest with himself regading an oath he makes every week. Part of that is letting the parents know what you're learning about their son. Part of it is reviewing the issue as a boy reaches an "age of accountability" (which very few 11 year olds have). Every rank advancement is a chance to bring up the issue and see if the boy is moving toward a direction where his beliefs and actions match his words. At this point (just crossing over, 1st conversation with the adult responsible for modelling behaviour according to conviction) it's too early to tell.