Beavah

Doesn't matter what the patrol name is. Da CC should butt out. It's the SM's and SPL's call. If a CC is gettin' into that level of micromanagement then it's time he step down and let someone else have the patch who is focused on supportin' the program in "big picture" ways. Beavah

Yah, I think da scope of the project is sound. Perhaps they were redirectin' the lad for other reasons? Not enough planning? Safety concerns? Is the "youth camp" perhaps a for-profit entity? Even if they occasionally lend their facilities out for free, most councils won't allow a capital improvement project like this for a commercial business. You don't mention what your role in da troop is, FrankBoss. If you are the SM or the troop AC, then I'd put in a friendly call to the DAC. The way you approach this is that you're tryin' to understand the criteria so that you can help this boy and other boys in your troop do a good job. And then, if it seems right, yeh gently ask questions and refer to the stuff Gunny mentions. See where that gets you. CA_Scouter is right, though. In terms of scope, this is a project that would sail to approval in any council I'm familiar with. Beavah

Yah, I'm with yeh Scoutfish. The easy answer here is simply to trust the unit leaders, eh? We're trustin' 'em with the lives of boys in the wilderness. Surely we can trust 'em with the judgment on when the lad deserves an award. A lot of national chartering-type organizations, like National Honor Society which was brought up in another thread, don't allow for any appeal beyond the judgment of the folks who are running the local chapter. In fact, when yeh look at NHS, the individual schools are also allowed to set higher standards for their award than the national organization's minimums (http://www.nhs.us/Membership.aspx). Beavah

Ah, Scoutfish, he sucked us both in, eh? Now it's another "all about Merlyn" thread. A whole mess of pages about how real scouters and even some real BSA officials handle da policy in a balanced, compassionate way and for some reason that makes us cowards and hypocrites. Sometimes yeh just can't win. Too bad, I thought Lisabob had some interestin' thoughts, though I disagreed with 'em in someways. Thanks to Lisabob for movin' this to I&P anyways, so that the other poster could get some real answers. Beavah

Nah, OGE, that's too much pi for me. B

And no, no matter how helpful you are, you can't join an actual atheist group that requires atheism (like American Atheists). Yah, too bad, eh? Guess the BSA is a more friendly and welcoming bunch than you atheists are. Nobody in James Dale's or Daryll Lambert's troops wanted them to leave, the national BSA forced them out. James Dale and Daryll Lambert were both adult leaders, not youth members, eh? If yeh read what I and others have written, yeh see there is a distinction in the BSA policy & practice between the two. We want our adult leaders to be examples of our position and values to our youth members; we want our youth members to simply be open to our position and values. Our adult leader application asks adults to subscribe to the DRP, while our youth application mentions that our adult leaders subscribe to the DRP, without askin' the youth to do so. Neither Daryll Lambert nor James Dale were removed while they were youth members. After they became adults, we made a decision that their views weren't compatible with bein' the right example an adult leader should be in a program that teaches personal responsibility to community, nation, and deity. I expect even if your American Atheists group eventually became enlightened enough to welcome da children of Christian parents, yeh still would want the adult leaders and board members of da organization to be atheists. Why should it be any different for us? And I for my part wouldn't mind a lick if da public school sponsored an atheists club if kids wanted one, so long as they were open to sponsoring a Christian club if Christians wanted one. Guess I'm one of those unenlightened furry critters who appreciates diversity and free expression more than you atheist fellows . Beavah

Again, its Christian persecuting Christian. I've never heard of Atheists persecuting each other. Surely you jest. There's always an us vs. them, our-tribe vs. their-tribe thing goin' on. Russian communist atheists and Chinese communist atheists sure have come to shootin' conflicts on more than one occasion. Mao's cultural revolution sure produced a lot of brutal atheist-on-atheist persecution, as did Stalin's purges. Atheism isn't proof against that sort of thing any more than Christendom is. Perhaps less, because at least Christendom teaches a moral obligation to the other tribe as fellow humans. Even though the teaching is ignored more than half the time, it remains there as a call and a warning. Perhaps that's why the most vicious pogroms and slaughters of the last 100 years have been perpetrated by secular atheists. Beavah

What a lot of folks are doing is following the official policy, eh? What Lisabob describes as the "formal" policy is a bit of an artifact born of the need to defend the organization against folks like you, Merlyn. We really do care about service to community, duty to country, and obligation to God. It's part of what we teach. We intend to continue teaching it. In almost all units, we do that in a very friendly, welcoming, low key way. But, when confronted by angry "formal" challenges by outsiders who don't want us to teach about such duties or obligations in any way, shape, or form, it is necessary to defend ourselves with "formal" policies which clearly declare our values and principles. And, yah, to remove those who by firm word and action commit themselves to undermining those principles. If whatever atheist club you belong to were faced with a bunch of evangelical Christians or Muslims who were determined to join, it wouldn't take long before yeh wrote up formal "policy" stating that such folks were not eligible for membership. But if a Christian dad named Beavah brought his son to your events and the family was respectful and helpful, I reckon you'd have no problem with the lad participating. He'd get an occasional dose of your atheist thought; durin' private conferences he might express his doubt of your position. Maybe you and that Beavah fellow would sometimes talk respectfully about perspectives over da campfire late at night. No big deal, eh? That's da real position of the BSA. We care about duty to God as adult leaders, but part of that duty, part of what we call "reverent" is not crammin' it down other's throats. Our version of duty to God is kind and friendly and helpful and courteous. We will not abandon that sense of duty in da face of challenges, and we'll defend our mission when that's necessary. We want our adult leaders to reflect our values. But in 99.99% of da cases, the gays and atheists and agnostics and unchurched whose sons and daughters participate in our programs aren't interested in crammin' their view down our throats either, eh? And they're made welcome. That's da real policy and practice. Always has been. Beavah

Yah, and of course it's very hard for a startup to break into a market with existing pricing structures by monopolistic large players, eh? Insurance companies being exempt from da anti-trust statutes and all. It's not the same thing as manufacturing, eh? If yeh build a better mousetrap, people will come and buy it from yeh as a small outfit, helpin you to grow. At least until some big company with an overbroad patent on "any device used to kill, trap, or isolate rodents under 20 lbs" sues you into oblivion for violating their "intellectual property." If yeh offer service to more needy folks whose expenses are higher, yeh just aid the big players rather than compete against 'em. They can push off their high risk clients on you while continuin' to skim the low-risk clients for themselves. And yeh aren't big enough to force the changes in billing practice or caregiver structure or tort reform that make for real savings. In short, it's a systemic problem, which needs to be addressed systemically.

Yah, Merlyn, whatever. So now if you've been listenin' at all, yeh know what da real policy and practice of the BSA is, from those who really determine and practice it. It's really not all that awful or unreasonable, is it? Funny how when we get to know what other people really are like, it's a lot harder to vilify 'em. That, too, is one of the things we teach in Scouting. Beavah

Yah, twoeagles, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in da wording your son's SM used, eh? I see this as being a SM tryin' to help a lad be successful. As ghermmano writes, a lot of districts would look at somethin' like this and reject it as a project outright, because of concerns that it doesn't meet da leadership requirements for a project. So your son's SM is tryin' to help him flesh out the project to incorporate more opportunities to show real leadership, so that his project is more likely to be approved. Since the current focus of da project (electrical wiring by a professional) isn't likely to incorporate that, he's suggesting your son add a "phase two" or an additional piece of service which can be done with less skilled labor that is under your son's direction. Your son's SM is doin' his job to help your lad be successful in front of a district review. I'd gently suggest that da proper response is to encourage your son, trust in his ability to work it out with da SM, and quietly thank the SM on the side for helpin' your son focus his project to ensure success. Beavah

Nah, Merlyn, what you are seeing here is what da real policy is in the real BSA. As mikemeyer describes, it's subtle and nuanced. What you are mistaking for intellectual cowardice is in fact intellectual sophistication and care and concern for children and families, without compromisin' da values or aims of the program. The BSA offers a program that is grounded in a sense of duty to things outside ourselves. Service to the community. Duty to country. Obligation to God. Those are things we really believe in. Those are things we really teach. Those things comprise our right to expressive association. If you are sure and certain that yeh disagree with any of those things, and that yeh don't want your son exposed to any of those things, then that's a choice not to participate in a BSA program, eh? Your choice. If you're obnoxious about it and try to force your way in just so you can loudly oppose the things we believe and try to undermine 'em from inside, then yah, we're goin' to insist that you leave. Just as an atheist group would kick out a bunch of evangelical Christians who tried to join so as to "convert" the group. As long as KnoxDad is OK with letting his son participate and be exposed to different beliefs, and until his son makes a firm choice of his own as a young adult, almost all scout units would welcome the lad as a full and equal member, and welcome KnoxDad as a friend and a parent and a volunteer. Perhaps not as a leader, but then KnoxDad I'm sure would be an honest fellow and say he isn't comfortable with that DRP thing. No different than if his son joined the community orchestra and KnoxDad was honest that he didn't have the qualifications to be a conductor, but was happy to drive on trips or help with fundraising. Yah, we have a few zealots, eh? They offer perspective and keep us thinkin', but they don't speak for the organization as a whole. Just as atheist communities have a few zealots like you, Merlyn. But I reckon KnoxDad doesn't share your zeal, and that you don't speak for him or for all atheists any more than our more zealous folks speak for all of us. KnoxDad, as I said in my first post, I can't think of any packs or troops or crews that I know that wouldn't welcome your son and treat him as an equal and a friend, and that wouldn't welcome your family... so long as you were understanding and respectful of da organization. Yeh should be aware that scout units are controlled by their sponsor, not by da BSA per se, so you will find some units that are tightly associated with individual churches and have more of a churchy-character than others, so yeh have to keep an eye out for whether you and your son feel comfortable with an individual unit. But unless yeh live in a very small town, odds are there are several scouting groups in your area to choose from. Otherwise hang around, go campin', have fun. Scoutin' is a great program, with lots of good folks. Your son will grow from it, and your family will benefit. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

DancesWithSpreadsheets speak with accountant's tongue. Truth in naming is a good thing. Yah, when someone with expertise contradicts your belief, it's always best to dismiss their expertise and hold on to your belief, eh? A return on equity of 13% is quite respectable. Bet you'd like to have that kind of return on your equity! It's not appropriate to compare profit margins between manufacturing and financial services sectors. Stock price depends on whatever the buyer is feelin' like paying, and often has nothing to do with the health of the company. More to do with how much fear, greed, or loose change is kickin' around. With any information, look to da source. If it comes from a political interest or lobby, ignore it. It's useless crap. Those are advertisin' folks writin' stories and spinnin' yarns to try to sell yeh stuff... and like as not what they're sellin' is snake oil. No matter how much yeh might want to believe, or how much yeh share their politics, yeh have to dismiss that stuff or you'll end up lookin' the fool. On my honor I will keep myself Mentally Awake and all that, eh? OGE, I don't think there's anything wrong with bein' successful, eh? Just depends on how you define success. If I successfully provide a real service to the folks I work for, somethin' that improves their lives, or helps 'em when they're down, or gives 'em greater security, that's a good thing. Accepting a small fraction of their wealth for that service is reasonable. If, on the other hand, I become wealthy by taking advantage of them, by only providing a limited service at a high price through manipulation, by takin' advantage of laws and loopholes, or by hurtin' society in general, then not so much. Makin' money strictly by financial manipulation is one of those areas which is highly suspect for the latter. I reckon there was a reason why your religious tradition prohibited lending money at interest for most of its history, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Buff, let me try a different question, eh? If every single patrol leader is out, and the boys are lookin' down the barrel of a ratio of experienced to inexperienced that's so extreme... Why isn't your SPL canceling the outing? Why are you as an adult leader tryin' to bail them out with (admittedly) weak adults or adults you don't have any experience with? Seems like if you're teachin' your youth leaders responsibility, one of the important lessons is that if most of the guys with experience bail out, then proper good judgment is to cancel and have those that bailed out apologize to everyone. First campouts like first impressions are important, eh? Yeh want those new parents to see your youth leaders in action, and be comfortable with how that works. Yeh don't want to start with the impression that the role of the adults is to be directin' and supporting the kids because the youth leaders are absent, or that unless they come as parents on outings their son may be left in a situation that's out of control. Shoot the thing. Then debrief with your PLC on what went wrong with da scheduling that they let down their new guys. Reschedule promptly so the new fellows get what they need. Otherwise your outing is going to feel more hectic than your meeting did, with you runnin' around tryin' to herd new adults and new youth and adults fillin' in as PLs and all that. I don't think yeh want that first impression. That hectic stuff is also when balls get dropped or kids get hurt. Just a thought . Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'm curious MikeMayer, which form of God/god do you think applies to Scouting. Has nothing to do with what mikemayer thinks, eh? Or with any of Engineer61's ruminations on da presence or absence of capital letters. Neither of 'em get to speak for the organization. The BSA defines what it means by its Declaration of Religious Principle and by its own choices and actions. We choose to welcome Buddhists and Wiccans and Native American spiritualists as BSA members, eh? Therefore what we're lookin' for isn't da capital-G personal singular God of Christendom, but rather a professed moral duty to something outside of self and country. Somethin' "bigger". Da AA "Higher Power" thing might be a good approximation, though that's not how a Buddhist would think. The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no person can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, acknowledges the religious element in the development of youth members. However, the BSA is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious development. Its policy is that the organization or institution with which youth members are connected shall give definite attention to their religious life. Best way to think about this is that BSA membership is about duty, eh? Yeh have to be able to profess duty to country, and yeh have to be able to profess duty to whatever it is in your religious tradition that roughly corresponds to "God". It just has to be somethin' outside yourself which imposes a moral duty on your choices and behavior. Somethin' beyond family/tribe/nation (i.e. beyond self-interest for you and yours). Something that generally comports with religion/religious practice. That's it, eh? And it's worth rememberin' that da DRP applies directly to adult leaders only. Youth members are given even broader latitude to doubt and question and explore. To do anything else wouldn't be Christian. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Buff, I'm not sure quite what your question is, eh? There's no particular BSA rules on who can go campin' with the lads; that's a unit program decision. Adults who go camping with the boys should have submitted an appropriate medical form to the unit, and a liability waiver if required. Adults should meet the "Sweet 16" requirements as participants for da outing: * Know who the adult supervisor is, and obey him/her. * Have appropriate physical fitness for the outing in question. * Obey the buddy system and keep to the safe areas. * Have proper gear for the outing and proper safety equipment. * Follow the safety procedures and policies. * Meet the minimum skill requirements for the outing and stay withing their skill limits. * etc. I reckon if a particular adult fails to meet any of those expectations - proper fitness, proper gear, proper skill level, proper behavior, then they shouldn't be on the outing, eh? The Sweet 16 apply to all outings. After that, certain types of outings may have some additional specific requirements. Water outings, for example, may require a swim check or demonstrated paddling skill. Fail da swim check, no going on the canoe outing. Biggest thing after that is what their role is on the outing. If at any point they are giving direction or supervision to boys, then they should be screened, vetted, trained, approved, and registered. Being a supervisor or giving direction to kids demands a higher level of experience and skill (Sweet 16 point #1). To my mind, that includes giving camping direction and assistance to their own son, since da average parent often doesn't understand the nature of risks outdoors. Does that help, Buffalo Skipper? Beavah

Yah, Engineer61, da thing is that kids' program policies aren't really exercises in symbolic logic, eh? Thank goodness, or they'd be frightfully boring. The BSA and the chartered partner and the volunteers who run each program get to decide on their own actions and interpretations and definitions. And even da worst legal scholars and advocates wouldn't cite dictionary.com I don't reckon most kids can intellectually deny the existence of anything until their teenage years. Even then they're mostly just rebelling rather than actually making their own personal choice. I've mentioned before da many "atheist" lads I've talked with in Scouting over the years. At least one of 'em is now a minister, and most are reasonably devout Christians. Kids are kids. They're going to struggle, and question, and challenge, and doubt. Nobody in the BSA who is worth anything is goin' to turn a lad away who is goin' through those things, and certainly nobody in the organization is goin' to force an eviction under such circumstances against the desires of the unit leaders and chartered partner. The issue of denied membership only comes up when someone is deliberately challenging the membership policy, eh? Tryin' to make a political statement through their child, which to my mind should deny 'em membership just for being lousy parents. Or for an older teen making a personal or political statement on his own, where we're just honoring and respecting the lad's decision to withdraw. Now individual CO's I suppose might choose to take a harder line, eh? Honestly, I've never seen a Christian sponsored unit do so. Most churches seem to feel it's their mission to welcome those who have doubts. B

Yah, I reckon somebody should tell Rush that Puerto Rico is still in da U.S., eh?

At the bottom of it all, isn't the health care debate really just a different version of wealth envy? Huh? I don't get yeh here, JoeBob. From where I set, it seems like the health care debate is about as far from that as I can imagine. It's sometimes about values - about how compassionate we are to our fellow citizens in need. It's sometimes about economics - what makes the most sense as a policy to promote and sustain a healthy workforce for the nation in a competitive world while keepin' costs under control? It's occasionally about public health, as Lisabob mentions, eh? When that poor fellow gets sick and isn't cared for, disease spreads to da rich fellow too, eh? Microbes don't care much for bank accounts. Nothing in any proposal is goin' to prevent the wealthy from getting top-notch health care. The question is what do we do for the hardworkin' family man who gave the last 20 years workin' for GM/Saturn and is now out of a job. Do we sentence his wife who has cancer to death, because he now has no insurance, and da exclusions for prior conditions prevent him from getting any? Beavah

NHS is probably not the best example for you, because they have local school-affiliated chapters with student officers and faculty advisors. Nah, I think it's a decent example, because it follows the same sort of charterin' model that the BSA does. So here we have an outside political lobbying organization (NASSP) given privileged access to children in schools through their awards program, even though some in the community may be opposed to their positions on particular issues. The schools do that because they want their students who are eligible to have the benefits of the program. But not all students are eligible, eh? That isn't much different than an outside youth services organization (BSA) being given access to children in schools through their chartering & awards program even though some in the community may be opposed to their positions. At least da BSA isn't a political lobby with a legislative agenda . The schools might wish to do that because they want their students who are eligible to have the benefits of the program, even though not all students are eligible. So if the state gives privileged access to children to an outside political group, isn't that a form of viewpoint discrimination which we should oppose? Do we really want the state to endorse political groups to our kids in that way? Shouldn't the measure rather be "we'll charter any community group who we feel serves a segment of our population well, regardless of their political or religious viewpoint?" Yeh might say that most kids don't realize NHS has political connections, but then most kids don't realize BSA has religious connections. Yeh might say that mediocre or poor students are not a "suspect class" and it's legally acceptable to discriminate against them in the provision of services, and that's true. But is it OK? Da BSA would welcome weak students in their programs, and I'd argue that weaker students need more programming and chance for success. And, after all, religion is a suspect class, and excludin' the BSA's weak religious message in favor of the NASSP's weak secular/political message smacks of viewpoint discrimination by the state, eh? Just sayin'. Beavah

Thanks for sharin', Twocubdad. What you report I reckon is pretty typical for most troops. I think the "never kicked in" figures are often higher. B

I wish I had answers, I know the way it is now, it needs changing. I also know that the changes I have read will do nothing to improve the quality of Medicine. Yah, dat's about the same place I'm at, OGE. Kahuna, to expand my point a bit, even if yeh think there's a constitutional argument to be made, my point is that actually making that argument is bad strategy for conservatives. Not that any of the right are very good at strategy at the moment. At it's heart, the argument you're proposing is an argument for single-payer government-run health care. We can't make people buy insurance through legislation, so the only way to address this is by taxing everyone and providin' the service directly. Same as we do for government-run education, eh? Tax everyone, then provide the service only to those who opt in. Is that da argument you really want to make? Beavah

Where I live, many small evangelical Christian groups hold their weekly prayer meetings in the local elementary school cafeteria. They pay the same fees that any other community group (including scouts) would pay to use that room on a weekend. Yah, but would they be allowed to use "backpack mail" to announce events to students/parents? Are there some groups that are accorded free access while the Christian groups are made to pay fees? National Honor Society is an outside group, eh? It's the awards program of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, which is in part a professional society and in part a political lobby. Do your schools charge fees for NHS meetings? If not, why are they accorded special privileges while other groups like scouts are not? B

Yah, Merlyn, I think there are all kinds of good reasons why public bodies might offer services targeted to one population or another, eh? Young urban males tend to be at particular risk of dropping out of school and gettin' into other trouble. Seems like schools or programs which specifically target the needs of young urban males would be an effective use of my tax dollars... even if they excluded young urban females or white suburban males. We target services to subpopulations all the time, eh? We spend research dollars on prostate cancer, which affects only men, on breast cancer which affects only women, on sickle-cell, which affects only blacks, on melanoma, which tends to affect mostly whites. Plenty of public universities offer student programs targeting particular groups, eh? Scholarships. Black student unions. LGBT programming. Stuff that practically or literally excludes some groups so as to offer needed services to other groups. Why should religious belief be treated any differently? Beavah

Hi jmedina, welcome to the Forums. Sorry to hear your son was given such a hard time about goin' on a campout, especially under such trying circumstances for your husband and family. AlFansome gave you the "true" story from the BSA's perspective. Each boy should be responsible to one adult who knows the lad, and each adult should be responsible for no more than two boys. So from da BSA's point of view, what you proposed with your close friend would be perfectly fine. Scout units like a cub pack are owned by a chartered organization, not by the BSA. The chartered organization can impose stricter requirements if it wants. More to the point, da leaders in your pack and den are volunteers, eh? And if a volunteer isn't comfortable at a ratio of less than 1:1, or isn't comfortable unless the parent of each boy is present, then that's that. Yeh can't force other people to offer free services to your boy if they don't want to. Nor can the BSA. All you can hope is that they're compassionate and understandin' of your circumstances. So I'm sorry your son's den leader wasn't comfortable at anything less than 1:1 parent:child setup. Without knowing your boy, I'd say that most scout leaders would have been happy to have him along with your family friend lookin' after him, so long as he hadn't been a behavioral challenge in the past. But it's her time to spend, eh? And she can set her own rules for what she's willing to offer her time for. In terms of "turning her in", I'd recommend you give it a bit of time to let the heat of the moment simmer down, and then address a polite letter or conversation to the Cubmaster and Pack Committee Chair. Beavah