Beavah

Yah, it is bad for scoutin' when units start doin' that sort of thing. But it's a free country, eh? Even wearin' a scout uniform doesn't mean someone is goin' to live by the Twelve. Don't let it phase you. Run a great program that speaks for itself. Negative campaigning doesn't succeed in the long run. As to the other bit about a former felony conviction, that's not your responsibility, and yeh aren't in a position to have access to more complete data that others whose responsibility it is have. Let it go. Repair relations with your Chartered Org. IH and COR, and just keep havin' fun out there. Beavah

Yah, wow, a double-Lazarus thread! Oh, the thread came back, the very next year... Oh the thread came back, they thought it was a goner but The thread came back, they just couldn't stay away, away, away.... Interestin' to skim through da old responses. Nuthin' much has changed, eh? I vote moosetracker for da best response. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Does it actually exist yet? I though it was only in pilot. B

Hiya Gnome, Welcome back to Scouting! The procedure is goin' to depend a bit on your troop, eh? Each troop and the Chartered Organization that runs 'em are goin' to be different in how they select and screen leaders. Yeh really need to ask them what they feel is appropriate in terms of next steps. From the BSA perspective, once a troop has decided it would like you to serve in some role as an adult volunteer, the troop will ask you to fill out an application, it must be approved by the Chartered Organization, and yeh have to complete the BSA's youth protection training. After the Chartered Organize BSA takes it and runs a background check and you're registered. Da process, however, always starts at the local troop level, so that's where yeh need to start as well. Beavah

What's worse is calling rules, "guidelines" as some folks are calling the new rules on tools and equipment usage. Yarrgh! But that's all they are, matey. Naught but guidelines, the whole lot of 'em. As a unit volunteer, yeh work for a chartered organization, and the BSA is nowhere in your chain of command. The BSA publishes program materials on contract with the Chartered Organization, and those program materials are nuthin' but guidelines. B

Yah, this is hysterical, eh? The Ron Paul group have always had a better ground game than the party bigwig "regulars". Last time around they were playin' by the book but learnin' the ropes, and their candidate and ideas got ignored. This time, they're runnin' a real, genuine, grass roots insurgency. Takin' down the party establishment precinct by precinct, district by district, state by state. Given da behavior of most of the Republican bigwigs of late, it's hard not to cheer for a true insurgency that's tryin' to upset the apple cart, even if it is a bit quixotic. What's amusin' is that the media is just wakin' up to this with the Ron Paul win in Maine. He's been layin' out this strategy for months now. B

No rule against river tubing for Webelos on up. Ah, perdidochas, of course there's a rule. Yeh surely didn't think it was possible for da BSA to allow yeh to use your own judgment based on the kids and the river in question, did yeh? Cub Scout activities afloat are limited to council or district events that do not include moving water or float trips (expeditions). Safety Afloat standards apply to the use of canoes, kayaks, rowboats, rafts, floating tubes, sailboats, motorboats (including waterskiing), and other small craft,... Beavah

Yah, I reckon yeh can look like a boy scout or yeh can look like a gaudy effete Frenchman.

Yah, I just had to give this one some room to run, eh?

Yah, what packsaddle said, eh? I reckon it's just fine to ask about anything, so long as you recognize that we have some "personalities" around an you'll have to sift through the replies a bit to find what you're looking for. I think it helps a bit to be as specific as yeh can in your request, and provide enough background and detail so that folks get a sense for the thing. Otherwise, yeh leave everybody to guess what's behind the curtain, and you'll get the oddest results as different people make different guesses. If you're up front and honest about where you're at, I reckon you'll get a lot of answers of the same sort. At least for the first few pages. After that, unless yeh join back in and ask some more, the thread is goin' to drift like any conversation, as people start responding to each other rather than (just) to you. That can be a fun thing, eh? It's just that scoutin' in the U.S. does have its "camps", and eventually you'll see folks from different camps sawin' our old sawhorses. As to the "National" stuff, I think da first thing yeh have to realize is that the folks 'round here really love Scouting, and workin' with kids. To a man or a woman they're givin' a good piece of their heart, soul, and pocketbook to the greatest youth movement that Planet Earth has ever seen. Every last one of 'em. It's hard sometimes to reconcile deep, personal commitment to Scouting as a youth movement with the Boy Scouts of America Corporation that has a monopoly on the movement in the U.S. That's to be expected, eh? Corporation workplace dynamics and ways of thinkin' are just fundamentally different from volunteers-in-a-movement ways of thinkin'. Some here see BSA, Inc. as being Scouting, since it is the brand of scouting that they are most familiar with and have materials from. Da rest of us come at it from a bit of a different direction, and see both good things from the BSA and some stuff that just drives us completely nuts. And a few are from da old or international schools and just think corporate scouting is an odd American abomination. It's hard sometimes to watch those "conversations" until yeh realize that at the hear of it are just some great people who care passionately about Scouting and kids. Passionately enough to get a bit hot and bothered about doin' it well. Don't run from those folks, eh? Those are the folks who make the very best Scouters, because they care, and they take ownership. So I'd say go ahead and post your questions! If yeh want a list of "stock controversies", though, I'd say: Uniforms & uniforming (full vs. partial, adult awards, dress-designer vs. practical etc.) Advancement (First Class First Year, "mills"/dumbed down, high expectations vs. "don't add to requirements", etc.) Membership Requirements (gays and godless mostly, not many co-ed advocates) The Program Debacle of '72 (not a controversy, actually. Everyone agrees it was dumb, it just still sets people off) Patrol Method (also not a controversy, just lots of passion on how to do it well) The Guide to Safe Scouting (meant as a helpful reference, viewed by some as an absolute rulebook, new restrictions being added every 3 months) Woodbadge (21C vs. "old" WB, The Game of Life, the elitist attitude) Conservative vs. liberal politics (in various forms, kind of entertainin' if you're in the mood, nice cross-section of America, actually) B

Unfortunately, organizations have to create "rules" when the members of their organization can't seem to follow common sense. Yah, and this is a perfectly nonsensical way to make rules, eh? Yeh make rules for the broad majority. Rules and polices set the norms. Then yeh deal with the exceptions. Yeh allow exemptions for those who have the skill to do more, and yeh address the few lackin' in common sense by addressing 'em directly. When yeh try to set rules to prevent da most stupid things, all yeh accomplish is cutting program for the broad majority. Yeh won't stop the stupid things, because nature just comes up with a better version of stupid. Beavah

Necessary in some cases where a CO doesn't have other storage. Personally, I think they tend to detract from and limit the scoutin' program in the units that operate the big haulers. When given da opportunity to make the choice themselves, I've found most boys tend to go with lighter-weight stuff. It's adults who are more in to haulin' half of civilization with 'em. B

Oops. To answer da original question, before I got distracted, No. Of course there's no BSA rule or guideline about such things. Know your kids, know your parent community, and have fun out there. Beavah

The outcome I desired was to understand your reasoning. At one time I thought it was a simple enough goal. I was wrong. Yah, me too. But yeh still haven't answered my questions way back on page 10, have yeh packsaddle? What do yeh do for son, student, friend who is attracted to methamphetamine and gettin' into use? Somethin' yeh truly believe is self-destructive for that person, but that others argue is just a reasonable recreational pursuit that should be legalized? B

None of us have a vote, except the extreme and final decision of voting with our feet. It is at best a republic, but not one in the U.S. usage of the term. Well, some of us do . You mistake me. Da BSA is a membership corporation. The governance is that shareholders (well, members...) get a vote. Just like General Motors, eh? Investors get a vote, not consumers. As a purchaser of GM automobiles, yeh don't get a vote on GM's policies. Same with scouting, eh? The people who put their organizations on the line to run scouting programs get a vote. So if yeh want a vote, yeh have to pony up and be a Chartered Org. It was that way in the U.S. for a while, eh? Only landowners got a vote. People who paid taxes and were invested in an area. Beavah

Lighten up Francis! Hazing? Really? We're goin' to call hittin' the den leader with a chocolate cake the same thing as a dozen people beating a fellow student to death at Florida A&M? Have yeh lost your mind? This can be pure, innocent fun, eh? Without even a hint of disrespect. And much as Renax127's use of language was a bit abrupt, there is a point there that's telling. The best adult leaders in scouting, and especially in cub scouting, are the ones who don't take themselves too seriously. If the respect the lads have for you is destroyed by hittin' yeh with a pie in the face, then let me tell yeh yeh never had their respect in the first place. Yeh had their grudging compliance with authority, and that's not at all the same thing. The scouters the boys truly respect are the ones they tell stories about, and do skits about, and play jokes with. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Not sure that DLChris71 and I have reached an accord on anything that would merit an "according to...". Certainly what yeh describe is nothin' like my own view of the matter, shortridge. In terms of da BSA policy, as a practical matter the organization is set up as a (somewhat bizarrely insular) representative democracy. Just like da U.S., policy is goin' to be set by the majority of the members. I happen to believe in democracy myself, I see it more as an issue of self-determination that enhances rights. That's a practical statement, though, not a moral judgment. I don't think I've ever claimed on a moral basis that might-makes-right, because I certainly don't believe that in the least. I do believe in freedom of association, though. Indeed, I'm rather supportive of alternate youth and scouting movements, and would not object at all if folks who felt differently started their own group. I'm just not sure why I should let them change our group, particularly when we see from our Anglican brothers and sisters that such efforts lead to a great deal of pain and divisiveness, and probably to a separation in any event. Beavah

Disagree with my faith you can, but you cannot force my chartered organization to deny a leadership position on the basis of a tenant to which it doesn't adhere. Of course not Fehler. And the BSA would never attempt to. It might choose not to grant yeh a charter or recognize your religious award, though, but it doesn't have any interest at all in changin' your CO's position on such things. We just expect yeh to show equal respect to the BSA's position. If asked should a sinner be in a leadership position in anything, my answer is no. Whew. Holy Smoke! Yeh must have an awful hard time votin' for anyone for anything, DLChris71. Now I reckon that there is a spiritual truth to what yeh say, eh? Recognizing Jesus as Lord is essentially a statement that all other 'leadership positions' are bogus in the end. For the things that really matter, there is only one leader, and he is sinless. But I reckon a patrol still needs a patrol leader. In fact, left with no direction at all a leader is likely to emerge. Do yeh really expect all of your PLC to be perfect, even as our Heavenly Father is perfect? Seems like we wouldn't need scouting in that case. We'd be back in Eden. Might I inquire as to your denomination, DLChris71? I'm not really aware of any that take the position yeh do on "sin by degree". I'm curious if this is a personal position yeh have developed or whether it's one that is being taught as a formalism in some faith communities. B

Nah, Horizon, it's easier to jump in bed with da Catholics and use Jesus' list, eh? Those who give the hungry no food. Those who give the thirsty no drink. Those who do not welcome strangers. Those who do not clothe the naked. Those who do not care for the sick. Those who do not visit with and treat the imprisoned with compassion. "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels... Truly I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me." (Matthew 25, of course, usin' your RSV) Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... Seems like yeh all had a lot of fun while I was composin' my longwinded reply. Scoutfish, that was about the most bizarre group of random out of context biblical quotes I can imagine. Yeh know yeh can do that with any text, right? Yeh can do it with a Physics text just as easily. Some graduate programs in some professions even teach yeh how to do it with any text. Doesn't take any ability other than a deliberate effort to ignore da real meaning, and a desire to ridicule or undermine. Jed Bartlett did it better, though. ( ) DLChris, I'm not gettin' the sin by degree thing either. Never heard the term. I get the mystical tradition that holds that even a venial sin is a horrific thing because it is pullin' away from God, the most awesome Good. But once yeh get beyond that I think you're lost. God, after all , did provide different penalties for different types of sin, eh? Doesn't that suggest that He at least had a notion that some were a bigger deal than others? That havin' been said, I wouldn't buy into packsaddle's cutesy hypothetical. He's tryin' to paper over the distinction you're makin' between physical harm and spiritual harm because he only believes in da former. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

While slavery is almost the most extreme way to deny rights, denial of rights to people because of who they love IS denial of rights to a group. Yah, packsaddle, I reckon you're elevating the notion of "rights" so high that you're makin' it into a god of its own. Does someone have the right to do meth? Some would say yes, a person has a right to do whatever they want to their body, and the law should end where their body begins. A majority would say no, the societal consequences are too high. For me personally, as for NJCubScouter, those aren't interestin' arguments, eh? I think it's a moral issue, not (just) a financial or public policy one. Everyone definitely has the ability to make that choice to use meth, at least dependin' on financial means and the ability to look for supply. That freedom to choose is a God-given one that none of us can take away. The question for the person is whether to do meth. Goodness knows many are attracted to that easy "high". Others are pulled into it by social groups and such. The question for each of 'em is whether responding to that attraction or followin' that group is the right choice. Some would say the only personal morality is to maximize pleasure and avoid pain. Others would say the body is a gift from God which has proper use to do good deeds and live well. Those are the moral choices with which the individual must grapple. For the rest of us, though, the question is what's our proper choice in support of individuals grappling with that choice? We can't choose for 'em. All we can do is choose what we try to teach 'em, or how we respond to da choices other people make. Do we teach 'em that meth is an OK choice, like any other recreation or hobby? Do we teach 'em that it's a big, scary monster? When they choose to use, Do we cheer for 'em and defend their 'rights'? Hold marches in their honor? Do we hold 'em up to our young people as examples? Hire 'em as teachers? Do we persecute and jail 'em, seize their property? Do we reach out to 'em and try to get 'em help, try to convince 'em to change? Do we pray for 'em quietly, and stand ready to catch 'em as they hit bottom? Do we ignore 'em, as long as they use in private? Even in public? What would yeh do if it was your friend? Your student? Your brother? What would yeh teach if it was your son, your granddaughter? These are hard questions, eh? Hard choices. I think goin' on about God's law against drug use, makin' it a taboo in a culture has some merit from a public policy perspective. Taboos can be powerful incentives. Just say "no". In a discussion of moral choices, though, where the taboos have broken down, perhaps it's counterproductive. It doesn't change hearts. The reason things are God's law, after all, has to do with compassion, not taboo. We care about other people's choices because we care about other people. If yeh feel use of meth is a right for those who feel that's fulfilling, I understand that. I'll even agree that the choice is theirs, from God. But in care and compassion for 'em, I have to say that I would do what I could to discourage that choice, or at least not hold it up to the young folks as a good choice. Because from where I sit, it isn't a good one for them, for those around 'em, for society. I reckon the same is true for other moral topics, eh? Beavah

The standard response would be to point out that it was his fellow conservative Christians who backed slavery to the hilt Not my fellow conservative Christians, eh? My ancestors were abolitionists, and Lincoln Republicans, and at least a few did give the Last Full Measure of Devotion in union blue. I think you're confusin' Christendom with the state religion of the Confederacy, which had sadly parted ways from Christianity for a fair spell. That's the difficulty with state religions. They've slowly come back 'round, but such things take time. I reckon you're also mixin' up the statements of individual adherents with the position of the religion. If we're to judge any group by its most whacky individual adherents then we're all doomed. Beavah

Yah, but packsaddle, it's a rule. There can be no exceptions in da wingnut universe. As yeh see, though, wingnut, all that does is cause your universe to collapse in overlapping paradoxes. If you're a fan of Thomas Aquinas and western legal philosophy as I am, you'd recognize that no human law or rule can ever be universal, because we humans are limited, eh? We can't see all outcomes. To claim that a human rule is true without exception is a form of supreme arrogance, because it's a claim that the human who wrote the rule is all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-wise. In order to be Just, all human law requires exceptions. Aquinas argued that making such exceptions is a virtue and a duty. The rule might be only a parent can sleep in the same tent with a boy, but if Tiger Cub Joey's dad got called away on business and Uncle Fred is available, is it really Just to exclude Joey or make him sleep alone and afraid? Of course not. It is a virtue, and a duty, to correct the application of the law to achieve its just ends. And as a fellow who has written a few laws and quite a few rules, it's a kindness to the lawmaker. If yeh don't correct the application of the rules in common sense ways then you make all rules, and all rulemakers, look foolish. Yeh do more harm than good that way. So no, there's nothing that says that brother and sister may sleep with mom and dad on a family campout. Nothin' except what yeh know is right. Now go do what is right. Beavah

My religion, or to be more precise, the "movement" I associate with in my religion, has openly gay rabbis... Yah, I think you're sufferin' from what should be called a biased sample, there, NJCubScouter. Reform Judaism makes up 35% of the nominal American Jewish population, amountin' to less than 1% of the American population and a small fraction of the worldwide Jewish population. And as yeh say, you're talkin' about a sub-movement within Reform Judaism. That does not a trend make. There will always be small sects at the fringes that believe all sorts of things. Some may even persist to become mainstream. That's just not where it's at right now. The number of ultra-orthodox sects of your faith in all likelihood outnumber the sub-movement within the Reform community that yeh embrace. My point was only that shortridge is wrong to attribute the issue to only one religion or religious viewpoint. Aside from small sects like your own or the UUA, there is relatively unanimity, at least a large majority, among religions of all flavors on this issue. It's even frowned on by those whose religions don't generally impose a moral code, like the Dalai Lama. So it's fine to disagree, eh? Let's just not put it all on one religious group. Yes, once upon a time slavery was legal. But we are talking about 2012. Can you find me a single person in the USA or the Western world that honestly believes that slavery is right on any level? I doubt it. That's good, eh? That's because religious folks who believed in universal morality worked hard over many centuries to eliminate the practice. Many of 'em gave the last full measure of devotion to that cause. Removin' the acceptance of slavery from the world is a monument to those people of faith and action. Christendom, at least for the moment, has won that particular fight in the western world. We thought we'd won the struggle against various sexual issues after the fall of decadent Rome, but it seems when a civilization becomes wealthy and cosmopolitan and arrogant enough that sort of thing re-emerges durin' its decline. It's sort of part and parcel with other attitudes. Much of your Europe these days is heathen, eh? Declining birth rates, economic weakness, decayed empire. No surprise yeh feel all the moral compunction of ancient Rome. Beavah

Yah, hello NC Scouter. So each charter has a captain and a mate? Then I reckon yeh only want and need one adult from your program on each boat. Or yeh can just ask the captain or the mate to take the online SA training. Expect that you'll have to buy 'em a round. From a practical point of view, though, two experienced seamen who are skilled at runnin' charters for novices definitely do meet the qualified supervision requirements for SA. The reason to have one of your adults around is for fun and takin' pictures, or to manage any behavioral issue from one of the boys that needs someone with more time with the lad. Now, a friendly word of advice to let yeh know that your 20-minute online training does not trump the experience or training of two experienced seamen on their own vessel. It's the other way around, eh? Their experience with deep-sea fishing trumps your limited training in Safety Afloat. The BSA's interest in requirin' SA is to make sure that someone knows the minimums when operating without experienced guides, or knows how to recognize experienced guides. After yeh have contracted with an experienced commercial outfitter, Safety Afloat yields to their experience and the laws and regulations that apply to their charter. Beavah