scoutingagain

I can't claim to be an English major either, and will admit my posts on this forum don't recieve the level of review I would give a business document, but I suspect Sturgen and some of our other younger posters are products of the "let them express their ideas without worrying about grammar," approach to education. I drive my own sons nuts when I review a paper and correct what little spelling, punctuation and grammar I know. They tell me it's a science or social studies paper and the teacher doesn't grade based on grammar or spelling. Tuff nuggies. I make a specific point of marking up the paper so they need to reprint it. If they're going to reprint it, they will go in and make corrections. Slowly, they seem to be getting better at it. SA

While you can't change the Church's rules, you can point out to the COR that the rules are inhibiting the Troop's abilitiy to grow and sustain itself and then ask if the Church would consider changing the rules. It never hurts to ask. If the Church is shown that it's choices may come down to not having a troop associated with the Church under it's current rules versus having a sustainable troop with a different set of rules it can live with, it may consider a change. Just a thought. Dave, I sincerely with you and your son the best of luck.

Sturgen, I'll admit to being a fan of the underdog. I'm a Red Sox fan and before that grew up in NJ rooting for the Mets. (Never have liked the Yankees, except the real ones in Maine.) I was once called a true non-conformist in High School, because I didn't smoke pot, drink and went to scout meetings. I did have shoulder length hair just to confuse people. I considered it one of the high compliments I ever got. I can sympathize with those that march to their own drummer. But I can't agree with your appoach. If you truly want to effect change I suggest you look at how your message is being received by those that can make change. Being a thorn is not usually very successful. Your approach reminds me of Tax Protesters that refuse to pay taxes because they disagree with the way the government spends our money. The result is they usually either end up paying taxes or losing their house. There is little change effected. True change is more often effected by those that work within the system and are patient. It maybe fun sometimes in playing the revolutionary but my expereince is you "catch more flys with honey." The best information you've gotten so far comes from Mark. Take a long look at how your troop does things and examine how or if it advances the aims of scouting. Just my two cents. SA

I would think it is fair line of inquiry to ask questions related to personal beliefs to help determine if those beliefs are influencing a judge's rulings as opposed to ruling in accordance with the law. Also, in Washington both parties are guilty of partisan politics. Neither has moral standing to point at one versus the other as far as I'm concerned. Recall in the early 90's William Weld(Republican) was refused even a hearing as Ambasador to Mexico by the Republican Chair of the Committee responsible for scheduling the hearings (I forget which one) mainly because Mr. Weld had the odacity as a Republican to have said something sympathetic about the possible medical use of marijuana and was well known for being pro-choice. I have no doubt some Democrats are equally capable of petty partisan politics as well, but there are Republicans that are no better. SA

Anyone is entitled to an opinion based on whatever facts or information they choose to believe. That alone does not make their opinion correct or support a persuasive argument. I know of some people(I'm not refering to anyone on the forum) who get their information from either Fox News or NPR and consider other sources biased if they happen to present facts that are not consistent with their opinion. They are all entitled to their own wrong opinion regardless of the facts. However, I am not likely to be persuaded by those that automatically dismiss information simply because it doesn't support their opinion. SA

I will confess to being mildly amused at times at the banter between BW and FOG. There are times the tone of the discussion can get more than a little antagonistic. I will also say I have learned a lot from both, especially BW and would not like to see either one leave the forums. I'll sign the petition in hopes the tone of the discussion can be modified to a more civilized level. SA

In addition to the packs, don't overlook the obvious. We have all our scouts show us a winter hat, boots and good pair of gloves before we go in the winter. It seems like there's always one or two that forget them on the way out the door to get to the meeting area, or worse there's someone that wants to count a baseball cap as a winter hat and that's all they have. These are usually newer scouts or some of the scouts that don't camp as much in the winter. If it was just a matter of comfort I'd be happy to let them get cold for a while. But we can run into potential frostbite conditions and I would not want a kid to lose an ear, finger or toes or go into hypothermia. The other thing is to keep talking to them. I've found that some of the kids are reluctant to come forward if they are cold. They don't want to seem like a wuss. If you keep talking to them you can get an idea of how their doing and help make mid-course corrections before they get into real trouble. It might sound like I'm patronizing and I don't mean to be. Just passing on some observations of our cold weather camping trips. Good luck. SA

DSteele, If your post was directed at mine, no I certainly am not saying you or any specific scout has not earned their Eagle. Just my opinion that I think it would be difficult(not impossible) for a scout to complete all the requirements for Eagle before High School. This is based on my own experience and recollection of my maturity at the time and that of my son's. I could not have done it and I know my son is not focused or mature enough at this point to do it either. It's also based on some advancement activities I've seen in some troops. I'm also certain that there are some exceptional scouts, who are really into scouting, that dedicate their time and energy to scouting that could do it. But like I said, they would be exceptional. My main point was that I didn't think a troop needed to impose a specific rule imposing an age requirement if it has a well rounded program. SA

I concurr that most young men would have a difficult time meeting all the requirements for Eagle before they reached High School age. However I see no reason for a troop specific rule that is not consistent with the national program or policy. My guess is most young Eagle scouts are products of advancement mills that are not using the program as intended. i.e. I'm guessing such scouts are products of troops that schedule 2-3 Eagle Required merit badges every year as a part of troop meetings and every outing has specific advancement activities scheduled by adults. They may also schedule special merit badge weekends or meetings. Essentially advancement is spoon fed to the scouts almost like school. There is little individual initiative involved. It's no wonder those that reach Eagle in such an environment drop out, because I can't imagine it's much fun. Most of the time these meetings and outings are scheduled by well meaning adults that believe the point of the program is advancement. If, on the other hand, advancement comes as a consequence of participation and individual initiative, I'll bet most scouts can achieve the Eagle rank by age 15 or 16 if they are active and not involved in many other activities. For others that may need to balance scouting with sports, band and other activities that may on occasion limit their participation, they should still be able to reach the rank of Eagle by age 17 or 18 if they remain reasonable active. I don't mean to sound like Bob White, but if things are running well I don't see a reason for the troop rule. So, Sturgen, my question would be, in absence of your troop rule(I also would be curious how this is enforced), if a scout actively participated in troop activities, camp and sought out merit badges, service projects and leadership opportunities on their own, what would be youngest age that you think a scout could achieve the rank of Eagle participating in your troop? SA

It's definately the gender/genome thing. White men can't jump. Men don't eat quiche. Men can't wrap presents. Simple bumper sticker stuff. Me, I'm definately an "avowed" non-wrapper and usually go with the holiday bag approach. SA

I don't see why there couldn't be a knot for Life or Star or some other recognition for those that age out. Staying in scouts through the teen years is an admirable activitiy that should be recognized. One of our Life scouts that worked on Camp staff this summer was uncermoniously moved out of the youth staff cabin and into the adult cabin on his 18th Birthday. In retro spec we probably should have done more for the young man. Remember NJ scouting is not about competition. Besides I see Andy Petit will be an Astro next spring and the Sox have picked up Curt Schilling. We'll see who won't need a knot next year. SA

There is one thing that I have passed on to folks at that age that was given to me at about the same time. My junior high school music teacher(a fellow Eagle Scout I was to find out) gave the following observation: There are no second chances. It will never again in our lifetime be 9:40am December 12, 2003. So, choose what you will do on any given day wisely. Consider the consequences because you will not get to change them. At best we may get to do something a second time, with a different outcome. Just something that I've remembered over the years. Not that it's prevented me from making mistakes, but it has made me pause sometimes before I acted. SA

Great question Rooster. For the most part there is not alot I would change. In hind sight I wish I had stayed more active in my Troop then I did after I earned my Eagle. It wasn't that I conciously quit, I stayed a member but it seemed like a lot more stuff came up in my life as a junior & senior in high school and I didn't participate as much. As a consequence I did not get to the great outdoors as much as I had in the past and didn't realize how much I missed it until I got to college and got together with other scouts. As a relatively shy person I would try and be a bit more outgoing. It would have been nice to find my wife a bit earlier in my life. I just think we could have had fun together in our early twenties after being married to her for 20 years. I spent as much time as I could with my sons when they were younger but I would like to have spent even more. I won't get into specific incidents where I may have made a fool of myself on more then one occasion. Oh... and to have bought into Microsoft in 1985. SA

Thanks for clarification on the Convoy question. The responses make sense. When we travel, all vehicles usually have a map and directions, but we occaisonally end up with two or three vehicles traveling one behind the other. It's not planned that way, it just sometimes happens. Since everyone usually knows where their headed, we have not had a problem with a driver trying to stay with the group, but I could see where it might happen. We also exchange cell phone numbers and also use the Family Service Radios to stay in touch while travelling. (Not by the drivers, but usually a second adult or older scout in the vehicle.) This has helped to keep some from getting lost once in a while, or if they have had car trouble(flat tire) to let the rest know they will be late. SA

Rooster, I'm not sure if your asking specific questions of me or not. Maybe challenge is a better word than test. I agree that if there is confusion in one's mind they should seek more information. I have discussed some of this with one member of the protestant clergy in our neighborhood, but frankly, based on the information provided to my kids in Catholic religious training, get different information than they do. And my religious up bringing as a Presbyterian is a bit different than theirs. At some point maybe I will reach an epiphany and the truth will become known to me. For now I continue to seek information but this doesn't mean I don't believe in God or the Divinity of Christ. I just wonder how so many can read the same words and come to different conclusions and wonder how others can be so sure of their own convictions. I do want to thank you for one thing though. The conviction you show in your faith has me examining mine more than I probably otherwise would have if I had not followed your postings in these forums. SA

My intent is not to throw this thread off topic, but since the title is "Where do these ideas come from?" and we are talking about transportation... Could anyone provide some insight regarding the origin of the following requirement and what it specifically means? I frankly am not clear as to what the intent of this restriction is. 10. Do not travel in convoy (see "Leadership Requirements for Trips and Outings," No. 2). Thanks in advance. Your collective wisdom is much appreciated. SA

With Religion being discussed on so many threads it's hard to figure out where to reply and recall who said what. SM406 - Great Post, I particulary like the part about not burdening ourselves with God's work. NJ & Rooster - I must say I admire your conviction to each of your ideas and ability to present them. And Acco, you have brought up something I have been wondering about. I can accept that the Bible is God's word. But which Bible, which words. As noted the verses we read in English today were originally written by men thousands of years ago, who are not infallible, created by God and not without sin. These words have then been translated by several layers of other men (maybe women also but predominantly men) who are also subject to possible error and interpretation. If I were building a bridge, let alone a life, I would use a set of plans that were thousands of years old, translated from ancient languages several different times with a great deal of scrutiny. Not because I question the original idea of the plans, but I would wonder if the document I had in my hand today really represented the original intent of the architect. I certainly don't profess to be a Biblical scholar of any kind. I find I agree with much, maybe all of what SM406 said. I hope that because I wonder sometimes if mankind may have missinterpreted God's word at some point or missinterpreted another man's interpretation and put it in print at somepoint I am not considered a heretic of some kind. How many different denominations of Christianity are there? So I assume I am not alone. Acco may be right. Maybe how we interpret the Bible is a test. SA

So OT, did you and your crew get to the Big Apple in the snow? You should have come to Boston, you'd probably still be here. I think we got close to 2 feet over the weekend. I read in the paper there was one youth group that had gone camping over the weekend in Maine and just managed to get out of the woods today. SA

My understanding is the same as Scoutmaster Ron's. SA

KS Thanks a bunch for this. If you don't mind I'd like to take some of this and adapt it for some internal folks I work with. Thanks again for sharing. SA

From FOG, "If the disagreement is significant enough, yep. I don't like the quality of the current BSA uniform but that isn't enough to make me quit. On the other hand, I took a stand when the Smithsonian tried to paint the US as the villian in WW II, so I dropped my membership and let them know why." OK FOG, I'll agree there may be times when it is time to end your affiliation with an organization if you don't agree a particular issue. But as you also indicated there are also times where one may not find the issue significant enough to warrant such an action. I'll also submit that there may be times when the issue is of such signifigance it is more important to remain and try and change things, especially if there is no good alternative to the organization and there are other aspects of the organization one agrees with. This is not directed at you FOG, or any other particular person for that matter, I just find the attitude of not allowing for reasoned disagreement on any particular issue as ...frankly Un-American. SA

Mark, I like your approach. It recognizes that a scout will likely fail to live up to the Oath and Law at some point but also asks how he will improve his life to do better. More importantly it gets the scout to recognize this. I'd like to give it a try at our next BOR. This is stuff I hang aroung the Forum for. Thanks for asking the question EagleInKY. SA

Eamonn, I wish I had some great words of wisdom for you. All I can say is I've highly regarded your words of wisdom in this forum and hope things work out for the best for you. It seems so many organizations equate "meeting the numbers" as some substantial form of progress. Quality is often a difficult parameter to measure, so organizations measure success by quanitity instead of quality. I would hope the BSA, a great proponent of other, sometimes difficult to measure intangible values such as Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, etc. would avoid this. Keep up the good fight and best of luck. SA

I belieive I am fairly open minded and frankly not offended by much related to my religion. I would describe my faith as similar to DSteele's, Protestant - unaffiliated, although married to a Catholic. Several years ago I worked for a short period in Saudi Arabia. I remember filling out my visa application when I came to the section where I had to state my religion. I had never seen this before on any government form before. The only time I had heard of it was Germany in the 30's & 40's. I'll admit I felt weird. I almost did not fill in the information, but realized my visa would probably not get accepted and I would not be able to go do the work I was supposed to do creating a problem for my employer, (not to mention me) so I filled it in. I went and did my job. Worked with some really great people over there. I remember talking to my Saudi counterpart about camping with his sons somewhere where there were monkeys that chased his kids around the campsite. We had a good laugh. But I have never forgotten the fact that my religion was an issue. I could not wear religious symbols and I remember the presence of the government Religious Police. Consequently, I have become much more aware of the concern of the encroachment of any religious association with a branch of government. Yes, the majority of our population are Christians. But there is no one majority denomination. Imagine if the only acceptable form of Christianity allowed to be practiced was Southern Baptist, or Methodist, or Catholocism, or Episcopalian, Lutheran or any other denomination. This in fact is one of the main reasons many of the early colonists came to these shores, to be able to practice their form of Christianity without interference from the government or the majority of a society they chose to leave. Today we are an even more diverse society with significant numbers of non-Christians among us. There are darned good reasons to keep government and religion separate. SA

FOG, You said.. "Why? It's their organization and they can set whatever standard that they want. If I really don't like it, I can form my own organization." "That's the way that it is. He is the Pope, elected by the College of Cardinals and you are . . . maybe not a nobody but not someone whose opinion carries any weight. " Are we to infer from the above the appropriate response to a policy that one disagreed with, of an organization one was a member of, would be to simply quit and find or found an organization more aligned with ones own opinions? That we should all march in lock step unison with any organization we choose to be associated with? That there is no room for debate or change from within? I assume we would not expect see a post where you expressed disagreement with an organization you were associated with. SA