sherminator505

I searched for posts on this topic but found none, so I decided to submit this to the group. The BSA has certainly strengthened its emphasis on training in recent years. However, recognitions for trainers appear to be few and far between. One of the few I'm aware of is the PTC knot, and another is awarding Wood Badge beads to course directors of NYLT and NAYLE. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of recognition for Scouters who show up for IOLS or leader-specific training on a regular basis, year after year. So I ask the question: How might the BSA better recognize trainers in general, and what are Scouters in the various councils already doing in this area?

First of all, welcome to the forum! Second, I know exactly where you're coming from because two decades ago I was in an identical situation. My advice is to locate a Troop that can utilize your talents and abilities with the understanding that you are limited by a college student's schedule. District contacts can be invaluable in this process. Third, and most important, remember that your main reason for being there is to further your education. Don't let Scouting or anything else distract you from your primary focus. Best of luck to you and, again, welcome.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Um... no Troop I have ever been associated with has allowed transistor radios on campouts.

It's not so much a matter of taking umbrage as trying to make a wrong situation right. I can't change the Church, as the Church is much more than a parish. Also, the requirement of the Church regarding doctrine is acceptance. So even though I might have personal disagreements on points of doctrine, I accept them as the teachings of the Church and refrain from arguing the point. My attitude toward Scouting is different only in that there is the opportunity to change something that I perceive as unjust. It's not taking umbrage, it is informing Scouters that my conscience tells me that what they are doing is wrong. You may disagree with me (and obviously you do) but you should realize that I have said what I have said with the very best of intentions.

"One of the Uber-troops around here has minimum age requirements for each rank. I think it ends up that they require their Scouts to be 15 for Life, 16 to start an Eagle Project and 16.5 to be Eagle." If this is true, then this Troop is adding to the requirements and is clearly operating outside the doctrine of "no more, no less." This kind of policy does not take into account that some boys mature faster than others, and it could really kill a Scout's enthusiasm. I for one would like to see an explanation of the positive aspects of such a policy.

Ed's right. There really isn't a regulation or rule requiring the Troop to have any direct involvement in any Scout's ECOH. That said, in most cases there is a satisfactory relationship between the boy, the parents, and the Troop and the Troop is willing to pitch in wherever it can. If the relationship goes south, then the arrangements fall entirely to the parents.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I find this very hard to believe. My understanding is that Venturing has its own system of awards and recognitions and that Venturers could only continue working on Boy Scout advancement only until their 18th birthday and only if they had earned First Class in a Troop prior to joining a Crew. The latter would seem to preclude girls, and I really don't see any rationale that the BSA would consider that would change this. I think this whole story is wishful thinking on somebody's part.

I find it interesting that beads are being given out for staffing courses other than Wood Badge when the old Wood Badge is no longer an acceptable prerequisite for serving on a WB21 staff. I took Wood Badge in the '90's, and I'm beginning to wonder if my beads have any value at all.

Thanks for answering my question, Ed. In response to yours, no, I don't believe they do. And before you ask, no I don't believe that fact means that I should quit the Church any more than I believe that I should quit Scouting because of one policy that I don't like. You take the good with the bad in life, but you should always try for more good even when the task becomes irksome and the responsibility becomes weighty.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

*sigh* "I'd be more than happy to answer your question, sherm, if you would please ask it again." OK, Ed. I don't typically repost something because it tends to make the forum longer than it needs to be. But as I can see that you are given to knee-jerk reactions and not actually reading the posts, I will repeat my question along with the setup in its entirety: "OK. I'm signing in one more time. I am not signing on to address any one post, as this could go on forever. But I do wish to make a few observations, if I might: 1) There does not seem to be a consensus as to whether or not homosexuality is immoral, even amongst the major Christian demominations. 2) There does not seem to be a consensus as to whether or not homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. 3) There does not seem to be clear evidence to support the assertion that open homosexuals would be any more of a detriment to Scouting than the closeted ones that are generally acknowledged to be there now. Given the above observations, is seems that a clearly exclusionary and probably discriminatory policy is being pursued based on "maybes" and the discomfort of some. Legal rulings aside, does this seem like a solid rationale for such a policy?" "Do the Catholic's administering this Rite know your stance on homosexuals?" Not that it's any of your business, but yes. My deacon does know that I believe that discriminating against homosexuals is wrong. And even though the deacon and I disagree on that point, I should tell you that I was accepted into the Church anyway.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

It is sad to see traditions like this end, because it shuts down one more opportunity to see Boy Scouts doing good. As a Scouter, though, I understand that changing attitudes on liabilities and such tend to restrict what we can do as an organization. This is why we have many of the training modules that we do, and that is why the list of "acceptable" activities for Scouts continues to change and evolve. I am also glad to see that cooler heads prevailed in this instance.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"Well, sherm, since you don't seem to like the membership policy, why don't you just turn in your membership card?" Well, Ed. That's an excellent question. I actually did leave Scouting for about five years. For the most part it was because I has a couple of baby girls that took up most of my time that wasn't devoted to work, but I'd be lying if I said that this issue didn't have anything to do with why I stayed out so long. Fast forward four years. I am now in RCIA (for you Protestants out there, that stands for Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults). Along the way, we were asked to examine our consciences and listen to what God would have us do next. And a funny thing happened. I came to realize that I was being selfish for not returning to Scouting because of something like this. I came to realize that I was dishonoring the Scoutmaster who helped me to Eagle and the Council who sent me to Wood Badge as a college Scouter on campership. And I realized that the only message that I was sending was that my nose was bent out of joint and I was slinking away. So I'm back, Ed, and guess what. I've decided that my conscience's dictates are more important than what you, and all those like you, think. I've answered your question, Ed. Now will you answer mine?

As I've surveyed the rich history of Scouting, I've noted that along the way that there have been figures that have forcefully and eloquently given voice to the message of Scouting. From James West, who worked to define and protect the identity of Scouting, to Norman Rockwell, who provided a vivid image of Scouting in a way that no amount of words could, to Green Bar Bill, who did an excellent job of writing handbooks (including the one I Scouted from) and laying out the program of Scouting in a way that was at once direct and appealing. All of these conveyed the message of Scouting as something to be admired and to aspire to. Surely the value of raising boys into productive citizens hasn't diminished. Surely the need to prepare youth to help our country and its citizens in times of crisis hasn't gone away. Surely the Scouting program has been, and continues to be, an enormously positive influence in the lives of America's youth. Why then do we seem to lack a voice in society today? Why don't we see Scout Shows, or Scouts in uniform, or Scouts on parade nearly as much we used to? How did we lose our message, and how do we get it out there again?

I feel that training in the BSA, for the most part, has improved. The offering of training courses online makes it much easier for Scouters to take certain courses on their own schedule and frees up district and council training staffs to provide leader-specific training, IOLS, and WB21. One aspect that has suffered, in my opinion, is the level of outdoor skills courses offered to Scouters. WB21 shifted away from this, and nothing has been developed to fill the void. My suggestion would be a second outdoor skills course as a sequel to IOLS. I'm not sure what you would call such a course, but it would pick up on some of the nuances of actually camping as a patrol and complete the Scouter's instruction in First Class Scout skills. Given the conversations I have had with other Scouters and the posts I have read, I think that such a course would be very well received.

OK. I'm signing in one more time. I am not signing on to address any one post, as this could go on forever. But I do wish to make a few observations, if I might: 1) There does not seem to be a consensus as to whether or not homosexuality is immoral, even amongst the major Christian demominations. 2) There does not seem to be a consensus as to whether or not homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. 3) There does not seem to be clear evidence to support the assertion that open homosexuals would be any more of a detriment to Scouting than the closeted ones that are generally acknowledged to be there now. Given the above observations, is seems that a clearly exclusionary and probably discriminatory policy is being pursued based on "maybes" and the discomfort of some. Legal rulings aside, does this seem like a solid rationale for such a policy? (This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"What were they voting on at a roundtable?" Camporee activities and such. My memories of exact content is scant now as it was over 20 years ago.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

My experience with leadership beyond the Troop level as a Scout was a mixed bag. I found that for the most part, SPL's did not attend district roundtable. Even though there wasn't anything preventing youth from attending roundtables, most of the time I was the only one there and when there was another Scout, he was usually a Life Scout informing the district Scouters about his Eagle Scout project. I didn't have a vote on anything, and I didn't expect to, but I still felt like a full participant. I'm not sure if roundtables operate the same way today (I suspect they still do) but it seems that most of the limitations on Scout-age participation beyond the troop level are self-imposed. Also, it should be noted that due to legalities, adults are required to make the decisions beyond the scope of day-to-day troop operations.

There is a problem with changing dates for events. People who are planning to attend a Scouting event typically have to schedule the rest of their lives around it. When you change the date, you've just undone all of those arrangements. There is definitely an opportunity for coaching and learning here. It should probably happen after one of these events tanks because the DE has outsmarted himself.

Actually, ev, this has changed quite a bit since I first became a Scout (in the early 1980's). We now have women eligible for any leadership and have full participation of older girls in Venturing. I think that difference here is that the girls have historically had their own organization and have shown no desire thus far to merge it with ours. What we are talking about here is something that really came into focus in the 1990's when it became a point of emphasis because of lawsuits. As I have stated previously, my problem is not with the policy but the attitudes that generated them. IMHO this is no different than the conversations we had last century over voting rights and civil rights.

"Girls are not allowed to be members of Packs or Troops. Does that upset you?" Not at all. There is a program for them called Girl Scouts. It is regrettable that the two organizations are not more closely related, but all of this is beyond my point, which is that discrimination against gays now is just as wrong as interning loyal Japanese-Americans was sixty years ago, and as wrong as segregation was a century ago, and as wrong as slavery was a hundred and fifty years ago. It upsets me that so many Americans today continue to indulge this particular blind spot in their ethical compass when most would not abide segregation or slavery or internment based on ethnic origin today.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"The BSA is a private organization that can legally set it's own membership requirements. If you don't like it, join an organization that supports your beliefs." I really don't think you read what I wrote. To further clarify, my problem is not with the BSA but with the mindset that discriminating on the basis of sexuality is somehow OK. This is a cancer that runs rampant in our country, far beyond Scouting. I believe strongly in the ideals of Scouting and of America, and that is why I feel that is my responsibility to point out a grevious wrong for what it is. Let me conclude by saying that just because something is legal doesn't make it right.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Let me be clear about this. I am not so much against the BSA's policy on homosexuals as I am against the general attitude that this kind of discrimination is acceptable. The policy is merely a regrettable symptom of the larger problem.

Any of the above.

I'm unclear on one point here. Is UoS an official program from National and, if so, where can I find the literature?

I see that you are making at least some effort to separate homosexuality from pedophilia, but you seem to be suggesting that you object to homosexuals because they are "more likely" to be pedophiles and cite sources you have read. I don't know what sources these would be, but I'd like to. I also find your comments interesting because they clash with my own personal experience in which a Scouter (who later killed himself) molested several of my friends and fellow Scouts under the auspice of Scouting. This man did not claim to be a homosexual and in fact tried to appear as normal as possible. Pedophilia is about power, not sexuality, and it is dangerous to conflate the two as it does not address the real problem.