sherminator505

I agree that a closer adherance to the ceremonies and customs might help boost the OA lodge's stature in the council and generate interest. But isn't that more relevant to the traditional meaning of the Order, rather than the current rebranding?

And right on cue, someone who has nothing at all to say, says it anyway.

Ok, I'll concede that the epaulets have a useful function. They also hold up an OA sash really well. But I still see the colored loops as superfluous.

BadenP- I get your disagreement with my rebranding comment, but do you also disagree with my broader point about the language obscuring the point of the exercise?

What Mazzuca and the current leadership are doing is rebranding. And what this rebranding does is search for something that they think will resonate with the masses with little regard to what we are supposedly here to do. This whole "Honor Society of Scouting" thing is one example. Consider also the (relatively) new mission statement: "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetime by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." Yes, it sounds good, but something is missing. Consider the following from the Preface to Baden-Powell's Scouting for Boys, World Brotherhood Edition (regarding Scouting): "It is, in a word, a school of citizenship through woodcraft." In my opinion, this one simple sentence succeeds where the lofty statement fails for one very important reason; it touches on WHY we do what we do. The object is to help boys become better CITIZENS by instilling those values, as well as strengthening their self-sufficiency and complete development. Better citizenship doesn't come through sloganeering and symbolism, it comes through a complete education. We're here to fill in the spaces that our schools cannot and will not address. (This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Some folks tend to wander a bit, dont they...

Echoing Eagle92: Aquatic Activities = Bring Dry Clothes. As for deviating from the plan: This is the first time I've ever heard of such a thing happening on a Scout outing! Ever! I'm shocked!

Get rid of 'em all!!! We don't need no stinkin' loops!(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Pray, tell. What are these life experiences that have led you to these broad-brush conclusions? You appear to be breathlessly racing through one absolute after another.

"Is it no longer considered an honor to be an OA member among scouts?" Possibly for some, and I think the new slogan has a lot to do with it, as it transfers the "honor" from the camper to the group, and has more prospective candidates saying "So what?!"(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Scouting is not coed in this country because the GSUSA has never had a close relationship with the BSA and will not merge with it, and the BSA lacks the will to put forth a fully-coed program of its own. Nothing will change unless one of these factors goes away.

grmaerika- Given your premise, how do you explain children fron heterosexual households who grow up to become homosexual? And why do you believe that the opposite won't occur just as often?

The habitual shirker is not showing Scout Spirit. As such, that requirement shouldn't be signed off. I think your quota of habitual shirkers would fall off noticeably if that were the case.

A Scout is helpful.

Interesting turn. It seems that some of us are questioning the Order's relevance. That's a fair question. As an Eagle Scout, I have often questioned the relevance of NESA. To my mind, this has been part of the marketing of the "Trail to Eagle" that does not seem to benefit or strengthen Scouting as a whole. The difference with the Order, I think, is that it has the potential to have a real, positive effect in every Scout council, and it does so in many. In many councils one can point to camp improvements and Scouting events where the Order has taken the lead and say, "This is what the Order does!" When I propose opening up the Order to Venturing, I don't do with an eye toward letting the girls in, although that would be a side effect for better or worse. I look at it as a strengthening of the youth leadership at the district/council level. Right now we have the Order and Venturing cabinets and this latent Corps of Discovery that is being promoted right now (with seemingly limited results). Like our training program, we have fragmented and compartmentalized these programs so that it is very easy to see them become like NESA: ineffectual ideas that appear in some book or website that "don't work here." Is that really where we're at as an organization?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Let's take Mr. Boyce's argument at face value. He seems to be against homosexuality because it's a psychological disorder. Where does that lead? Shall we boot a Scouter for having adult ADD? Should an adolescent under treatment for autism be prohibited from Scout activities. Should heterosexual adults be prevented from marrying because one or both are bipolar? I think this is an aspect of the discussion that merits closer examination.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I wonder, what 15-16 yo BOY would necessarily want to hang out with the 12-13 boys under similar circumstances? For that matter, why is that even an issue under the typical conditions of the Ordeal? (Please PM if necessary.) Also, what percentage of candidates would be 12-13 yo. Scouts anyway? From my Scouting experience, your whole premise is a non-starter at best.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"Must have earned the BSA rank of First Class (or higher - a redundancy that isn't neccessary)." At one time, it was necessary. An Explorer who had earned either the Outdoor rating or Bronze Award was eligible to earn Star, Life and Eagle (ref. Explorer Manual, 1955, pg. 119). The same could be applied to Venturing youth today as a criterion for election to OA (read Outdoor Bronze), but this is not done presumably to keep out the girls. Either that, or the BSA is interested in seeing Venturing go the way of Explorers, to wither and die and to be replaced. Personally, I see the opportunity for the Order of the Arrow to become a uniting, strengthing force in districts and councils for developing youth leadership, whether they are in troops, crews, or ships. Sure, there would be some wailing and gnashing of teeth as the first female candidates come in, but I think that the change would ultimately be a positive one, and it would go a long way towards strengthening our older youth programs. That's not to say that the Order should shift its focus from camping at all. I would expect candidates from ships and crews to meet the same camping requirements as the Scouts from troops, and I would expect that they would have the Outdoor Bronze at least. Oh, and even if these changes were made, I would still disagree with calling it "Scouting's National Honor Society," as that would still convey the wrong message.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

That's great, Brent. I'm happy for you. I'd give you a pat on the back and an "Attaboy!", but you're so high in the saddle that I can't reach your back, and I doubt you'd hear me anyhow...

"I see no reason not to allow Venturing back in to the fold, just as Exploring used to be." There is a perceived reason, actually, and you hit on it. Girls. And to keep them out, we keep all Venturing youth out. A male in Venturing who has earned the Silver Award, has completed the Order's camping requirement, and exemplifies the true spirit of the Order cannot be elected to the Order. Go figure. But that really isn't the point of my question. As an organization, the BSA continues to pursue marketing efforts that end up doing the organization real harm. Billing the Order as "Scouting's National Honor Society" is one. Promoting the "Trail to Eagle" as a focus of Scouting while presenting First Class as something that can be rushed through in a year is another. We get so wrapped up in opportunities for merchandising and advertising that we lose sight of what we are truly here to do. And it bothers me a great deal.

Sorry, guys. Reposting to preserve the sequence... You might think I'm reading too much into it, but what I believe is happening here is a corruption of the language. Consider the old description - "society of honor campers." Now, there was an apt description of what the Order was and is. The honor wasn't in the society, it was in the camper. And even though the word "honor" was used, it was used with a dignity and humility befitting of the Order. Compare that with what we have today - "Scouting's National Honor Society." Now, that's lofty and majestic. It suggests that the Order's members are the best of the best, and it claims to be representative of Scouting as a whole. Now do you see where I'm coming from?

What do we refer to when we say "Scouting?"(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Ok, I'll bite. Since the OA is clearly a "Boy-Scout-only" program and Venturing youth need to find a similar organization for themselves, why then change from the "society of honor campers" to the higher-sounding "Scouting's National Honor Society" when we clearly don't mean it? Isn't that just hollow slogan-eering?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I have often heard people refer to the Order of the Arrow as "The Honor Society of Scouting," and I have seen the BSA market it that way. But I have a couple of questions: 1) What does that mean, exactly? 2) Does it really live up to that billing? If so, how?

I don't think the problem is that the training program is developed by professionals for volunteers. I think that the professionals who develop the training are not contemplating how their bright ideas will actually be implemented in the field.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)