skeptic

Interesting comment regarding positive actions towards others. One of the things that has always impressed me is the logic behind the wording of the Scout Law. It is a positive statement: "A Scout Is", not a scout does not. It assumes the best from the boy rather than dictates against something. Properly reinforced, this becomes a very good lever for responsible action and self pride. Hazing, as noted, is difficult to define; and what a small minority calls hazing, is often thought of as simply good fun amongst friends in many cases. Brings us back to making rational decisions based on valid concerns, rather than reaction to inuendo or hear-say. For example, most boys always enjoyed snipe hunts, and even the so called victims generally not only had fun, but look(ed) back on their first one with amusement and laughter. But, it was important that the leaders made it clear that a boy was not "forced" to participate. That is where the line may have been crossed in some cases. That is where the vigilance is so important; we need to let "boys be boys", so to speak. Yet we also need to be the silent guardians, ready to step in when necessary, either directly in a severe case, or by pulling boy leaders aside and doing a bit of counseling in regard to an observation. IMO, much of the apparent paralysis we are beginning to see in many youth when confronted with unfamiliar or discomforting situations is that we have skewed the natural learning curve of growing up. Just my thoughts at the moment.

Not sure why the physically able requirement should be an issue. The levels to be attained are not particularly high. The only ones that will be affected are those who are morbidly obese, or have other major issues. The upper plateus are fairly high it seems to me. Maybe I am missing something.

"Today it seems the OA has lost it's shine. I've had scouts called out and never bother to go to the Ordeal (adults, too). No one goes to chapter meetings, unless we call and remind them, AND pick them up. Lodge-wide, participation is low. 80% of the members are just "flap-wearers" and have no other participation." This has been tossed around in the OA section off and on. Over the years, as the mystery and more restrictive election qualifications have been eroded, the Order has become "common". Basically, become first class and have camping days and you have about a 95% chance of being elected unless the leader holds you out for some reason, or you have something going on at the troop level to keep you out. But, the idea that OA membership is special has been diluted to the point of being just another thing at a certain level. There will always be some who take the Order seriously, and work enthusiastically within their lodge and beyond. But, the specialness of it has, IMO, been watered down to the point of "ho-hum" for most who get elected; and the traditions have lost much of their luster. This has happened in many areas of the program, not just the OA. Hopefully, there will be another sea change that will shove it back to some degree towards the honorary and mystical. One can hope anyway.

Cannot help but be reminded of how much respect often is exhibited in scouting that is not in general society. Way back in 1979 I had a crew of 5 at Philmont (the era before 2 deep). It happened that there were a lot of extra hikers from outside the U.S. due to the cancellation of the World Jambo in Iran and the opening of Philmont to many of those groups. We ran into a full crew of scouts from South Africa (still Aparthide then)whose crew leader was black, but all the rest were white. The leader appeared to have the absolute complete respect of all the others. Said a lot to me, and impressed my crew as well, as they were old enough to understand the apparent anomoly.

Had to do it mid week last year for the first time in more than 30 cmaps. The really sad thing was that not only did the boy have a Jekyll and Hyde personality that he played people with, but the mother (no father involved) refused to come for him. We arranged a ride with two adults who were going back, and told the mom to please be waiting, even though it was late. She informed me that she might or might not be there and that he had been a #%^& since he was 2 and we could turn him over to the authorities. Obviously, she is part of the boy's problem; but he has learned to play things also. Home schooled due to problems, dictates to mom often (she just allows it), on all kinds of meds which mom says he can decide to take or not, etc. He came back at the end of summer, but I had to finally simply tell the mother he was no longer welcome, as he caused more issues and started harrassing other scouts by phone, including one's mother. The whole thing ruined camp for me, and has made me wonder if I am still able to do this. Maybe I am burnt out, or maybe the kids have more issues today with which I am not familiar and able to cope well. Still, I hope to continue. This year's camp was great, which really helps. And, there is always a glimmer of light that may have gotten through to the boy. Years ago, I gave a scout obviously on something at a meeting, a choice. He chose to leave. A number of years later, he appeared working behing a counter, recognized me and told me his more current story of programs and struggle to get clean. More importantly, he made it, and thanked me for giving him something to refer to in the struggle. We never know when it might all of a sudden kick in.

Merlyn: I cannot fathom how a seemingly "educated and knowledgeable" man can be so unwilling to allow for variations in definition. God(s) mean different things to different people. The term is subjective and flexible. Ultimately, the DRP is, as Beavah notes, belief in something greater or outside of our own egocentric world. Your obdurate insistence that it "must be" black or white seems to me to simply weaken all of your many well-reasoned comments.

We have had one I know of for sure, and another they called on, but clarified by phone. The one sent back had conflicting dates on it which required going back in old records on merit badges. Fortuneately, they had simply put dates in the wrong place, and the records were available. But it delayed the whole process by a couple of months. Board date stayed the same.

Date of rank is date of completed BOR. No awards may be issued or worn until the "official" National certificate and related paperwork is received. HOW MUCH CLEARER DO WE NEED TO BE?

Years ago, I went through a period where I considered not wearing knots, as when I was able to wear more than a row, it kind of embarrassed me for some reason. But, my own scouts told me that if I expected them to wear their insignia as earned, and wear it properly and proudly, then I should do the same. They even convinced me once to wear all the medals at COH, just because it was "formal". I only did that once, as they clank and get caught on things. Still do wear the Eagle and God & Country on occasion, as well as the Beaver at the annual meeting. We all know people who have tried to earn or obtain as many knots as possible; and they mostly are pretty good scouters, but seem enamored of the knots. As has been pointed out, they do not hurt us, other than occasionally our feelings; especially the rare ones that started this part of the thread. Do what you feel comfortable with, and don't let pettiness blind you. MHO

"The US military agreed back in 2004 to stop chartering BSA units in response to an ACLU lawsuit" Another one of "your" prouder accomplishments I suspect.

When it became painfully obvious that there were a few truly obese boys becoming Eagle, the personal fitness merit badge was reinstalled in the Eagle requirements. This was surely directly aimed at that element of final advancement. Since then, few scouts become Eagle who do not a least meet a minimum standard of fitness; even though some might do the badge early in their scouting, and then become less fit. So, then we come back to the idea that a more specific requirement would be put in place for showing duty to God and reverence. But one can be fairly clearly measured, while the other is very subjective, and ambiguous at best. No easy answer. But taking taking it out is not it, as it is part of the backbone of the program. As the scouts progress, make sure that this element is being addressed, and they understand that eventually they will need to address the best they can.

Merlyn: "chain", (pull it, repeat ad infinitum). Sort of like the silly scout skit of the arcade quick draw game.

Merlyn: Of course you are correct; but you see, that "awful majority" sometimes hopes that rational responses will actually occur, rather than selfish ones. Please do not wear yourself out regurgitating your never changing "facts" and so on. We all know how you feel.

Or, maybe the people in the school simply hoped the PC stuff would not be an issue, and the 99% positive element of the program could happen. They, perhaps weighed the positives and negative(s, then felt the positives "far" out weighed the negatives; and a large group of parents wanted it. Oh, I am sorry, we need to ignore that group, as they just want what they see as "best" for "their" kids.

In yesterday's paper there was an interesting article about Jefferson and his "view of God". As has been noted, he was a "Deist", and as such very skeptical about many elements of religion. Still he believed that Jesus was real, and that his very basic tenets were worthwhile. Early in the 19th century, Jefferson basically cut and pasted what he considered to be the most relevant parts of the New Testament and Christ's teachings. He called this "wee little book" The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazereth. In a letter sent to John Adams from Monticello in 1813 he calls this 46 page book "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man". Jefferson is finally quoted as saying; "Say nothing of my religion. It is known to myself and my God alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one". On-line reference for the bible is "

For some posters, everything is either black or white. No nuance or room for wiggle allowed. And, if it was stated once, even if since has been motified or clarified in some manner, it matters not. The statement was made; so it is fact and cannot be questioned except in a negative way. No sense in arguing with a wall.

You know, I often have wondered if we took the time to design, then spent the money wasted on "disaster after-the-fact" on its completion, why they could not build canals or underground spillways away from the large rivers that would take the water to areas that could use it. If we can bring water from Northern to Southern California via an aquaduct, why not from Missouri to say Georgia, with stops along the way to replenish aquafirs? Probably all kinds of challenges, but just seems that we have so much water going where we don't want it, but there are areas that could use it. But, I am not an engineer. But, you would think that the cost eventually would be outweighed by the benefits.

http://view.email.scoutstuff.org/?j=fe5c1576776102747411&m=fef616777c6304&ls=fdf811717d67057a70167577&SRC=ET&ET_CID=history070108&Page=View+as+a+Web+Page&ET_RID={c8e9df99-0c98-4560-a937-2abcf2a91529} Personally, while this looks like possibly a great item; it is truly way over the top. I am afraid it supports some of the critics who feel National has lost sight of some of the basic foundations of our movement. Even with the items indicated, this is a rip off, in my opinion. I am truly disappointed, and have sent a message to them indicating such. Not that it will likely get any response or consideration. On top of the overpriced Eagle book, this is very sad.

deleted, due to messed up html and appearance. Will try again without link and html.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Oh come on Mr. Boyce; that would be using "common sense". Have you forgotten that it is no longer in vogue?

Frankly, based on the info given, the young man's project was more than required, and overall very successful. It is truly a shame that public officials, more often than known, have power trips at the expense of well meaning or even diligent efforts of volunteers and community groups. In our own area, I have seen projects demeaned and destroyed by "authorities", after approvals and glowing reports initially. The excuse often is that they were not safe; yet, rather than take what appeared to be minor remediation to fix the safety issues, they simply destroyed them. It would not surprise me to find that this is more common than we would like to think.

Tried to intur a "dead horse" cartoon; won't work. Sorry.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Yep, the Ordeal process is a rubber stamp pretty much. Because there were occasional instances of "black-balling" in earlier days, and a few candidates felt they were treated unfairly over the years, the rules were changed. Now, there is very little, if any accountability if the Ordeal vows are broken. Just one more instance of taking the glow off the campfire and over doing the challenge to keep it fair, but meaningful. Still, most candidates seem to try to uphold the honor of the moment; and a few seem to actually "get" it. Work with what we have, and hope we can push forward.

With the newest election (?) procedure, an "eligilbe" scout has to "really be unpopular" to still not be chosen. But, the SM also has the ability to not allow the bully or other unqualified scout to stand for the election (?). There still is a "Scout Spirit" element, and that is up to the leader to determine. So, we come back to the continuing question. Why, if the leader is doing his job, do we have candidates for ranks or honors who everyone thinks do not have "Scout Spirit", do not set the example expected? Scoutmasters need to take their job and its sometimes difficult decisions seriously. Sometimes, that hard decision to not allow a scout to advance at "this time", or to be on the O.A. election list, may be the wake up call necessary. Scouts need to understand that just going through the motions when someone is looking, and doing the minimum paper requirement does not guarantee their being "honored". That is not how the "real world" works.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Reminds me of an episode years ago at the San Diego Zoo during a spring break outing. I dropped kids off with another leader, then went my own way, as had been there too many times. That afternoon, when I returned to pick them up, I am greeted with two boys telling me "scouts ?/?" are in security, and you need to go there. Seems they thought it would be cool to spit out of the "skyway" cable car. Was anyone hurt? No. Was it wrong? Yes. Did we all learn something? Hopefully. But, just the looks on their faces when I sprang them was enough, along with the constant razzing by the others. We did have a short discussion aside from the others, and they made a public apology to the rest of the group; but that was all I felt necessary.