skeptic

When I was a member of the Y in the early fifties, they had father/son swims on Friday evening that were suits optional. They had a window above that had a curtain on it. And the kids used the same locker area as the adults, including the showers. Of course, skinny-dipping was fairly common even then, even in scouts when in the outback. Of course, we also had to take real showers in open shower areas for PE and sports; there was no excuse that someone might be emotionally harmed by lack of modesty or whatever. It was just the way it was then. In some respects, it may have been better in that we did not have the modern fears of adolescent boys (and likely girls too). Do not know how often I have to almost force boys to go to the showers, even in their bathing suits, while at camp. And they often will not change to suits or clothing if their tent mate is there. But, as I have often said, I am OLD, and was raised in different circumstances and cultural ideas.

That was a repeat with supposed update. My experience with Scouting related appraisals on there is that they basically do not have a clue. Mostly too high, though years ago I think they were too low based on what I saw on the teens era uniform sleeves. If you look at eBay, slides often go unbid on all together unless it is very well done, or a special location of particular interest. Same goes for neckerchiefs themselves. Still, was interesting to see.

Huzzar; Local option should have little or no effect on district or higher if it is not made a public issue. Why would my unit care, as long as we were not required to directly interact or be subjected to political or social commentary related to it? If the individual(s) felt they needed to publicize it outside their unit, then they would be in violation anyway, just like the Methodist unit that lost its charter. Lets be real; we are all subject to exposure just by going out in public; but it is seldom an issue, as we are not normally interacting knowingly. Half the problem is that for some reason, people seem to feel they need to broadcast everything they do on personal levels. And of course, units that did have problems interacting could still function with almost no contact with other units if they chose to.

Pack; I think today your statement is likely accurate in the entire country, or at least hope it is. But, what I am saying is that thirty years ago, things were not so specific, and the authorities often would not do anything without a direct complaint. That was one of the biggest problems back then and earlier. Between authorities not following up without certain direct complaints, and often unwillingness to put this kind of thing out publicly, it was not necessarily clear where the poor decisions were made. We keep using today's standards to judge what happened when these standards did not necessarily exist, even though we would mostly agree THEY SHOULD HAVE. Rock and a hard place again. This particular story hints that BSA did report it, but the family chose to not follow up. Today, the BSA report would be enough in most cases.

"Ten Commandments of Logic" https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/1483220_718769974810683_97803309_n.jpg

"The victim did not make a separate police report to the Phoenix Police Department." From the story. We again arrive at the difference in response to these things at the time. If the victim and his family did not report separately to the police, then an actual complaint could not be filed by BSA, as they were not the actual victim. What is not clear is whether they reported it outside the organization then, but the quote would suggest they did; "did not make a separate police report".

Now AZ, maybe they are just trying to be "helpful".

And I think it is far past the time to simply let the local units run themselves as they see fit, as long as it does not stray outside the basic foundational standards nor trespass on other units' choices. It particularly time to STOP the politicalization of BSA and simply let it evolve on its own. A nudge is helpful, but a shove can put you over the edge. Most of the people and groups doing the public baying have little or no actual involvement with the program and have almost no concern for the actual unit functions.

Sounds as if this is another one of the media corruptions of fact. These are former scouts, since their membership is no longer valid. Of course, it is definitely another political ploy.

Ghost writers!?

Doesn't help when Kaiser informs the mom of one of your scouts that they do not need one since they gave him one last year. They continue to think the old rule is in effect for some reason. Hopefully she got it straight with them after I sent her all the links that apply.

Unless someone dropped the ball on proper filing, it should all be on file in the council records, and hopefully the troop. Good luck.

It is highly doubtful that anybody is going to second guess a leader's decision on this since it is a unit concern. Personally, I do not worry about possibly misinterpreting a National written guideline, as long as it is not unsafe and makes basic common sense. It continues to throw me that so many of the younger adults live in a world of fear to make "rational" decisions that shade to grey at times, yet can often be frustratingly egocentric if there are no apparent guidelines they need to fit within. Another part of being raised with different parental methods and expectations I guess; being old.

What is it about the black or white mentality? Make sure the scout has enough additional nights under canvas or the stars, if that is of a concern; but you would count their wilderness survival shelter, even if it was basically a similar structure. They are still outdoors and in the campsite. If you must cross the t's exactly, then have any boys that need the time "immediately" for some reason either simply sleep outside on a mat, a cot from the Adirondack, hammock (as noted), or bring their own tent for the week. Use common sense, give them enough other opportunities so that this is not an issue, keep the outdoors in the forefront, and stop the micro managing.

So AZ, while I can understand your comments and frustration, you need to remember we have certain guidelines, the Oath and Law, that we "do our best" to live up to. And much of your idea would fly in the face of those it seems to me. Find a way to stay true to our foundation, and I will vote for you.

Possibly because Campfire predates GS and was directly connected to Dan Beard, as his sister was a founder and he was on boards related to it. A number of years ago, back when forums were very basic and difficult to follow, I ran across a discussion by a Beard family member talking about her grandfather or father, campfire, and Dan Beard. She had some very cryptic comments related to scouting at the time, but I did not know how to save such info then, so it is long gone, at least for me.

Not what I wrote

"This is a crap piece that judges therapy based on stereotypes. Discard it." Did you actually read beyond the first paragraph? There are a number of areas discussed that should make us think a bit. While you may not agree, certainly there are valid points brought up; I have seen examples more than once. More than once we have seen over zealous theapists cause irrepairable damage to parents and families by convincing someone they have been mistreated in some manner, when in reality it was "planted" so to speak by the therapy sessions. The piece also goes beyond the actual therapy and touches on the general malaise in society of the self centered, egocentric individuals who do not understand the difference between freedom and license and think somehow they are not responsible for their own actions. We see related problems in the over-diagnosis of learning disabilities and prescribing of drugs to deal with difficult kids.

The link to Reason below discusses therapy and its repercussions on our ego-centric generation, as the author suggests. There are a number of observations that really do lend themselves to a serious concern with overdoing therapy. Certainly thought provoking I found. http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/27/could-therapy-culture-help-explain-ellio

Last year I wrote this "musing" for our troop site. It seems to me that it tries to address this to some extent. It certainly does reflect my personal approach pretty well. A SCOUT’S OWN At a recent cub scouting family campout, I had a parent who had been asked to do a “Scout’s Own†ask what he might consider in relation to his personal belief. When I tried to explain the need to be as general as possible in his comments, as he was not familiar with all the spiritual beliefs of the group, he admitted that would be difficult because of his own strong faith and the obligation he felt to make that known. I was unable to stay, but he was thinking about bowing out of the commitment because of his personal conflict. That may very well have been a good decision if he truly was unable to speak in a broadly spiritual manner; and it certainly showed to me his concern about others who might not like to be targets of proselyting. It seems important to me to attempt to shed light on this important and sensitive part of Scouting, the “Scout’s Ownâ€Â. That is the correct name; it is not a Scout’s Zone, as some have suggested. Scouting is nonsectarian in the matter of the scouts’ spiritual lives. As such, the term “Scout’s Own†means a period of inner reflection based on the personal spiritual belief of an individual scout or scouter. This reinforces the basic understanding behind the twelfth point of the law, Reverent: A scout is reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful to his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion. Understanding that the word God or god has many possible meanings and interpretations is necessary in order to truly grasp the complete nature of this idea in scouting. Accepting almost all forms of spiritual possibilities reflecting a power greater than ourselves, and the place of the family in these concerns is paramount in Scouting’s spiritual tenets. Sometimes youth, especially those in adolescence, are in that personal searching stage of spirituality; and an aware leader will try to give them as much flexibility as they can in these matters. Only if an individual, youth or adult, absolutely refuses to accept any form of spirituality would be grounds for non-participation in Scouting. Doing “duty to God†is part of the Oath; each scout and scouter pledges this on his honor. Living up to the Oath and Law, to the best of our abilities, is the basis for how well we adhere to Scout Spirit. Scouters and Scouts need to regularly reflect on this, recognizing that their honor is tarnished when they do not do their best. Reverence is not the last law, it is the final point of the twelve parts. As a major component of the Scouting compass, it joins with the first point to tie them into a whole. Ponder this and turn inward and seek your personal Scout Spirit.

Duckfoot; This has been shared already in a number of various places. What you do not mention, is that they specifically DID NOT TAKE GOD OUT, they simply added an alternative for those that might have issue. "The existing core Scout Promise remains in place and The Scout Association remains fully committed as a Movement that explores faith, beliefs and attitudes as a core element of its programme." Further down, they again stress the core belief that reflection on spirituality is an important part of the program. [TABLE] [TR] [TD=width: 85, bgcolor: #f8f6fa]The ScoutMethod[/TD] [TD=width: 354, bgcolor: #fbf9fc]Scouting takes place when young people, in partnership with adults, work together based on the values of Scouting and: enjoy what they are doing and have fun; take part in activities indoors and outdoors; learn by doing; share in spiritual reflection; take responsibility and make choices; undertake new and challenging activities; and make and live by their Promise. [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] So, yes they are being flexible, even a bit more than they had been; but the core spiritual elements are still there and considered part of the program.

For some reason, I found myself reminded of the saying "Let go, Let God" as I read this. At the core, the biggest difference between the atheist and God believer is the willingness to let go of a part of themselves in understanding or Faith that there IS a power beyond themselves and their understanding. In between perhaps is the agnostic, who has not quite made an absolute decision in that regard. On the other hand, I am not so sure that atheists are not still agnostic in reality, due to their tendencies to question and search so hard for "rational" reason in relation to that power we sense beyond, but cannot quite comprehend.

Likely would not go anywhere, as it would very soon get taken over by argumentative individuals who simply do not want to discuss anything, but only agitate. That seems to be what generally happens with any of these threads. Then, I might be pleasantly surprised; nah!

Now those are some of the Scouting memories I can relate to. We had some odd ball songs back in the fifties too that would not necessarily pass courteous, clean, or even kind at times. But we were adolescents; what would you expect? Boy Scouts are still boys, even with the Oath and Law; and sometimes they will do what boys do.