skeptic

When I met with the group of scouts at the group session the first time, I added Green Bar Bill and Edward Robinson to the list of possible bio's. Both are very important in the history of the program. Another is Norman Rockwell; of course he fits with the Boy's Life info too. I like your approach to the prep, especially if it is to be a group session. Thanks for sharing.

One of the best quotes from the Old Testament supporting the ambiguous nature of faith is, "I AM, therefore I AM". Really does not have to apply to any particular religious belief; simply says there is something, and it is simply a fact.

Kahuna: I have been a counselor since the outset; the only one for a short time in our council. Still not very many. While most scouts that see displays I put on two or three times a year are mildly interested, there are few that spend any time with in depth viewing or ask me specific questions. On the other hand, at the last Eagle dinner in Spring I could not find one of my history books and got worried; finally discovered a scout and his mother sitting on a bench pouring over the book. Every once in a while, when I ask my Scouting History question that is now a part of our Eagle boards, I have one very well versed; but most have the bare minimum from the handbook. Other than after a merit badge gathering the first year it was available, I have had no calls. But it still has its place. Not sure how to get more interest, as almost all scouts focus on the Eagle badges, a few really fun ones, and the easiest outside of the Eagle.

If I am fortunate, I may be able to pull off something similar. When I attended on staff in 2010, it was my 3rd; 1960, 1985, 2010, making it every 25 years. Have one shirt with the 1960 patch on the pocket, the 1985 name tag, and the 2010 in its normal place. Occasionally someone notices them. Have never had the opportunity to sit down and talk with any from 1937, though have met one or two briefly. Do have one in our church who attended 1950, and he has some stories, as well as photos that he shared with me. For us crazy historians, this is really interesting.

Bando; You have to understand that we are now dealing with "Me first" scouts and scouters in way too many instances. Their personal definitions of the law are contingent on what is the most enjoyable for them, unless something better comes along in the meantime. Ultimately, they make their choices; and the image they leave is not always one they might like later. We have similar attitudes at local levels, often having to expect about 20% fewer to turn out for things than said they would initially.

We simply continue to have a great many individuals with half empty glasses. If anything, BSA should be looking to do even more service, as that is something that can overcome considerable negative publicity on other things. I feel they miss the boat on all levels by not assuring that the amount and often quality of service by troops, districts, and Eagles is almost mind boggling. Yet we are lucky to see much more than "Joe Scout" was awarded Eagle or something along that line most of the time. And it is usually buried so you have to search for it. But, anything negative will likely be front page, or front of sections. As far as the OA is concerned, it is not its intent to do all levels of service, but rather service to encouraging camping and supporting camping development in Scouts and the community as well.

He made a similar joke last night. Appears he is taking a swipe at the detractors that find fault with anything BSA does. In this case it is the restrictions on obesity at the jamboree.

Pack; while you did not use the terms, the suggestion is there in my opinion. I am simply saying that maybe we should blame it less on the religion or religious, and more on people that are not following the tenets they espouse, but just doing what appears pretty common to many in the world.

Until we get that "clarification" by the OP, perhaps we should just hold off on further comments.

All of you that appear to want to blame all the cruelty and savageness on Christianity or religion in general should not forget that it exists and existed in similar levels or worse in most of the world before the Europeans brought their culture (?) to share. More likely, it is simply the proof that humans very often have an innate propensity towards these things. But one might also make a case for religion, if proponents actually live up to the tenets most propose as reflected in the idea of the "Golden Rule" (which is found in some form in most major belief structures), can be given some credit for mollifying savagery in some native societies. That is not to deny how negatively affected many have been by missionary efforts around the world. Yet there are many examples of real kindness and effective proselyting leading to reduction of savagery in some cultural groups as well. Still, those of us that claim to be Christian or dedicated to other religious principles that claim love and kindness, have considerable room for improvement. That "free choice" thing and innate nature can be really difficult to overcome. Just the same, community outreach by churches, temples, mosques and so on contribute much more to their variant communities than many realize. Take a lot of it away, and the loss would be noticeable, possibly even detrimental in some cases.

It really is too bad that real journalism is no longer practiced. This whole piece is obviously another purposely over hyped slam at the BSA, with all the current hot button words and negative half truths. Hopefully National will respond with factual comments and push the broadly positive elements BSA continues to contribute to society, even while being attacked by the well financed political activists that have such antipathy towards traditional values.

Our water 1960 sometimes got almost warm; but it came directly off the Rockies, so you can imagine.

I think uniforming included required gear too, such as the duffle bag, and yes, a few Jambo only items such as extra patches, neckerchiefs, and such. Do not have any idea how much they may have spent, but I think I had three complete uniforms, but just my regular shoes with one extra pair perhaps. That was Colorado Springs on a ranch, and we certainly did a lot of walking. Showers were fun too. Still remember we discovered the best time to shower was about 2PM to 3PM when the sun was just right. Was a bit of a shock to be in view of passersby; the showers were enclosures with canvas sides, open at the bottom about 2 feet and going up to maybe a bit over 5 feet. So showering was generally done in swimming trunks or shorts because people could see under and over. Something that came out after the event that was probably more shocking then than now was that they arrested close to 500 prostitutes during the time it was on, and sent a number of scouts and more leaders home due to their choosing to meet said ladies. Kind of like camp followers I guess.

My question is why so many seem to think there is even a significant number of these individuals about whom you are having such grave concerns. Once again, making waves before there is even a storm. Why not simply wait and see; then deal with things as best we can? Why is it necessary to beat your chest and project indignation or fear before you even know how it will fall out? Half the problem is just that. Too many people feel they need to get involved with other peoples' problems or issues, often without knowing the complete story or having had the situation have time to work itself out with those actually involved.

This article, "AN EMPIRE OF YOUTH: AMERICAN BOY SCOUTS IN THE WORLD", 1910-1960 by Mischa Honeck of the GERMAN HISTORICAL INSTITUTE is really a good piece and gives a truly good idea of how part of the rest of the world sees us. It was published in 2010. http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bulletin/bu052/bu52_095.pdf

The big question is why the leader had a gun in camp to begin with? Certainly is a no-no locally; and we have had people banned from outings in our council due to violation of this rule. Of course, besides the fact the scouts ignored the safety deterrents by leaving food on the tables, was there any attempt to simple scare the bear off and report it to camp leaders? Without the total story of course, we cannot know how great the perceived threat actually was. But it still remains that there were some obvious misjudgments or poor adherence to simple protective actions.

Scouter99; You need to understand the difference between founders and pro's. While Beard and Seton were established youth group men with their own organizations, and were directly involved early (Beard until his death), they were not paid exectuives working in the field. Read Win Davis' new book, MEN OF SCHIFF, or A PIONEER'S JOURNAL of SCOUTING STORIES, by Waldo Shaver, or Harold Pote's FIFTY YEARS of SCOUTING IN AMERICA. There are others, but these are major ones. And Boyce promised $1,000 per month, not $10,000 per year; see Petterchak book on Boyce. On page 70 and 71 there are a number of references regarding Boyce's financial support. "In January, 1911, Boyce supplied funding for Robinson (YMCA co-founder) to open an office at 200 Fifth Ave, N.Y.......The new stationery listed 75 National Council members, including Boyce ...." (p 70). "Boyce company treasurer Frank Reynolds recalls that he was responsible for sending money to West 'every month, not only for salary, but also for incidental expenses. Mr. Boyce never questioned the amount. In getting the national charter for the Boy Scouts of America, Mr. Boyce paid all expenses, including legal fees." After reading these, perhaps you will get a better understanding of the huge differences.

When I went to the 1960 Jamboree, the info we got for our council, Arrowhead Area in San Bernardino County, was $400 plus approximately $50 for uniforming, plus personal spending money and gear beyond what might have. My parents told me; "We will buy the uniforms". Somehow I was able to go; and they did only buy the uniforms, plus take me to the pre jamboree camp at George AFB and to and from the train in San Berdo. What is that in today's money? Who cares. It was one of the highlights of my youth, period.

Alot of work, but it was very well received for a number of years here. Do a Show-N-Do. If you can find someone to coordinate it properly, you can put the most asked for real skills out there for the taking. Ours began with the gathering and patrol assignments. Then they learned to do a woggle and put on the event neckerchiefs using their new slide. They were given a half hour to come up with their name and make a flag from offered materials. The rest of the day, they worked within that patrol learning basics of pioneering, map and compass, knife and axe, first aid, fires and stoves, cooking demo which included their making their own lunch using the tinfoil method, and a few other things that changed year to year. Also had demo of dutch oven, completed pioneering devices, woodcarving, a few memorabilia displays and short history discussion, and so on. We started with three patrols the first time. The last time we had nine and turned them away. But, the persons doing the grunt work got burned out, and no one was able to fill the gap well. For seven years though, we had a really great event. Keep hoping someone with the time and skills will bring it back. I admittedly simply do not have the needed organizational skills at that level.

In reading various recent historical efforts on Scouting, and going back and reading older ones, it is apparent that there is little similarity between today's professional and the ones that were working prior to 1950 or so. Story after story about how they were paid next to nothing, ran camps all summer, went without pay at times, had huge issues with which to deal that today we would simply not see; yet they persevered and kept the basics in focus most of the time. While I would not like to see today's pro's have to live with some of those conditions, I would like to see more of them allowed to focus more on the youth than numbers of any kind. And I really would like to see National make some serious adjustments to the inequities in pay between the men that still try to do the job at the lowest levels, and the few that have somehow made it near the top. Like in all corporations almost, the highest few could lose about half their salaries and still be well paid; and that money could be used to keep people at the lower levels long enough to build more consistency within councils. Better yet, would love to see ALL high level pro's, including council top men, spend at least a month working directly with the real units, including on staff at summer camp and day camp for at least a couple of days straight, doing the job of counselor or even working in the kitchen or maintenance. We might actually see a bit more recognition of the realities of the challenges we face. Another great change, at least for me, would be an actual National policy that would require each council board, all the way up to the National level, to have about one quarter of the people on it be involved in units directly in some capacity. That would mean either using COR's on local level as active members of the board, not just paper signatures, or pulling people from unit committees or districts. Of course, that also would require the COR to actually know what his job really is. One can dream I suppose. But I am not holding my breath.

"While the program, which doesn’t yet have a name, will allow gays, it won’t let them “flaunt†it, said John Stemberger, founder of OnMyHonor.net, a coalition opposed to the BSA’s vote in late May to change the controversial membership policy. “We don’t think sex and politics should be in a program for kids. Those are issues for parents,â€Âsaid Stemberger, of Orlando, Fla., who left the Boy Scouts along with his two sons over the decision in May. “If a young man has a same-sex attraction he would not be turned away in the program, but he’s not going to be allowed to kind of openly flaunt it and carry a rainbow flag,†he added, apparently referring to the participation of some BSA members in LGBT pride parades in recent weeks." So, please explain to me how this is different than the current BSA position, other than they say they will allow adults too. The new resolution states that no sexual discussion of activity of any kind is allowed, nor any political activity. So, this is different? Maybe I need to go back and improve my language skills.

Well and good T.J.; but there is a place for these things. And it is not where it disrupts the program or intrudes on others' rights. One of the recent reinforcements in the resolution just passed is that of NO POLITICAL ACTIVISM that suggests BSA is pro or con in any particular issue. BSA is a-political in theory, and certainly does not have lobbyists or other pols that push agendas. Still, this specific forum was set up for those that choose to do these things, so as to hopefully keep them from disrupting the other forums. My point is simply that the argument never ending and we can better spend our time if we really care about the program and the kids involved. As I have pointed out numerous times, NOBODY is required to join BSA. It is a choice, so if you choose to not agree, then you can simply do other things that better reflect your positions.

Hey, why don't we simply quit worrying about the politicization of Scouting anywhere, and simply offer the program to the best of our abilities, dealing with "occasional" problems as they occur? We will NOT solve the political issues nor the religious ones either, as some will simply refuse to even be remotely reasonable. So, just hunker down and do Scouting, keeping as close to the foundational principles as we can.

Even more ironic is that if someone makes the effort to actually learn these "outdated" trades, they can almost demand their own price to those who want premium work. Look at the program American Restoration for example. We had a couple of brothers in the troop a few years back whose father specialized in custom body work; clients came to him when they could not get original parts, and he would make them from scratch or rebuild old ones if usable. Always had more work than he could handle. A master furniture maker never lacks for customers. These people also take "pride" in their skills. I am not, nor ever have been, one with skills along these lines, but I do know something about them. When needed, because of my financial state at the time, I have done basic plumbing, basic electrical, and basic carpentry. Not pretty, but utile at the time. And, kids very often are literally fascinated by even rudimentary skills in these areas. Interestingly enough, even the so called "modern" skills already are begging for people that can fix things from the early days. In computers, there are fewer and fewer that understand the very basic codes that are the foundations of so much of the current programing. They are just there; but when something goes buggy with these early programs, it is often a really serious issue because they cannot find anyone knowledgeable about them. Similar situations are found with auto repair, especially if the vehicle is pre computer era. We are missing the boat in trying to "force" everybody to go to college. And even in the college level programs, we are losing leverage by undermining the value of the arts and even, to some extent, basic language skills. Just things that I have noted and find cautionary or simply interesting.

"On their own, the boys questioned the "Duty to God" wording". Sorry, but I was well informed by local OCC people who knew the whole story as well. No way did two cub scouts at that age question the wording by themselves; their father admitted as such in at least one or two incidences when he stressed that was the "family" belief and what he taught them. I agree that there was an over reaction on the part of the council, but it was made far worse by Mr. Randall insisting on making it into publicity for himself as a lawyer. We all should recognize that most of these cases are caused by people with too much time on their hands, too big of egos, or really low self esteem making them unable to accept others as they are. But there seem to continue to be those that cannot let it go and must continue to mislead or over hype things to their own purposes. It still comes down to the same thing. Scouting has a religious element which is part of its basic foundation, no matter what one might choose to call that element. NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO BE A SCOUT; if a boy wants to be, but his parent cannot accept the program as it is, then it is their fault the boy may be disappointed, not the scouts. It is still a choice, afterall.